Homosexuality Debates

On 25-Jul-2009 super craig said:

You go to hell for commiting murder, you go to hell for commiting homosexual acts (or at least don't get into heaven, paradise etc) so how can you say that one is worse than the other when they carry the same sentence so to speak? If that isn't what you mean it is certainly the message that keeps getting sent out.

Its difficult to debate evolution with you because you've already come up with your own definition of it, one which is totally different to the general idea put forward by the scientific community. What you basically want to see is a human giving birth to a dragon, something completed different to the parents, well thats just not how evolution works. As atroxletum has touched upon its all about small, note SMALL changes. The 'new' bacteria have properties that are different to what it did have, that my friend is evolution, or at least evidence for. Look up any decent book or website for a proper idea of what evolution is. Anyway if small changes aren't evolution, a small change like being homosexual (-not evolution but genetics at any rate), must be the work of god then?

We are all different races different languages based on where we live and what our lifestyle is, the same thing goes for animals or anything for that matter.

I'm not quite sure what you are using this as evidence for. If god created only 2 people to start with wouldn't everyone have the same language etc since everyone would be directly descended? That idea fits more to evolution, that things living apart will adapt in different ways.

On topic, the Middle Eastern Countries are doing bad? China can end the U.S. in a day by cutting of exports and manufacturing, and they also hold a lot of loans we owe them, so they're doing pretty good. And it's sad of you to say that just because they don't allow homosexuals they starve and get diseases. And I said nothing of the country collapsing or anything like that. And that murder thing stop saying it's worse than homosexuality because I know it is, and that was not even the point of my comparison.

China is doing relatively well (we'll ignore human rights for the time being), I'm not sure what area you class as the middle east but this is the area I am on about. Sorry for the source but its just nice and quick. As for the collasping thing I do appologise, I thought you were alluding to the fact that society would fall apart etc that has been mentioned somewhere in the past and I ended up answering that more than your own post.

And it's sad of you to say that just because they don't allow homosexuals they starve and get diseases Not what I was saying, I said that banning it hasn't done them any good, not that they were in that situation because they banned it.

"I'm not quite sure what you are using this as evidence for. If god created only 2 people to start with wouldn't everyone have the same language etc since everyone would be directly descended? That idea fits more to evolution, that things living apart will adapt in different ways."

Reread this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2011&version=9

Point is now invalid.


Also, just because you commit murder by no means destroys your chances of going to heaven. It all depends on if your relationship with God has gotten strong and you're truly sorry.

« Last edited by tbug2007 on Jul 25th 2009 »

On 25-Jul-2009 rate_me said:

See that bird over there? That used to be a T-Rex.

That's not exactly a good way to explain evolution, for example, a bird has a relatively small wingspan because it's prey lives right under it's nest. After awhile the animal that they hunt migrates, and because of the birds relatively small wingspan it has a hard time reaching it. Over the course of a couple hundred ( possibly thousands) of years, the birds wingspan slowly increases, giving it the ability to fly farther to get to it's food source without expending as much energy.

Yeah that's the basics right there.(high-five t-bug?)

« Last edited by Black Mamba 19 on Jul 25th 2009 »

On 25-Jul-2009 Black Mamba 19 said:

So you're saying if I slowly evolved from a monkey over a huge amount of time, I would end up human. Awesome so where are all these people in between the monkey and human change? That is where evolution is mistaken. Ok and give me an example of an animal millions of years ago that has evolved into something completely different.

We're not monkeys, that's where you're ignorant. We share a common ancestor.

Whales we're once wolf like mammals. Then they started evolving into seal like creatures because they got the majority of food from the sea. Then whales.

On 25-Jul-2009 atroxletum said:

That's not exactly a good way to explain evolution, for example, a bird has a relatively small wingspan because it's prey lives right under it's nest. After awhile the animal that they hunt migrates, and because of the birds relatively small wingspan it has a hard time reaching it. Over the course of a couple hundred ( possibly thousands) of years, the birds wingspan slowly increases, giving it the ability to fly farther to get to it's food source without expending as much energy.

You're mixing up how this works.

There are already birds with long wings, and also birds with shorter wings. It has nothing to do with adaptation, it's to do with the fact that eventually, the birds with the short wings will die off, leaving only those with long wings.

On 25-Jul-2009 tbug2007 said:

You're mixing up how this works.

There are already birds with long wings, and also birds with shorter wings. It has nothing to do with adaptation, it's to do with the fact that eventually, the birds with the short wings will die off, leaving only those with long wings.

But how did the birds with the long wings get there? It's the short wing gene that dies, not the birds. Any species evolving has to do with their genetics changing over the course of thousands of years.

On 25-Jul-2009 atroxletum said:

But how did the birds with the long wings get there? It's the short wing gene that dies, not the birds. Any species evolving has to do with their genetics changing over the course of thousands of years.

How are blind people born blind?

How are paraplegics born?

How are limbless men formed?


Same deal. It is the fact that:

a) Multiples of the originals were created.
b) Misconnection in the genes, like those who are without arms or legs.

What I also stated in another thread was that it's impossible for there to be a gaining of genetic information through reproduction. There is only a loss of information.

Never has any new information been gained, never will it be. You can ask any evolutionist when a gain has occurred. You won't get a (note) correct answer.



My posts are short and to the point

On 25-Jul-2009 tbug2007 said:

How are blind people born blind?

How are paraplegics born?

How are limbless men formed?


Same deal. It is the fact that:

a) Multiples of the originals were created.
b) Misconnection in the genes, like those who are without arms or legs.

What I also stated in another thread was that it's impossible for there to be a gaining of genetic information through reproduction. There is only a loss of information.

Never has any new information been gained, never will it be. You can ask any evolutionist when a gain has occurred. You won't get a (note) correct answer.



My posts are short and to the point

All of the examples you have given are birth defects, and have to do with chromosomes, not genes...

In my example the short, and long wing genes were both there, the short wing gene dies off.

« Last edited by atroxletum on Jul 25th 2009 »

On 25-Jul-2009 atroxletum said:

All of the examples you have given are birth defects, and have to do with chromosomes, not genes...

In my example the short, and long wing genes were both there, the short wing gene dies off.

Either way, it's how it is.

"In my example the short, and long wing genes were both there, the short wing gene dies off."

You killed yourself with that statement. Again, with reproduction, no matter if you have the same couple reproducing over and over and over again, the result will be different. Only one gene will end up in the final result.

Thus creating different short and long winged birds, and eventually, when the birds with both genes die off, and the birds with only the short wings die out, there's none left but the long winged birds.

So in one way, you're right, in the fact that in the beginning, it probably started like that. On the other hand, my reason is supported by your statement, with the fact that there's only a loss of information.

« Last edited by tbug2007 on Jul 25th 2009 »

Hmm... maybe you're right in this situation.

But we're getting off topic this has changed into a debate of how evolution works, it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Dang you're right.

Ah well.



Choochooherecomestheontopictrain.



I'll let somebody go first.

Okay, I'll start.

I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to get married. I'm all for equal rights on everything else but military. But marriage is something religious, and I don't think they should intrude on that.

On 25-Jul-2009 atroxletum said:

Okay, I'll start.

I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to get married. I'm all for equal rights on everything else but military. But marriage is something religious, and I don't think they should intrude on that.

Just curious but why not the military? Lots of heterosexual couples get married in non-relgious cermonies, its not strictly a religious thing. If a gay couple want to get married in a religious cermony but it is against the churches beliefs then they have the right to refuse to marry them but if they chose to get married without any sort of religious involvement then I don't see how it is intruding on it. Also what are your views on things like civil unions, which offer the same rights (depends on the country though) as marriage but isn't actually marriage?

I can't help it, this is my last off topic point and then I'm off the stuff for good. At T-bug: for the can't lose genetic information thing see what was posted on pg 41 of the Exsistence of god thread.

« Last edited by super craig on Jul 26th 2009 »

On 24-Jul-2009 I Poke Badgers With Spoons said:

I haven't read right through this thread, but I guess I just wanted to give my opinion.

I'm a gay guy, and I'm also very politically conservative which is not a good mix.

Is it a choice? No, it's definitely not a choice, not for me anyway. No way would I choose to be gay. It sux! But you have to make the best of a bad situation and accept what you've been given.

But I also don't think you're born that way. I actually think it's entirely in your upbringing. My Dad wasn't in my life when I was young. I had no brothers, only sisters. I only had aunties and great aunties, no uncles or great uncles. I have only female cousins.

I don't like being gay because I desperately would love to have kids one day, amongst other reasons.

Gay rights: I don't believe in gay "marriage", the word marriage has such a connection with the church and the church has made it clear it doesn't like gays. I believe in equal rights for gays though, and I am very happy that some countries (e.g. Britain, where I live) have "Civil Unions" which give the same rights as marriage but with a different name.

I have to be honest that if I were straight, and as conservative as I am, I would probably not like gays, but that would be because I didn't understand them. I KNOW I'm conservative because of how I was brought up.

Hmm, I've missed quite a bit.

Starting with this:

So your one of the Gay Men that doesn't like being gay. And so what, being around females most of your life without much male interaction can actually be factor in making you gay? What? All the female hormones cross over to you and create you to be attracted to men?

And you can be gay and have kids. Surrogate Mother. Plain and simple.

Civil Unions? Look at your post. It means the same thing as marriage, so why not just call it that? Because the church says so? They're still getting married and having the same rights, whether it's called a civil union or or tataoilyingalgiagiengagagitehing.


Next:

I thought we squelched the evolution topic really. We can never seem to keep it on topic. But my viewpoint:

Yes evolution probably had a hand in it. As it does everything. Something in peoples minds, whether it's a chemical imbalance or how your brain connects, or if you have more of one thing or the other, it happened over time as the human race progressed.

Also, we do lose some genetic material, as we only receive one half of each of our parents. But, if we didn't, Think of families that married within families. Birth defects are much more common in these. The creating of new genetic material helps solve some of this problem.




Next:

Military

I absolutely 100 percent hate the don't ask don't tell policy.(I'm not really responding to a post, just ranting) Thousands of men and women are turned down because they are gay. Perfectly good soldiers are discharged simply for being gay. We have a troop shortage why? We won't sign up perfectly good men and women who are willing to serve or country.

Next:

Mamba, either come up with some decent arguments or give up.

« Last edited by Craizen on Jul 26th 2009 »

That's nice.

Quite mature also.

And if you can't read the sarcasm oozing from this post, well, I can't help you.

« Last edited by Craizen on Jul 26th 2009 »

I suppose there are some that are odd =/


Anyway, SC: What about that page?

To Craizen,

Civil Unions? Look at your post. It means the same thing as marriage, so why not just call it that? Because the church says so?

Yeah, basically, because the church says so. The church don't like us gays, so I want to be disassociated with them as much as I can. To me, for whatever reason, the word marriage immediately conjures up visions of a man married to a woman. That could be partly because of the fact I'm very politically conservative - I'm not the most liberal person out there.

And you can be gay and have kids. Surrogate Mother. Plain and simple.

True. Can't argue with that.

And so what, being around females most of your life without much male interaction can actually be factor in making you gay?

I think so, definitely. I'm sure it has something to do with it - something to do with role-models and learned behaviour.

What? All the female hormones cross over to you and create you to be attracted to men?

If I didn't make myself clear before, I think homosexuality is nothing to do with genes, or chromosomes, or hormones, or anything hereditary. It's your environment, upbringing and your surroundings - plain and simple.

Of course I have no proof that that's true. That's just my experience.

Being around women made you gay thought makes no sense. So your saying that you learned to find men attractive and/or since your role model was probably a straight woman that makes you have to like men? Just because your around something doesn't mean you have to like it or not. It's personal choice.

On 27-Jul-2009 CyberneticMooninite said:

Being around women made you gay thought makes no sense. So your saying that you learned to find men attractive and/or since your role model was probably a straight woman that makes you have to like men? Just because your around something doesn't mean you have to like it or not. It's personal choice.

Normally I'd agree, but you can't choose your family, and when you're around something 24 hours a day 7 days a week for 16 years (when I knew I was gay), it's entirely possible that it will influence your entire life in all sorts of ways, not just whether you like men or women.

You said it doesn't make sense; lots of things in life don't make sense. Homosexuality in general doesn't make sense... but it happens.

I knew in when I was in 6th grade. Common age.

Now I grew up with both parents, have three older brothers, and a tomboy of a sister. Yes, I had plenty of women in my life, but a lot a male influences also.