Headline: Science develops treatment therapy to cure and prevent homosexuality!

[rocka21]

Wrong,Its the faulty genetic message that tells you that you'd prefer to jump in the sack with someone of the same sex rather than the opposite sex.

wrong, - you call it a " genetic message".

I call it the adamic nature. - when adam sinned, the curse was released.

that is why when we are born, we have a natural desire to do wrong.

i don't deny the desire is there for some people to want to jump in the sack with the same sex. Yes , you were born like that.

just like some people have a desire to steal, or have sex with someone other than their wife. just because that adamic nature is in you does not mean you act on it.

how many times have you ever wanted to hurt someone, to lie to someone, to do something your parents told you not to do? yes that is natural.

 

[rasor]

Why do you assume it's faulty?

If its not faulty,what is the evolutionary advantage in homosexuality ? ie If we were all homosexual we would be extinct in one generation.

 

[rasor]

wrong, - you call it a " genetic message".

I call it the adamic nature. - when adam sinned, the curse was released.

that is why when we are born, we have a natural desire to do wrong.

i don't deny the desire is there for some people to want to jump in the sack with the same sex. Yes , you were born like that.

just like some people have a desire to steal, or have sex with someone other than their wife. just because that adamic nature is in you does not mean you act on it.

how many times have you ever wanted to hurt someone, to lie to someone, to do something your parents told you not to do? yes that is natural.

Boy,you've really got a bad case of the Religion virus havn't you Do you seriously believe there was such a person as Adam ?

 

[rocka21]

Boy,you've really got a bad case of the Religion virus havn't you

this is called " religious forum"

or did you forget?

but , this is under " general debate section" so i will gladly bow out of this disscussion, unless you want to bring it up in the " religious sections".

 

[rasor]

this is called " religious forum"

or did you forget?

Nope, I havn't forgot. So ?

 

[Smoke]

If its not faulty,what is the evolutionary advantage in homosexuality ? ie If we were all homosexual we would be extinct in one generation.

Nonsense. Homosexuals can reproduce and often do so. There's no particular reason why your means of reproduction and your primary relationship have to be the same. Furthermore, homosexuality may benefit a particular bloodline in ways other than reproduction. For instance, both my parents had, and I had, childless aunts and uncles who -- because they were childless -- were more solicitous of their nieces and nephews. By benefiting their siblings' progeny, they helped give advantages to those who were carrying their own parents' genes.

But even if there were no evolutionary benefit, so what? Life is its own justification, and only a fool would suppose that the main purpose or the highest accomplishment of an intelligent being is to accomplish that which can be accomplished by any lab rat or cockroach. There are plenty of heterosexuals to get the breeding done, and for all their great accomplishment in that respect, our species will inevitably be extinct sooner or later anyway, and perhaps all the sooner for overbreeding.

 

[Smoke]

wrong, - you call it a " genetic message".

I call it the adamic nature. - when adam sinned, the curse was released.

that is why when we are born, we have a natural desire to do wrong.

i don't deny the desire is there for some people to want to jump in the sack with the same sex. Yes , you were born like that.

just like some people have a desire to steal, or have sex with someone other than their wife. just because that adamic nature is in you does not mean you act on it.

how many times have you ever wanted to hurt someone, to lie to someone, to do something your parents told you not to do? yes that is natural.

I don't think it's natural, though, for the unwise and uneducated to suppose that their own prejudices and preferences are the law of God. That's one of the rare moral failings that has to be taught.

 

[rasor]

Nonsense. Homosexuals can reproduce and often do so. There's no particular reason why your means of reproduction and your primary relationship have to be the same. Furthermore, homosexuality may benefit a particular bloodline in ways other than reproduction. For instance, both my parents had, and I had, childless aunts and uncles who -- because they were childless -- were more solicitous of their nieces and nephews. By benefiting their siblings' progeny, they helped give advantages to those who were carrying their own parents' genes.

But even if there were no evolutionary benefit, so what? Life is its own justification, and only a fool would suppose that the main purpose or the highest accomplishment of an intelligent being is to accomplish that which can be accomplished by any lab rat or cockroach. There are plenty of heterosexuals to get the breeding done, and for all their great accomplishment in that respect, our species will inevitably be extinct sooner or later anyway, and perhaps all the sooner for overbreeding.

1 Were your aunts and uncles homosexual ? If not whats your point ?Childless life more than often helps rear its siblings offspring.This has nothing to do with homosexuality. (see The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins)
2 Yes,as far as evolution is concerned the only point of life is its continuance (see Origin of Species : Charles Darwin)
3 "Homosexuals can reproduce and often do so" Maybe,but how many gay's have gay natural parents ?( and I don't mean adoption,fostering etc) If the human race was to rely on gays for its continuance we would be on a slippery slope to extinction.

 

[Autodidact]

This is exactly why I would prefer NOT to debate whether or not homosexuality is "natural"/biologically determined/innate, and actually prefer to debate the morality.

Proving that there are biological determinants to sexual orientation only shifts the same question back one level. So now, instead of saying that people can choose whether to be gay or straight behaviorally, we now (theoretically) can say that people can choose whether to be gay or straight biologically/medicinally. It can be "cured."

The bottom line is still moral/ethical, not biological. Who gets to decide what is normative? Why should homosexuality be looked at as a genetic illness, like hemophilia, rather than as a genetic variant, like eye-color?

The bottom line still is accept people for who they are.

Just gave my first ever frubals for this post. The question isn't whether it's biologically determined; the question is whether it's immoral. It isn't; end of discussion.

 

[Autodidact]

wrong, - you call it a " genetic message".

I call it the adamic nature. - when adam sinned, the curse was released.

that is why when we are born, we have a natural desire to do wrong.

i don't deny the desire is there for some people to want to jump in the sack with the same sex. Yes , you were born like that.

just like some people have a desire to steal, or have sex with someone other than their wife. just because that adamic nature is in you does not mean you act on it.

how many times have you ever wanted to hurt someone, to lie to someone, to do something your parents told you not to do? yes that is natural.

So the question is, who is a gay person hurting, or to whom are they lying? Isn't the gay person who tried to act straight in fact the one who is lying, cf. Ted Haggard? Now there's someone whose behavior was deeply immoral.

 

[Autodidact]

If its not faulty,what is the evolutionary advantage in homosexuality ? ie If we were all homosexual we would be extinct in one generation.

I think there may be a genetic advantage to female homosexuality which I can describe at great length if there is curiousity.
The theory about male homosexuality is that it conveys a genetic advantage on the gay man's female relatives.
It may also be just sort of vestigial, coming along with some other trait.
It is clear that homosexuality itself tends to be counter-reproductive, so it is an evolutionary puzzle.

 

[Smoke]

1 Were your aunts and uncles homosexual ? If not whats your point ?Childless life more than often helps rear its siblings offspring.This has nothing to do with homosexuality. (see The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins)

Do you feel that heterosexual childlessness is somehow more of an evolutionary advantage than homosexual childlessness?

2 Yes,as far as evolution is concerned the only point of life is its continuance (see Origin of Species : Charles Darwin)

Evolution is simply a process. It does not have a point, a purpose, or a motive, and to invest it with such is to venture into irrationality.

3 "Homosexuals can reproduce and often do so" Maybe,but how many gay's have gay natural parents ?( and I don't mean adoption,fostering etc) If the human race was to rely on gays for its continuance we would be on a slippery slope to extinction.

The human race doesn't have to rely on lesbians and gay men for its continuance, so that's not really a concern, is it? Why do you think that the continuance of the human race is a moral imperative, anyway?

As to "how many gay's have gay natural parents," I've only ever known one gay man who had a gay father, but I've known plenty of heterosexuals who did. What's your point?

 

[rasor]

Do you feel that heterosexual childlessness is somehow more of an evolutionary advantage than homosexual childlessness?

No not at all. My point is childless life tends to look after the closest connection to its genes (its all in the book The Selfish Gene)

Evolution is simply a process. It does not have a point, a purpose, or a motive, and to invest it with such is to venture into irrationality.

I don't invest human traits into Evolution.
Evolution happens and if unchecked it follows the course of survival of the fittest ie that life which succeeds in a particular enviroment.

The human race doesn't have to rely on lesbians and gay men for its continuance, so that's not really a concern, is it?

My point exactly.If it did we would be in trouble

Why do you think that the continuance of the human race is a moral imperative, anyway?

I don't remember stating it was a moral imperative Perhaps you can state where I said it was ?

As to "how many gay's have gay natural parents," I've only ever known one gay man who had a gay father, but I've known plenty of heterosexuals who did. What's your point?

Exactly my point again.In general gays don't have kids ergo human race goes down the pan if we all were gay,so (here comes my point) Being gay has no evolutionary advantage.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I get the distinct feeling that you think I have some sort of prejudice against gays.Let me say here and now that if that is the case you are wrong. I mearly approach the subject from a biological viewpoint.

 

[rocka21]

So the question is, who is a gay person hurting, or to whom are they lying? Isn't the gay person who tried to act straight in fact the one who is lying, cf. Ted Haggard? Now there's someone whose behavior was deeply immoral.

why did jesus say if you " LOOK" upon a woman to lust after her it is wrong? who did that hurt? do you have to " hurt" someone for it to be wrong? ( but yes, this goes back to my " RELIGIOUS VIEWS".):angel2:

you are not " acting" any way. you just are not giving in to your lust.

Ted Haggard had a lust problem not a " gay " problem.

 

[rasor]

this is called " religious forum"

or did you forget?

but , this is under " general debate section" so i will gladly bow out of this disscussion, unless you want to bring it up in the " religious sections".

That was a quick bow out

 

[rocka21]

That was a quick bow out

just responding to someone who used my Quote and had a statement for ME.

 

[Smoke]

No not at all. My point is childless life tends to look after the closest connection to its genes (its all in the book The Selfish Gene)

No, that was my point, and I brought it up when you said that not reproducing was an evolutionary disadvantage.

I don't invest human traits into Evolution.
Evolution happens and if unchecked it follows the course of survival of the fittest ie that life which succeeds in a particular enviroment.

You said it has a "point." It doesn't.

Exactly my point again.In general gays don't have kids ergo human race goes down the pan if we all were gay,so (here comes my point) Being gay has no evolutionary advantage.

Again, even if all queers were childless (and they aren't, by a long shot), there may be some evolutionary advantage to some members of a population remaining childless. You seem to think that because heterosexuals are more likely to reproduce, heterosexuality is more of an evolutionary advantage, but it may just be that the greatest evolutionary advantage is found when most members of a population are heterosexual and some members of a population are homosexual. At least, that's the balance that's got us this far. And it's far more likely that our eventual and inevitable extinction will have more to do with overbreeding than underbreeding, so I think your concern about the perpetuation of the species is misplaced.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I get the distinct feeling that you think I have some sort of prejudice against gays.Let me say here and now that if that is the case you are wrong. I mearly approach the subject from a biological viewpoint.

No, you're quite right, that's exactly what I think, and I think so precisely because of the way you characterize us from a biological viewpoint. Your view seems to be obscured by your prejudice.

 

[rasor]

No, that was my point, and I brought it up when you said that not reproducing was an evolutionary disadvantage.

No,your point was homosexuality was the reason.My point was it is a genetic advantage for the childless to look after their siblings children.There can be many reasons for the childlessness for example sterility or a purposeful decision.It isn't just homosexuality.Saying that, not reproducing and looking after your genes as to say "second hand" cant be as advantages as reproducing them yourself.

You said it has a "point." It doesn't.

Your right,I should have said the genes only purpose is its continuance.

Again, even if all queers were childless (and they aren't, by a long shot), there may be some evolutionary advantage to some members of a population remaining childless. You seem to think that because heterosexuals are more likely to reproduce, heterosexuality is more of an evolutionary advantage, but it may just be that the greatest evolutionary advantage is found when most members of a population are heterosexual and some members of a population are homosexual. At least, that's the balance that's got us this far. And it's far more likely that our eventual and inevitable extinction will have more to do with overbreeding than underbreeding, so I think your concern about the perpetuation of the species is misplaced.

Again I have not expressed concern about the continuance of the species.I've only given an hyphothesis on what could happen if we were all gay.I doubt very much that our extinction is inevitable from either overbreeding or under breeding.

No, you're quite right, that's exactly what I think, and I think so precisely because of the way you characterize us from a biological viewpoint. Your view seems to be obscured by your prejudice.

Maybe your viewpoint is coloured by a phobia of not been seen as "normal" ? Don't worry about it.There's loads of other faulty messages passed through the genes.

We can all be characterised from a biological viewpoint and gays are not excluded from that. If you find that hard and think you should have some sort of special treatment ,I'm afraid thats life.

 

[Smoke]

No,your point was homosexuality was the reason.My point was it is a genetic advantage for the childless to look after their siblings children.There can be many reasons for the childlessness for example sterility or a purposeful decision.It isn't just homosexuality.

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. If childlessness can be an advantage for the population, it's not a disadvantage if some people in a population don't breed. Therefore, it's not a disadvantage if homosexuals don't breed.

Your right,I should have said the genes only purpose is its continuance.

Still wrong. The gene doesn't have a purpose. It just is.

Again I have not expressed concern about the continuance of the species.

"If the human race was to rely on gays for its continuance we would be on a slippery slope to extinction."

"If it did we would be in trouble"
​

I've only given an opinion on what could happen if we were all gay.

Which is completely irrelevant and has no bearing on anything. The same thing would happen if we were all male. Therefore, males are faulty. Makes no sense, see?

Maybe your view is coloured by a phobia of not been seen as "normal" ?

God, no. I'm different in many more ways than just being queer, and I like it that way.

We can all be characterised from a biological viewpoint and gays are not excluded from that. If you find that hard,I'm afraid thats life.

I don't find it hard; I find your characterization baseless. And you've done nothing to change that. No hard feelings, though; your prejudice is a mild one and inoffensive to me.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Hmm, I had a mental and emotional relationship with my Father.However thats as far as it went ie no sex. Am I 2/3 rds Homosexual ? I think not.So it must be the sex that makes one a homosexual.

Well, I guess that means you are incapible of having a rational discussion. I have no doubt that you know exactly what I meant and instead chose to belittle my comment in the attempt to make it sound silly and yourself sound witty. Failure on both accounts.