Getting clear about homosexuality

[SuperLuigi]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This is the greatest quote I’ve ever seen on these forums

 

[SuperLuigi]

, and “the like”, yeah the likes of doctors, scientists, and psychologists who aren’t putting their religion above facts and research.

Interesting, because the ones who do follow the scientific method and aren’t pressured by the corrupt culture of elite academia find that children are best raised with their biological parents. :yup:

No matter how many emoticons you use or different definitions of “love” and “marriage” you add and no matter how many laws you pass, you cannot fight billions of years of evolution or healthy self-interest.

Every progressive value you hold dear in this rapidly declining “modern era” goes against the grain of science and fact.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Pedophilia and bestiality are illegal because the lack of consent. I thought anyone who’s graduated 9th grade would have known this. I could link you to a basics civics 101 course if you’d like?

What if adult consent could be proven, even in the smallest way? What then?

 

[Patavium]

N

No, you’re misguided. You can not “reject” a gene unless we’ve identified and labelled every gene, which we havent. Until we map out every single gene’s purpose, you can’t reject it.

You need to take a course on genetics 101. If someone is not a gene, that doesn’t mean it’s a choice. If someone likes hockey more than they do cricket, you don’t say “show me the hockey gene!” do you? Likewise, if we looked at every gene and didn’t find a gay or straight gene, then it wouldn’t matter anyway, because both would be just as much of a choice as the other.

I mean, religion is a choice and there certainly is no gene there, but no one cares about that “link”.

The point of a Genetic link is to explain what Homosexuals claim to be BORN this way, and that they did NOT CHOOSE to be this way. The evidence so far is that they are NOT BORN this way.

Do you read yourself? If someone likes hockey more than cricket is a CHOICE. It is a PREFERENCE. That is the whole point, we are making!. Humans CHOOSE to be gay. They were NOT BORN gay. That is the point of my argument. You just made it for me!.

 

[Patavium]

The Scientific method depends on replication as MORE and MORE scientists continue to reject the hypothesis that there is a Genetic link for homosexuality then it will finally become widespread that such link does not exist.

 

[Domiy]

*So “religion” is backed up and supported…let me guess, by religion you mean the one you believe in, right? *

Well, there are non-Christian historical sources that support the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and a range of mysteries which the all-powerful world of technology of the modern world hasn’t been able to remotely explain. Unless were missing something, it’d be quite rational to say yes, Christianity as a religion is a supported concept. That’s why people devote their lives to it and not to some imaginary boogy man.

*, and “the like”, yeah the likes of doctors, scientists, and psychologists who aren’t putting their religion above facts and research.
*

Which reputable doctors, scientists and psychologists have said that religion is an illness of the mind, and what kind of evidence or logic supports this absurd claim MrKingofSources?

This is coming from the same person who linked a study claiming homosexuals were pedophiles, but one source said 5%, another 33%, and another 73%.

Again, you don’t understand the concept, process or value of statistics and data research, that much you’ve already made quite clear.

What makes it wrong? Perhaps because, umm, it is?

Wow, I’m convinced.

LOL yea right.

“it is” you say? According to who? On what grounds? Why? If you drop something, it doesn’t fall because it falls, it falls because of gravity. There is logic behind everything, or at least there has to be. So again, I ask, what makes pedophilia wrong?

Pedophilia and bestiality are illegal because the lack of consent. I thought anyone who’s graduated 9th grade would have known this. I could link you to a basics civics 101 course if you’d like?

Nope. They’re wrong because society sees them as repulsive, sickening and dangerous acts, the exact same view we used to have of homosexuals before all the propaganda and pro-gay stuff started. Now, people think it’s OK, which they’ll also think about the other things when and if the government wants them to.

If a child is so clueless and not within its rights to consent to sex, why are they allowed other major rights? What if they complain that their parents are mistreating them? Should we listen, or just shrug off their opinion because they’re only children who can’t possibly know what they want/need? Why is abortion legal and not pedophilia? Why do children all of a sudden need proper consent for sex, but not for their own life? If we kill them against their will, why not brainwash them and marry them against their will?

Bestiality, well, who’s to say that the animals don’t like it? Why should a person be denied what can be claimed to be their right to sexual expression on the basis of a simple theory that despite animals mating all the time, they wouldn’t enjoy it with humans? Oh, and even if they didn’t enjoy it (which I doubt), who cares? Are not humans top of the food chain and leaderboard? We already destroy animals homes and take their lives for the sake of our own needs, why not do it for sexual satisfaction as well? What makes killing an animal for meat more justified than having sex with one of them? Are not both things against the will? Does society not already sacrifice animals rights to fulfill that of humans? Yes, I think they do.

Of course, I don’t condone pedophilia or bestiality, I’m just showing you how easily both of them can be justified under the same logic and reasoning that homosexuals use, which proves that homosexuality is not legal because it’s right, it’s legal because the government has bought into the convincing lies and deception and decided to satisfy the growing numbers of supporters. The exact same thing can (and probably will) happen to bestiality, pedophilia, or any other sickening act which we can supposedly justify. This explains how we’ve gone from seeing murder and homosexuality as an outrage to legalizing abortion and not only allowing gays, but encouraging them.

 

[Ethan88]

I think that Beck deserves an honorary degree for his contribution to media and the conservative movement.

wow

They’ll label anyone a hate group that doesn’t tow the progressive line.

wow

Ending slavery was the founding goal of the republican party and during the 1950s

Right, but it’s funny how people like Martin Luther King, Jr. voted for liberals John F.Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson

Interesting, because the ones who do follow the scientific method and aren’t pressured by the corrupt culture of elite academia find that children are best raised with their biological parents. :yup:

Right, that’s it, has nothing to do with…I don’t know, research?

What if adult consent could be proven, even in the smallest way? What then?

I would say “show me how a child can consent to an adult”

The point of a Genetic link is to explain what Homosexuals claim to be BORN this way, and that they did NOT CHOOSE to be this way. The evidence so far is that they are NOT BORN this way.

What evidence? How do you find evidence to something that’s gathering evidence and not yet conclusive?

Do you read yourself? If someone likes hockey more than cricket is a CHOICE. It is a PREFERENCE. That is the whole point, we are making!. Humans CHOOSE to be gay. They were NOT BORN gay. That is the point of my argument. You just made it for me!.

Let me simplify what I said, I’ll pretend I’m addressing my 8 year old nephew.

You don’t “choose” to like hockey more than cricket, you just do. I played hockey in high school because liked it. I played volleyball even though I’d have been a lot more popular playing football. But I played volleyball because I liked it. I don’t have a gene to volleyball unfortunately…

The Scientific method depends on replication as MORE and MORE scientists continue to reject the hypothesis that there is a Genetic link for homosexuality then it will finally become widespread that such link does not exist.

How do you reject something if we havent conclusively analyzed every gene?

 

[Baelor]

This is hilarious, no straight gene found?. You don’t realize the importance of a genetic link, do you? If such genetic link is not found for sexual orientation then sexual orientation is by CHOICE, and possibly influenced by the environment. If it is BY CHOICE, then they can CHANGE.

That makes no sense. If I am born with two arms, and someone chops off one of them, it is hardly a “choice” that I am one-armed. If I am mentally stable but then suffer trauma, it is hardly a “choice” that I am traumatized.

If I am born sexually ordered, it does not follow that through my own volition I become disordered. Furthermore, a lack of genetic cause does not mean one is not born gay. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is an example of something with which one is born with no genetic cause.

The point of a Genetic link is to explain what Homosexuals claim to be BORN this way, and that they did NOT CHOOSE to be this way. The evidence so far is that they are NOT BORN this way.

A genetic link is not the only determiner of birth state.

It is a PREFERENCE. That is the whole point, we are making!. Humans CHOOSE to be gay. They were NOT BORN gay. That is the point of my argument. You just made it for me!.

Proof?

Well, there are non-Christian historical sources that support the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and a range of mysteries which the all-powerful world of technology of the modern world hasn’t been able to remotely explain.

I think what Ethan is saying – rightly, from his scientific perspective – is that the “mysteries” themselves are not substantiated.

Nope. They’re wrong because society sees them as repulsive, sickening and dangerous acts, the exact same view we used to have of homosexuals before all the propaganda and pro-gay stuff started. Now, people think it’s OK, which they’ll also think about the other things when and if the government wants them to.

That may be, but Ethan is actually correct – they are viewed as unacceptable because they are done without consent. Society would have to accept rape in order to accept pedophiliac actions as well. This is not the case for homosexual acts.

 

[Ethan88]

Well, there are non-Christian historical sources that support the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and a range of mysteries which the all-powerful world of technology of the modern world hasn’t been able to remotely explain. Unless were missing something, it’d be quite rational to say yes, Christianity as a religion is a supported concept. That’s why people devote their lives to it and not to some imaginary boogy man.

First off, weird how you’re so certain of that despite the contrary evidence that I’ve posted 100x, but let’s ignore those posts. Oh and while we’re at it, you know there’s this neat feature on the forums called the quote tags, they look like this:

QUOTE /QUOTE

It makes things easier to read than italicizing everything. They’re about 25 years old but we all learn somewhere

This is coming from the same person who linked a study claiming homosexuals were pedophiles, but one source said 5%, another 33%, and another 73%.

Again, you don’t understand the concept, process or value of statistics and data research, that much you’ve already made quite clear.

But your statistics were completely idiotic sources, I mean what are you trying to prove with such a silly range? It’s like saying “black people have committed crimes” and then using statistics that go from 5 to 25 to 50 to 75 percent and try to make a point. I mean, who does that? Besides you?

Nope. They’re wrong because society sees them as repulsive, sickening and dangerous acts

WRONG AGAIN

You NEED a civics 101 class, if not for you then for your children. We DO NOT make laws on what we find “sick” or “repulsive”. I find your opinions repulsive, I can’t make a law against them. Also, walking a tightrope and skateboarding off a long ramp is dangerous, there are no laws against them. You are totally clueness on laws in this country and that’s embarrassing.

If a child is so clueless and not within its rights to consent to sex, why are they allowed other major rights? What if they complain that their parents are mistreating them? Should we listen, or just shrug off their opinion because they’re only children who can’t possibly know what they want/need? Why is abortion legal and not pedophilia? Why do children all of a sudden need proper consent for sex, but not for their own life? If we kill them against their will, why not brainwash them and marry them against their will?

WOW.

Why do we listen to a child that says his parents are mistreating him? Well, perhaps those marks with the belt might be a clue Also, why is abortion legal, probably because we live in a country where if you’re raped you do not need to raise the child the rapist made you create.

Bestiality, well, who’s to say that the animals don’t like it? Why should a person be denied what can be claimed to be their right to sexual expression on the basis of a simple theory that despite animals mating all the time, they wouldn’t enjoy it with humans?

Because, again, they can’t consent. For instance if you, domiy, rape a little boy…you can not turn around and say to the judge “well he kinda liked it! who are you to judge!”, you’d be thrown in prison like a dirtbag.

Oh, and even if they didn’t enjoy it (which I doubt), who cares? Are not humans top of the food chain and leaderboard?

No they’re not.

Of course, I don’t condone pedophilia or bestiality, I’m just showing you how easily both of them can be justified under the same logic and reasoning that homosexuals use

Well your logic is silly, you just assume an animal or child could consent to sex…which is very stupid considering the harm it does to both.

 

[Patavium]

My answers in bold

That makes no sense. If I am born with two arms, and someone chops off one of them, it is hardly a “choice” that I am one-armed. If I am mentally stable but then suffer trauma, it is hardly a “choice” that I am traumatized.

So what are you saying? All Homosexuals were imposed their homosexuality? They had no choice? Then how was this homosexuality imposed if it was not by genetic predisposition? Well then it must be the environment. They grew up in an environment that forced their choice, and they had to become homosexual. We must fix such environments then

If I am born sexually ordered, it does not follow that through my own volition I become disordered. Furthermore, a lack of genetic cause does not mean one is not born gay. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is an example of something with which one is born with no genetic cause.

We fix the environment then. It is child abuse.

A genetic link is not the only determiner of birth state.

Proof?

See page 3, I cited two studies.

I think what Ethan is saying – rightly, from his scientific perspective – is that the “mysteries” themselves are not substantiated.

This makes no sense. What mysteries? There are hypotheses, and there area experiments.

That may be, but Ethan is actually correct – they are viewed as unacceptable because they are done without consent. Society would have to accept rape in order to accept pedophiliac actions as well. This is not the case for homosexual acts.

Not all of them. Some abused children claim that they are in love with their child abuser. Is this without consent then?

 

[Ethan88]

This makes no sense. What mysteries? There are hypotheses, and there area experiments.

I’d LOVE LOVE LOVE to see these area experiments!!!

Not all of them. Some abused children claim that they are in love with their child abuser. Is this without consent then?

I take it that you have no idea what consent means under the law.

If I sign a business contract with a 17 year old, and they agree to everything, sign their names, shake hands, hell I could have the whole thing on video…did you know the law would consider that invalid.

They can NOT give consent, they are children and animals. The fact that I need to explain this makes me feel like I’m talking to children.

Well then it must be the environment. They grew up in an environment that forced their choice, and they had to become homosexual. We must fix such environments then

Besides just being offensive, if given the choice to put have my child be raised by you, or two gay parents, I’d pick the gay parents in a heartbeat. You wouldn’t happen to have any medical illness, would you Patavium, these bizarre opinions are strangely uncommon even to Catholics.

 

[Patavium]

Answer in bold

What evidence? How do you find evidence to something that’s gathering evidence and not yet conclusive?

**Every study that does not finds a genetic link for homosexuality is EVIDENCE. If one study finds a genetic link, it does NOT mean that there is a genetic link for homosexuality. The answer is in the REPLICATION of the studies. If MOST studies find that no link exist then NO LINK EXISTS. If you look up the scientific study of Smoking, it took many studies, and results of no link between lung cancer and smoking, and results of a link of lung cancer and smoking until it was finally widespread accepted. It basically depends on two factors: experimental design, and the quality of the data. **

Let me simplify what I said, I’ll pretend I’m addressing my 8 year old nephew.

No need to resort to insults. I have not insulted you.

You don’t “choose” to like hockey more than cricket, you just do. I played hockey in high school because liked it. I played volleyball even though I’d have been a lot more popular playing football. But I played volleyball because I liked it. I don’t have a gene to volleyball unfortunately…

You are predisposed to like hockey more than cricket? You were born to like hockey more than cricket?. You played volleyball because you liked it? isn’t that a CHOICE? You chose to play volleyball, why? because you liked it. Homosexuals choose same sex relationships, why? because they like it. Pedophiles choose to have relationships with children, Why? because they like it

How do you reject something if we havent conclusively analyzed every gene?

We have mapped every gene. Look up the Human Genome project. The “gay gene” refers to proving a hypothesis that women transmit the sexual orientation to their children during pregnancy. This has not been proven, and the evidence is against this hypothesis.

 

[Patavium]

I’d LOVE LOVE LOVE to see these area experiments!!!

Are we going to resort to discussions about my orthography instead of the topic at hand?

 

[Patavium]

If I sign a business contract with a 17 year old, and they agree to everything, sign their names, shake hands, hell I could have the whole thing on video…did you know the law would consider that invalid.

They can NOT give consent, they are children and animals. The fact that I need to explain this makes me feel like I’m talking to children.

Besides just being offensive, if given the choice to put have my child be raised by you, or two gay parents, I’d pick the gay parents in a heartbeat. You wouldn’t happen to have any medical illness, would you Patavium, these bizarre opinions are strangely uncommon even to Catholics.

I know the law (in USA), yes. Did you know that the “age of consent” varies from country to country? So a child in Sweden could consent, but in USA (depending on the state) could not depending on this “age of consent”.

By me? Do you know me? Why are you insulting me? You don’t know me.

 

[Ethan88]

Every study that does not finds a genetic link for homosexuality is EVIDENCE. If one study finds a genetic link, it does NOT mean that there is a genetic link for homosexuality. The answer is in the REPLICATION of the studies. If MOST studies find that no link exist then NO LINK EXISTS

That is NOT how science works. You have zero scientific understanding I’m afraid. Do you realize that science works to find, not exclude a conclusion, based on analyzing every angle. Science has done experiments to detect alien life in our INCREDIBLY vast universe and have not come upon conclusive evidence, but they don’t say alien life doesn’t exist! Science 101.

You are predisposed to like hockey more than cricket? You were born to like hockey more than cricket?. You played volleyball because you liked it? isn’t that a CHOICE?

A choice to PLAY it, not to LIKE it. BIG difference, big BIG difference.

We have mapped every gene. Look up the Human Genome project.

LOL!!!

You have to be trolling these forums, you can’t be serious. Do you know what the Human Genome project had done? Do you know the difference between mapping out a gene and knowing what genes do? The Human Genome Project tells us the number of genes that is estimated in the human body and what kind (protein-coding genes, etc). They haven’t determined SPECIFICALLY what the genes do.

The “gay gene” refers to proving a hypothesis that women transmit the sexual orientation to their children during pregnancy.

Whoa whoa? What? Who is feeding you this? The gay gene is NOT proving a “hypothesis” of transmitting a sexual orientation. You cant TRANSMIT a sexual orientation DURING a pregnancy, LOL! Who came up with this hypothesis? You have to link me to where you’re reading this.

Genetics come from our ancestral family, there is no hypothesis trying to analyze the female zapping her child with a sexual orientation gene during a pregnancy. You have to be joking, you could not have been serious in this post.

 

[Ethan88]

Are we going to resort to discussions about my orthography instead of the topic at hand?

I wasn’t insulting your spelling, I was asking for the experiments, I didn’t know ‘area’ was a typo.

I know the law (in USA), yes. Did you know that the “age of consent” varies from country to country? So a child in Sweden could consent, but in USA (depending on the state) could not depending on this “age of consent”.

I live in the United States, if Liechtenstein thinks apples are really bananas and that elephants are sea creatures, I couldn’t care less. I’m talking about age of CONSENT and how it is applied to US.

 

[Baelor]

Patavium:

So what are you saying? All Homosexuals were imposed their homosexuality? They had no choice?

I am not saying that. I am saying that we should not reject the possibility that homosexuality is a choice. The Church certainly does not.

Then how was this homosexuality imposed if it was not by genetic predisposition?

First, I have not stated that there is not genetic predisposition. Second, there are plenty of factors – studies are looking into fetal environments and sexual orientation. Again, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is from birth but not genetic. There is not a dichotomy between genetic and environmental.

Well then it must be the environment.

Perhaps. But it could also be a combination of factors.

They grew up in an environment that forced their choice

You cannot force a choice; that is an oxymoron. You have just disproved your own argument.

We fix the environment then. It is child abuse.

That means nothing until we can p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly what causes homosexuality.

See page 3, I cited two studies.

Neither of those studies proves that homosexuality is a choice, which is what I asked. Please do not waste my time by not answering my question.

This makes no sense. What mysteries? There are hypotheses, and there area experiments.

That was not in reference to you.

Not all of them. Some abused children claim that they are in love with their child abuser. Is this without consent then?

Yes, just as patients suffering from Stockholm Syndrome are incapable of providing consent.

 

[Patavium]

That is NOT how science works. You have zero scientific understanding I’m afraid. Do you realize that science works to find, not exclude a conclusion, based on analyzing every angle. Science has done experiments to detect alien life in our INCREDIBLY vast universe and have not come upon conclusive evidence, but they don’t say alien life doesn’t exist! Science 101.

**I have zero scientific understanding? I am afraid science simply cannot disprove Alien life, because it cannot do EXPERIMENTS proving its existence. It is similar to proving God’s existence. Unfortunately for you, science can do experiments to detect genetic predisposition for homosexuality. **

A choice to PLAY it, not to LIKE it. BIG difference, big BIG difference.

LOL!!!

You have to be trolling these forums, you can’t be serious. Do you know what the Human Genome project had done? Do you know the difference between mapping out a gene and knowing what genes do? The Human Genome Project tells us the number of genes that is estimated in the human body and what kind (protein-coding genes, etc). They haven’t determined SPECIFICALLY what the genes do.

Sir, I ask you to refrain from insulting me. I have yet to insult you. The Genome project is relevant as it identifies the genes, and we can progressively continue studying genetics of human beings.

Whoa whoa? What? Who is feeding you this? The gay gene is NOT proving a “hypothesis” of transmitting a sexual orientation. You cant TRANSMIT a sexual orientation DURING a pregnancy, LOL! Who came up with this hypothesis? You have to link me to where you’re reading this.

Genetics come from our ancestral family, there is no hypothesis trying to analyze the female zapping her child with a sexual orientation gene during a pregnancy. You have to be joking, you could not have been serious in this post.

Here is the review. Read it: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1678219/pdf/bmj00033-0005.pdf

 

[Patavium]

Baelor,

The position is that Homosexuality is by choice. That is the understanding I subscribe to. Homosexuality is a behavioral choice. The studies I cited talk about no genetic link, or genetic predisposition. My position is that homosexuality is influenced by the environment, and thus modifying the environment we can modify the behavior.

 

[Patavium]

A choice to PLAY it, not to LIKE it. BIG difference, big BIG difference.

Ok, explain to me how do you LIKE? How do you know you LIKE? do you have control or not over it?

In other words, how are PREFERENCES decided?

Do you think a male simply tried sex with another male and then liked it? or did he like it before engaging in it? How did he knew ex ante or ex post he will like it, and thus decided to engage in it?