Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[InChrist]

You cannot support your mistaken belief and you have moved the goal posts.

Need I remind you that as a supposed Christian you should be honest?

Just because someone does not agree with you or see things from the same perspective as you does signify dishonesty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because someone does not agree with you or see things from the same perspective as you does signify dishonesty.

That is true. But if a person cannot approach a debate properly almost always does signify dishonesty.

 

[InChrist]

That is an extremely poor argument. They are related, but separate. You appear to know that life arose from natural causes too, even though you wish to deny it.

Evolution works regardless of source of the first life. That is why your argument fails. Let's say a person made a trip across the U.S. We know he started in New York. We know that he ended up in L.A.. We are not 100% sure of his course, but we do know that he passed through Erie Pennsylvania on the way from New York to L.A.. Does not knowing how he got from New York to Erie refute the idea of the trip?

And your last claim is a self contradiction. All of the scientific evidence out there only supports common descent. There is no scientific evidence for another concept.

If I thought live arose from natural cause, why would I wish to deny it? I believe life was created by God. Is that a natural cause, from your perspective? Of course, science cannot prove, nor disprove God. But science has neither proved that life arose from natural causes.

Your example about the traveler is a different situation because we already know the traveler is a person and that a person is capable of making a trip across the U.S. With life, at least from the evolutionist perspective, we don't know when or how it started, so we can't really know what it is capable of during the journey afterwards.

 

[InChrist]

That is true. But if a person cannot approach a debate properly almost always does signify dishonesty.

Well, I am probably deficient in debate skills so don't necessarily approach debate properly, but do desire to be honest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I thought live arose from natural cause, why would I wish to deny it? I believe life was created by God. Is that a natural cause, from your perspective? Of course, science cannot prove, nor disprove God. But science has neither proved that life arose from natural causes.

Your example about the traveler is a different situation because we already know the traveler is a person and that a person is capable of making a trip across the U.S. With life, at least from the evolutionist perspective, we don't know when or how it started, so we can't really know what it is capable of during the journey afterwards.

An inability to be honest with oneself is part of creationism. Your posts show that you know that you are wrong. An honest person that really believed could debate properly.

By the way, the fact that life is the product of evolution does not "disprove God". I don't know why so many creationists have that crazy idea. It only proves that their version of God does not exist.

And let's look at my analogy. We know that at one point there was no life on the Earth (New York city).. Even creationists have that belief. We know that later there was life (Erie, Pennsylvania). Now depending upon how crazy a creationist is they may demand that life began on the outskirts of LA. But the evidence out there clearly shows the trip from Erie to LA.

We may not know how life began, though that problem is very close to being solved. We do know what happened after life arose. You are trying to claim that because we do not know how a person got to Erie PA that he could not have crossed the country. That is a very poor argument on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I am probably deficient in debate skills so don't necessarily approach debate properly, but do desire to be honest.

Then let's drop abiogenesis for now. The first life could have arisen naturally, it could have been dropped off by ET, or it could have been magically created. We know that life evolved from that very simple start.

Perhaps we should concentrate on the end of the journey. Do you have a problem with the fact that you are an ape?

 

[GODbeMERCIFULtoMEaSINNER]

Aside from the mountains of evidence for evolution, I often struggle to understand how anyone can believe in an intelligent and benevolent god who designed species when reading about phenomena like this. The Ichneumon wasp is a species of wasp that bores a hole into a caterpillar in order to lay its eggs inside of the caterpillar. The wasp also injects the caterpillar so that it is paralyzed, yet still feels pain. The wasps then hatch inside of the caterpillar and eat it alive from the inside out, while the caterpillar can do nothing. Now, unless God were an evil sadist, there is no way that he would design a process like this. This type of process is simply incompatible with the existence of an intelligent and benevolent designer. Yet, when viewed from a naturalistic perspective, it makes sense. Natural selection produces results that can turn out to be incredibly beautiful and give the illusion of benevolent design, and it can also produce horrible, nasty results like this that give the illusion of a cruel designer. In reality, Natural Selection is blind and mindless, and it all makes sense when we consider this. As Dawkins put it, "Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent."

Ichneumonidae - Wikipedia

There is no evidence for evolution, I would recommend that you watch the movie on YouTube Evolution versus God it was put out by Ray comfort one of my favorite movies it's interesting to watch the evolution of squirm when they have no evidence.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

There is no evidence for evolution, I would recommend that you watch the movie on YouTube Evolution versus God it was put out by Ray comfort one of my favorite movies it's interesting to watch the evolution of squirm when they have no evidence.

Ray Comfort is intellectually bankrupt. He doesn't even understand the difference between the statements "all whales are mammals" and "all mammals are whales." By the way, there are mountains of evidence for evolution. Let's start with one piece: How do you explain transitional forms in the fossil record?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no evidence for evolution, I would recommend that you watch the movie on YouTube Evolution versus God it was put out by Ray comfort one of my favorite movies it's interesting to watch the evolution of squirm when they have no evidence.

You have no idea what is and what is not evidence. And movies by dishonest creationists are not very convincing to those that can see.

Would you care to learn what evidence is? The concept is well developed in the sciences. Learning will make it so that you might not lose your debate in your first sentence.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes, the theory of evolution deals with life...after it already exists. I'm not moving the goal post. I just find it absurd that evolutionists blithely skip over the origin of life as if that is irrelevant or has no impact on life thereafter. I do not concede to the evolution argument because Darwinian evolution can't even get a start without LIFE. Without even an understanding of the origin of life I don't believe there can be an accurate understanding of the progression of life.

I don't understand your difficulty. God, or a god, could have created the first primitive life forms back in the Archean or Hadean era, and those first, supernaturally created, life forms could have evolved into the modern diversity that we observe, just as if they had come into existence by abiogenesis.

 

[Astrophile]

If they are both concern life, how can they be so completely two separate topics?

If laboratory chemistry and stellar nucleosynthesis both concern the chemical elements, how can they be completely separate topics?

 

[nPeace]

So gay people “make a mess” which causes an impact on nature by way of diseases and other genetic problems. So which genetic problems are gay people causing when they have sex? I pointed out before, and will point out again that heterosexual people engage in the exact same sex acts as gay people do. Yet I don’t see any of these terrible articles going on about “scientific facts about heterosexuality and its adverse effects on society” and “medical consequences of what heterosexuals do.” Like you know that heterosexual people also have all kinds of sexually transmitted diseases, right? Gay sex didn’t invent those. Could you explain why people like yourself pick on and focus on the acts of only gay people?

And where is the part where this ties into evolution or demonstrates that diseases and genetic problems exist because gay people have sex with each other and “reject their creator?” I mean, you really haven’t demonstrated much, except maybe that you’re prejudiced against gay people. Where’s the part that demonstrates that genetic change/problems, diseases, etc. are caused by specific behaviors and by “rejecting their creator” rather than as a result of evolutionary changes? All you’ve really said here is “Gay people causes diseases and reject their creator and I don’t like them.”

I included bestiality and pedophilia... you complain.
I didn't include heterosexual... you complain.
Might it be better if you write my post?

All you’ve really said here is “Gay people causes diseases and reject their creator and I don’t like them.

Now you are being slanderous. I did not say I don't like the people.

How did you ascertain that those sites are “based on reliable research?”


Great, let’s take a look at some of these.

First of all, the Family Research Institute has a biased agenda against gay people. They flat out state that they support the rejection and discouragement of the existence of homosexuality within society. They simply don’t want it to be acceptable to be a gay person. Which is ridiculous on its face because gay people do exist, and unless you want to kill them all or deport them all, they will continue to exist. They even want school children to be warned and taught that homosexuality is dangerous. Have I not been pointing out, throughout this entire discussion that these kinds of sites and statistics are used solely to demonize and marginalize gay people from society? Looks like I was right.


And you wonder why I call this stuff garbage? I’m seriously wondering at this point what you think “seems to me to be accurate, and based on reliable research” about any of that? You seriously agree with that?

Your other articles contains nonsensical claims like gay people are gay because they were sexually abused by a gay person in their youth (this presupposes that sexual orientation is 1) chosen, and 2) is developed as the result of sexual abuse) or that children raised by homosexuals have more problems than children raised by heterosexuals, when in fact the opposite has been demonstrated. Hopefully those aren’t the claims you’ve reviewed and deemed to be accurate either.

You dug through all the "garbage"?
After all that work, you deserve a solid meal.

Here...
I think it's clean.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Men Who Have Sex With Men
Men who have sex with men (MSM) have increased rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) compared with demographically matched controls. The reasons for the disproportionate infection burden are complex, including biological, behavioral, and sociocultural factors. HIV and syphilis may often be coprevalent among MSM. ... MSM are at increased risk for viral hepatitis and anal human papillomavirus disease.

Since the last version of the World Health Organization’s Guidelines for the Management of Sexually Transmitted Infections was published in 2004, sexually transmitted disease (STD) rates among men who have sex with men (MSM) have continued to increase across the United States and abroad.

Enteric diseases of homosexual men
Certain enteric ailments are particularly common among homosexual men. They are primarily infectious diseases and include not only such common venereal diseases as gonorrhea and syphilis but also infections not usually regarded as being sexually transmitted. Among the latter are shigellosis, salmonellosis, giardiasis, and amebiasis. ...Gonorrhea is probably the most common bacterial infection in gay men. Carriage rates as high as 50% have been reported, and extra-genital carriage is common; this necessitates culturing the urethra, rectum, and pharynx.

Shigellosis
Shigellosis is an infection of the intestines caused by Shigella bacteria. Symptoms generally start one to two days after exposure and include diarrhea, fever, abdominal pain, and feeling the need to pass stools even when the bowels are empty. The diarrhea may be bloody. Symptoms typically last five to seven days. Complications can include reactive arthritis, sepsis, seizures, and hemolytic uremic syndrome.
Shigellosis is caused by four specific types of Shigella. These are typically spread by exposure to infected feces.

Shigella
Shigella (/ʃɪˈɡɛlə/) is a genus of gram-negative, facultative aerobic, nonspore-forming, non-motile, rod-shaped bacteria genetically closely related to E. coli. The genus is named after Kiyoshi Shiga, who first discovered it in 1897.

Each of the Shigella genomes includes a virulence plasmid that encodes conserved primary virulence determinants. The Shigella chromosomes share most of their genes with those of E. coli K12 strain MG1655. Phylogenetic studies indicate Shigella is more appropriately treated as subgenus of Escherichia, and that certain strains generally considered E. coli - such as E. coli O157:H7 - are better placed in Shigella...

Pathogenesis
Shigella infection is typically by ingestion. Depending on the health of the host, fewer than 100 bacterial cells can be enough to cause an infection. Shigella species generally invade the epithelial lining of the colon, causing severe inflammation and death of the cells lining the colon. This inflammation results in the diarrhea and even dysentery that are the hallmarks of Shigella infection. Some strains of Shigella produce toxins which contribute to disease during infection. S. flexneri strains produce ShET1 and ShET2, which may contribute to diarrhea. S. dysenteriae strains produce the enterotoxin Shiga toxin, which is similar to the verotoxin produced by enterohemorrhagic E. coli. Both Shiga toxin and verotoxin are associated with causing potentially fatal hemolytic-uremic syndrome.

Shigella species invade the host through the M-cells interspersed in the gut epithelia of the small intestine, as they do not interact with the apical surface of epithelial cells, preferring the basolateral side. Shigella uses a type-III secretion system, which acts as a biological syringe to translocate toxic effector proteins to the target human cell. The effector proteins can alter the metabolism of the target cell, for instance leading to the lysis of vacuolar membranes or reorganization of actin polymerization to facilitate intracellular motility of Shigella bacteria inside the host cell. For instance, the IcsA effector protein triggers actin reorganization by N-WASP recruitment of Arp2/3 complexes, helping cell-to-cell spread.

After invasion, Shigella cells multiply intracellularly and spread to neighboring epithelial cells, resulting in tissue destruction and characteristic pathology of shigellosis.
The most common symptoms are diarrhea, fever, nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps, and flatulence. It is also commonly known to cause large and painful bowel movements. The stool may contain blood, mucus, or pus. Hence, Shigella cells may cause dysentery. In rare cases, young children may have seizures. Symptoms can take as long as a week to appear, but most often begin two to four days after ingestion. Symptoms usually last for several days, but can last for weeks. Shigella is implicated as one of the pathogenic causes of reactive arthritis worldwide.

Within-species lateral genetic transfer and the evolution of transcriptional regulation in Escherichia coli and Shigella
The prevalence of recombination breakpoints within regulatory and target gene sets indicates that within-gene transfer has had a significant cumulative effect on the evolution of regulatory interactions in E. coli and Shigella.
............
Here we focus on modifications to bacterial TRNs that have arisen via lateral genetic transfer (LGT).
Genomic studies leave no doubt that LGT has played a pervasive role in the evolution of prokaryotic genomes and is a significant source of phenotypic innovation among bacteria. Successful LGT comprises a succession of steps: transfer and physical uptake of foreign DNA into a host new cell; recombination into the main chromosome, or maintenance on an extrachromosomal element; integration into genetic regulatory and biomolecular interaction networks; and finally, establishment in the host population.

 

[nPeace]

I don’t condemn people. I condemn bad ideas and beliefs and irrationality and argue against them. I condemn the act of making things up with the intent to hurt people.

Go ahead and dislike gay people all you want. But don’t make up garbage about them in order to belittle them as something less than human.



I’m not against anybody. I’m against bad/false ideas that fuel hatred and discord. I haven’t tried to silence you in any way. I haven’t told you that you don’t have a right to speak. What I have done is challenged your assertions. So I’m not sure what’s hypocritical about that.

I also can’t stand this “being gay is a lifestyle choice” myth that people try to push. It’s ludicrous and again, it’s used to demonize and marginalize people.

What are you going on about? Who said you couldn’t speak?

Spreading misinformation and many cases flat-out lies about groups of people in order to demonize and marginalize them from society and/or to blame society’s ills on them (as you’ve tried above) does actually harm people because it does in fact end up where these people are demonized and marginalized from society.



Well I’m glad you’re not screaming in people’s faces. That’s good to know.

You are, however, on a message board posting such articles as “Medical Consequences of what Homosexuals Do” and “7 Scientific facts about homosexuality and its adverse effects on society.” I mean, can’t you just tell from the wording what kind of low quality articles we’re talking about here?

This is a bit absurd. People who carry out the acts of rape and murder are actually, demonstrably harming other human beings and their actions need to be stopped. Of course if we want to, we can attempt to empathize with them and show them compassion if we choose, but they cannot be allowed to carry on activities that harm other people. Their actions are against the law.



Pedophiles are pedophiles. That’s the specific word we use to label people who are attracted to children. The terms heterosexuality and homosexuality aren’t used to describe people who are attracted to children.

I will ask again, why did you bring pedophiles into a discussion about homosexuality? Surely it wasn’t in an attempt to demonize homosexuals, right? You’re ascribing characteristics to homosexuality that you don’t apply equally to heterosexually. Why is that? Are you asserting that gay people are more likely to be pedophiles? That's what it sounds like.

I recall saying that the practices I mentioned are disgusting. I did not say anything about disliking people.

 

[nPeace]

Oh good grief. The part I highlighted was gigantic (in font size 6) and bolded. I’ve said that at least twice now.



Yes I said straight up that it was bolded and changed to the largest font BY ME.



Made what mistake? Take a look at post #118. The part of the post I have been referring to this entire time is bolded and printed in the largest font available.



What mistake? Your answer was that I should look around me.



Post #118 dude. Read it again. What I keep asking is if your statement is demonstrable. It’s been the same statement the entire time.

Apparently you said you can’t. To which I replied that you can’t demonstrate it.



Yeah, yeah, we all know people can believe whatever they want. But debates/arguments/discussions require a lot more than beliefs to get anywhere.

I guess I’m trying to point out that anybody can make God claims. Anybody can claim pretty much anything. But the claim isn’t true, just because you said it.

This thread is about evolution. Evolution is demonstrable. You wanted to claim something like it’s not evolution that’s responsible for genetic changes, rather these things arise when homosexuals have sex and people “reject their creator.” If you can’t demonstrate that, what makes you think you’re anywhere close to challenging the reality of evolution?

I do not usually expand my own quote, so I had no idea that you altered the quote.
Would it not be better to copy and paste the portion you want?
Please do in the future since I see no purpose of extending a quote that I do not expect to be edited.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I included bestiality and pedophilia... you complain.
I didn't include heterosexual... you complain.
Might it be better if you write my post?

Hypocritical. Now slanderous. Carry on.
Perhaps you are "Born that way".

You dug through all the "garbage"?
After all that work, you deserve a solid meal.

Here...
I think it's clean.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Men Who Have Sex With Men
Men who have sex with men (MSM) have increased rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) compared with demographically matched controls. The reasons for the disproportionate infection burden are complex, including biological, behavioral, and sociocultural factors. HIV and syphilis may often be coprevalent among MSM. ... MSM are at increased risk for viral hepatitis and anal human papillomavirus disease.

Since the last version of the World Health Organization’s Guidelines for the Management of Sexually Transmitted Infections was published in 2004, sexually transmitted disease (STD) rates among men who have sex with men (MSM) have continued to increase across the United States and abroad.

Enteric diseases of homosexual men
Certain enteric ailments are particularly common among homosexual men. They are primarily infectious diseases and include not only such common venereal diseases as gonorrhea and syphilis but also infections not usually regarded as being sexually transmitted. Among the latter are shigellosis, salmonellosis, giardiasis, and amebiasis. ...Gonorrhea is probably the most common bacterial infection in gay men. Carriage rates as high as 50% have been reported, and extra-genital carriage is common; this necessitates culturing the urethra, rectum, and pharynx.

Shigellosis
Shigellosis is an infection of the intestines caused by Shigella bacteria. Symptoms generally start one to two days after exposure and include diarrhea, fever, abdominal pain, and feeling the need to pass stools even when the bowels are empty. The diarrhea may be bloody. Symptoms typically last five to seven days. Complications can include reactive arthritis, sepsis, seizures, and hemolytic uremic syndrome.
Shigellosis is caused by four specific types of Shigella. These are typically spread by exposure to infected feces.

Shigella
Shigella (/ʃɪˈɡɛlə/) is a genus of gram-negative, facultative aerobic, nonspore-forming, non-motile, rod-shaped bacteria genetically closely related to E. coli. The genus is named after Kiyoshi Shiga, who first discovered it in 1897.

Each of the Shigella genomes includes a virulence plasmid that encodes conserved primary virulence determinants. The Shigella chromosomes share most of their genes with those of E. coli K12 strain MG1655. Phylogenetic studies indicate Shigella is more appropriately treated as subgenus of Escherichia, and that certain strains generally considered E. coli - such as E. coli O157:H7 - are better placed in Shigella...

Pathogenesis
Shigella infection is typically by ingestion. Depending on the health of the host, fewer than 100 bacterial cells can be enough to cause an infection. Shigella species generally invade the epithelial lining of the colon, causing severe inflammation and death of the cells lining the colon. This inflammation results in the diarrhea and even dysentery that are the hallmarks of Shigella infection. Some strains of Shigella produce toxins which contribute to disease during infection. S. flexneri strains produce ShET1 and ShET2, which may contribute to diarrhea. S. dysenteriae strains produce the enterotoxin Shiga toxin, which is similar to the verotoxin produced by enterohemorrhagic E. coli. Both Shiga toxin and verotoxin are associated with causing potentially fatal hemolytic-uremic syndrome.

Shigella species invade the host through the M-cells interspersed in the gut epithelia of the small intestine, as they do not interact with the apical surface of epithelial cells, preferring the basolateral side. Shigella uses a type-III secretion system, which acts as a biological syringe to translocate toxic effector proteins to the target human cell. The effector proteins can alter the metabolism of the target cell, for instance leading to the lysis of vacuolar membranes or reorganization of actin polymerization to facilitate intracellular motility of Shigella bacteria inside the host cell. For instance, the IcsA effector protein triggers actin reorganization by N-WASP recruitment of Arp2/3 complexes, helping cell-to-cell spread.

After invasion, Shigella cells multiply intracellularly and spread to neighboring epithelial cells, resulting in tissue destruction and characteristic pathology of shigellosis.
The most common symptoms are diarrhea, fever, nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps, and flatulence. It is also commonly known to cause large and painful bowel movements. The stool may contain blood, mucus, or pus. Hence, Shigella cells may cause dysentery. In rare cases, young children may have seizures. Symptoms can take as long as a week to appear, but most often begin two to four days after ingestion. Symptoms usually last for several days, but can last for weeks. Shigella is implicated as one of the pathogenic causes of reactive arthritis worldwide.

Within-species lateral genetic transfer and the evolution of transcriptional regulation in Escherichia coli and Shigella
The prevalence of recombination breakpoints within regulatory and target gene sets indicates that within-gene transfer has had a significant cumulative effect on the evolution of regulatory interactions in E. coli and Shigella.
............
Here we focus on modifications to bacterial TRNs that have arisen via lateral genetic transfer (LGT).
Genomic studies leave no doubt that LGT has played a pervasive role in the evolution of prokaryotic genomes and is a significant source of phenotypic innovation among bacteria. Successful LGT comprises a succession of steps: transfer and physical uptake of foreign DNA into a host new cell; recombination into the main chromosome, or maintenance on an extrachromosomal element; integration into genetic regulatory and biomolecular interaction networks; and finally, establishment in the host population.

Is it your contention that prevalence of disease implies sinfulness?

 

[Polymath257]

If I thought live arose from natural cause, why would I wish to deny it? I believe life was created by God. Is that a natural cause, from your perspective? Of course, science cannot prove, nor disprove God. But science has neither proved that life arose from natural causes.

Your example about the traveler is a different situation because we already know the traveler is a person and that a person is capable of making a trip across the U.S. With life, at least from the evolutionist perspective, we don't know when or how it started, so we can't really know what it is capable of during the journey afterwards.

But we *do* know that small changes can add up to large ones over many generations. We can, and do model this mathematically and via computers to see what the possibilities are.

We see variation in species today. We see speciation (reproductive isolation) today. We see environmental selection today which changes the range of variation. We see how small chanes to regulator proteins can lead to larger changes in the individual. We see no barrier to continued change over time (given continued mutation). We see evidence of larger changes in the fossil record. We see the patterns of these larger changes geographically.

ALL of this is supportive of the evolutionary hypothesis. And it happens across species in all parts of the world.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no evidence for evolution, I would recommend that you watch the movie on YouTube Evolution versus God it was put out by Ray comfort one of my favorite movies it's interesting to watch the evolution of squirm when they have no evidence.

No evidence, except genetics, observed speciation, observed variances in populations, observed fossils related to species dated on either side of the fossil, mathematical and computer models, etc.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no evidence for evolution, I would recommend that you watch the movie on YouTube Evolution versus God it was put out by Ray comfort one of my favorite movies it's interesting to watch the evolution of squirm when they have no evidence.

Ray Comfort is a hack (and definitely not a scientist) who has no idea how evolution works, despite the fact that it's been explained to him numerous times. Have you watched his ridiculous banana videos, by any chance?

There are mountains of evidence for evolution, which is why it is the prevailing scientific theory that best fits the available evidence and explains the diversity of life on earth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I included bestiality and pedophilia... you complain.
I didn't include heterosexual... you complain.

Might it be better if you write my post?

And now I'm going to complain that you didn't respond to the content of the post. Which was in response to your post. Can you do that please?

Now you are being slanderous. I did not say I don't like the people.

You dug through all the "garbage"?

After all that work, you deserve a solid meal.

So you have absolutely no response to it, except to be condescending?

Yeah, I dug through it. You posted it and it’s kind of difficult to respond to it without reading through it. It would be considerate of you to address the things I said about your links. You’re the one who posted them, after all.

Here...

I think it's clean.

You thought the last few links were “clean” too.

Now you want to Gish Gallop into something else? How about addressing the content of my posts on your earlier links first? Rather than jumping into a bunch of new stuff.

Seriously, why would I bother responding to this when you haven’t bothered to address my responses from the last post yet?

I mean, you’ve basically said nothing in this post. I even tried to get you to explain how your assertions about homosexuality ties in with the thread topic of evolution, and still I get nothing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I recall saying that the practices I mentioned are disgusting. I did not say anything about disliking people.

So you don't like some sexual practices that both heterosexuals and homosexuals engage in? That's it? Why pick only on the gay people doing them then?