• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
a lot of you precive me as an " EVANGELICAL" preaching hate agaist gays.

1. i am not an evangelical ( so you can keep your ted haggard comments to yourself.) for some reason you keep bringing him up to me.

2. in no way do i hate " GAYS". ( God created all men from one blood) i love people.

i have made it very clear, that i hate the ACT of sin that is sex with the same gender.

i have gays in my house and in my family , and they all love me, as is do them.

Just explain why your understanding of what is sinful should have any bearing on my right to make my own moral decisions that do not affect you. And take those socks off now. In fact, in your case, I think sandals are the safest bet, as that avoids any risk of sock-sin.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Y'know, I'm think I'm going to go out on a limb here and kind of agree with rasor a little, although I haven't been following that part of the thread closely.

If homosexuality is genetic, it involves a gene or genes. Genes are morally neutral. From an evolutionary point of view, they are detrimental if they detract from survival or reproduction. Clearly, homosexuality tends to detract from reproduction, therefore one could characterize it as a "negative" genetic trait. However, it could also have benefits, so could be positive as well.

I believe that female homosexuality can be evolutionarily beneficial, which theory I will explain if anyone begs me which no one has. That's just because it's long and complicated.

It may be that genes for male homosexuality turn out to benefit close relatives of the gay man, and have an ancillary benefit for the gene.

In any case, in modern times, we are no longer as concerned with such a genetic limitation, especially now that reproduction is still easily available to lesbians who wish it.

I myself am a lesbian and have 3 children, one of whom I gave birth to.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
I think genetics is how nature experiments. Whether something is positive or negative in the genetic sense is decided by survival. Since homosexuality has survived with little or no impact to population shows that the gay gene is at least neutral and could be positive, but, using this logic, it can't be negative. To be a negative genetic trait it would have to reduce population to the point that it endangers the species.

So, folks that claim it is a faulty gene or a mutation or a mistake of nature, have no real basis for their claim. If a red butterfly had a blue offspring that would be a genetic alteration made by nature. If the blue butterflys existed within the red butterfly community with no impact to the number of red butterflys then the genetic difference between the two cannot be considered negative.

I have no problem acknowledging the genetic difference but to describe it in negative terms is, in my opinion, adding prejudices to the arguement. So to claim neutrality is incorrect, the genetics is neutral but the personal spin is not.

Hope that makes sense.
 

rasor

Member
I understand that you see it that way but you are ignoring how your comments are perceived. You can't expect people to just automatically understand your statements, especially when they closely match what the religious right uses to spread fear of the gay community. Also, remember you are speaking to folks across the pond, maybe you don't have people using these tactics in the UK but over here with the Evangelicals preaching hate against gays it is very common.



Sigh. You are not antagonistic for opposing my view, you are antagonistic for your choice of words and phrases. As I mentioned in an earlier post, "bad case of the Religion virus" and "faulty genetic message" are antagonistic in of themselves. Comments like these paint your overall viewpoint as negative when possibly it isn't.

Many in the US use the biology card and like you claim neutrality, yet they use biology to state that it isn't they who are against homosexuality it is nature that is against it. This is a cop out, an excuse to be anti-gay and claim neutrality.

So, is that what your saying? That you are neutral and that it is nature/biology that is anti-gay? If so, how is that actually a stance of neutrality?


Sigh,This is last time I'm going to say this.

Morally I have no viewpoint on homosexuality.again please quote where I've said different.
I believe however that it is faulty wire/faulty genitic............... etc etc etc biologically.
I'm not copping out of anything.If I was antigay believe me you would know it. I call a spade a spade whatever you call it on your side of the pond.My statements seem straight forward to me but you obviously have a problem with them.(make note :check out E Bay for English/American Phrase Book)
I noticed you have a lot of people with weird beliefs over there.Thats not my problem.
As regards "religious virus" pick up a book called "the God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins it explains its meaning far better than I can.
I'm afraid too many people expect "a god given right" (don't take that literaly ) to have there beliefs respected especially the god addled.
I respect everybodies right to belief what they want.Thats not the same as respecting what they believe and uphold my right to say so.If it hurts their feelings, Tough.

ps I'd never make a Diplomat.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
I believe that female homosexuality can be evolutionarily beneficial, which theory I will explain if anyone begs me which no one has. That's just because it's long and complicated.

ooooo, I'm begging! Sounds interesting to me.

I myself am a lesbian and have 3 children, one of whom I gave birth to.

Kudos! One thing that really bothers me is when the religious right tries to keep children out of gay homes.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Sigh,This is last time I'm going to say this.

Morally I have no viewpoint on homosexuality.again please quote where I've said different.
I believe however that it is faulty wire/faulty genitic............... etc etc etc biologically.
I'm not copping out of anything.If I was antigay believe me you would know it. I call a spade a spade whatever you call it on your side of the pond.My statements seem straight forward to me but you obviously have a problem with them.(make note :check out E Bay for English/American Phrase Book)
I noticed you have a lot of people with weird beliefs over there.Thats not my problem.
As regards "religious virus" pick up a book called "the God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins it explains its meaning far better than I can.
I'm afraid too many people expect "a god given right" (don't take that literaly ) to have there beliefs respected especially the god addled.
I respect everybodies right to belief what they want.Thats not the same as respecting what they believe and uphold my right to say so.If it hurts their feelings, Tough.

ps I'd never make a Diplomat.

Big sigh :p

It is your problem to recognize your audience when making statements, especially in this venue. When you make a statement, and people take it a certain way due to the environment in which they live, you can't say they are incorrect in their interpretation. They have interpreted it as best they can with the information given.

Here we do expect to have our beliefs respected. To be honest, I don't consider you disrespectful, nor any others on this thread. I disagree with some of your points, more of other peoples but so far everyone has been presenting themselves fairly well. You can be negative and antagonistic without being disrespectful.

I have never said that you are morally opposed to homosexuality, only that you are opposed to it because you believe that nature is opposed to it. Or, is it that you believe nature is opposed to it but you try not to have an opinion on it? Something like that. Anyway, I understand what you are saying but still think that you are using the nature is against it argument to hide behind. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

Yep, diplomat isn't in your future. :D We do have that in common, and possibly a love of British ales.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
to rasor: You would agree, though, I think, that when you're dealing with something as sensitive as this, where "against nature" arguments have been used as a basis to criminalize behavior, it is best to think carefully before using value-laden terms.

Of course, it is hard to discuss anything without them, but still, I do think you could be more careful in your word choices.

O.K., having officially been begged, here it is, and yes, it is long and complicated.

With evolutionary biology, you think in terms of the ancestral environment, which is basically hunter-gatherer.

It is easy to find a male to have sex with, and harder to find one to marry. Most men have a capacity for promiscuous sex, and a single male can impregnate many females.

Men die younger than women.

Many societies are polygamous.

So, in all, you have more women than men. It is quite likely that a woman would find herself pregnant, or with young children, and no husband, or in a polygamous situation.

Children have a better chance of survival if they have two parents than one.

Female sexuality is more fluid and responsive than male. Many women have a capacity to form homosexual or heterosexual attachments. This capacity may or may not ever be activated or even discovered. What I mean is, I have know many women who lived as a lesbian or as a heterosexual at different times in their lives. Female homosexuality seems to be less often determined purely internally and early in life, but often emerges later and in the context of a specific relationship.

In this situation, if a woman with children has the capacity to form a homosexual bond, she will get more help and support for raising her children than if she is restricted to heterosexual bonds. (Remember, there is a shortage of adult males.) This help, in the form of female-female pair bonding, would contribute to her children living long enough to reproduce. Thus the capacity to form a homosexual bond could have an evolutionary advantage.

Women who have only a homosexual capacity are quite rare. I posit that they are an extreme, probably heterozygous remnant of this homosexual capacity that many women have.

That's the hypothesis!
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
That's the hypothesis!

Very interesting. I have often thought that women would be more predisposed towards lesbianism due to the emotional need rather than the physical need. While a man can easily take care of a woman’s physical needs, we aren't always equipped to do so on an emotional level. And, since there isn't much a man can do physically that a woman can't either do or simulate, what really is the need for the man at all?

One question on your hypothesis though. How do you account for the tribal tendency of an entire village raising the children rather than couples? I think this was probably the case in primitive man.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Very interesting. I have often thought that women would be more predisposed towards lesbianism due to the emotional need rather than the physical need. While a man can easily take care of a woman’s physical needs, we aren't always equipped to do so on an emotional level. And, since there isn't much a man can do physically that a woman can't either do or simulate, what really is the need for the man at all?
Well, possibly, but fortunately for heterosexual men and for obvious evolutionary reasons, the overwhelming majority of women are overwhelmingly heterosexual.

One question on your hypothesis though. How do you account for the tribal tendency of an entire village raising the children rather than couples? I think this was probably the case in primitive man.

Well, it's not a theory of everything! There is current thinking about sort of partial genetic inheritance. Like what I mean is, we are genetically interested in our offspring, who have half our genes, and our siblings, umm, is that the same? We have a genetic interest in our close cousins, etc. So in a small village, there could be a close degree of consanguinity that would encourage that.

Also we have a general genetic predisposition to care for children, and I'm sure you can see the evolutionary benefit of that.
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
Just explain why your understanding of what is sinful should have any bearing on my right to make my own moral decisions that do not affect you. And take those socks off now. In fact, in your case, I think sandals are the safest bet, as that avoids any risk of sock-sin.


BINGO! you do have the right to make YOUR own moral decision. i am not telling you what to think , i am just telling you what i think.

and you keep trying to pull me into your old testement sock claim.

we can go there, but its been done many times here. and plus this thing will go to 30 post quick.

the bible is in harmony - old and new testement and it is clear on things like adutery and on how in the new testement we are under grace about what we can eat.

but no such grace was extended to mans penis in another mans anus. in fact it was said AGAIN in the new testement that it was wrong.

in the old test. it was as barbaric as sleeping with your mother or with an animal.
in the new-test. just the same. it was not even CONSIDERED for marrage. so not Jesus never said ' gays can't marry". it was not even a topic. it was KNOWN to be wrong.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
BINGO! you do have the right to make YOUR own moral decision. i am not telling you what to think , i am just telling you what i think.

No, you have repeatedly told us that you do not want gays in schools, you do not want pride parades in the streets, and you want to see lifestyles other than your own behind closed doors. You ignore every post that points out these comments and repeat the fact that you "love" everyone. I suppose it is easy for you to love everyone while believing that we are all going to eternally swim in a great lake of fire for the sin of not believing as you do.

As has been stated many times, what you believe is not the issue. Stating what you believe is not the issue. Telling everyone else what to believe or to keep their beliefs where you can't see or hear them is the issue. Freedom of speech and expression is being aloud to say what you believe, teach what you believe and march through the streets if you so choose.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Here is an interesting fact for you. The bible mentions homosexuality 12 times. Of the 12, only 4 are not also related to sins such as rape or prostitution. Now if God was really that against homosexuality, wouldn't he have said a little more about it?


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]There are twelve mentions of homosexuality in the Bible:[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22)[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]5 refer to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8)[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
BINGO! you do have the right to make YOUR own moral decision. i am not telling you what to think , i am just telling you what i think.

and you keep trying to pull me into your old testement sock claim.

we can go there, but its been done many times here. and plus this thing will go to 30 post quick.

the bible is in harmony - old and new testement and it is clear on things like adutery and on how in the new testement we are under grace about what we can eat.

but no such grace was extended to mans penis in another mans anus. in fact it was said AGAIN in the new testement that it was wrong.

in the old test. it was as barbaric as sleeping with your mother or with an animal.
in the new-test. just the same. it was not even CONSIDERED for marrage. so not Jesus never said ' gays can't marry". it was not even a topic. it was KNOWN to be wrong.

My belief that your socks are immoral is not based on the Bible. It is based on my interpretation of my holy book, the Qble. It clearly and unequivocally states that your socks are sinful. Therefore they are immoral. What is wrong with this argument?

And btw, even your holy book does not prohibit lesbianism, and only an uncertain translation re: male homosexuality. Really not clear.
Divorce on the other hand...big no no. What do you have to say to the 30% of Christians who get divorced?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
And rocka21, without getting too explicit or personal, I assure you that neither penii nor anii are involved.
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
No, you have repeatedly told us that you do not want gays in schools, you do not want pride parades in the streets, and you want to see lifestyles other than your own behind closed doors. You ignore every post that points out these comments and repeat the fact that you "love" everyone. I suppose it is easy for you to love everyone while believing that we are all going to eternally swim in a great lake of fire for the sin of not believing as you do.

As has been stated many times, what you believe is not the issue. Stating what you believe is not the issue. Telling everyone else what to believe or to keep their beliefs where you can't see or hear them is the issue. Freedom of speech and expression is being aloud to say what you believe, teach what you believe and march through the streets if you so choose.


i have told you , i dont want gays in schools?

round and round we go.......... the point i was trying to make is that gays are marching in the streets and you don't want to hear the other side.

there you go again putting words in my mouth - when did i EVER say you were going to a lake of Fire. there will be sinners in heaven. we are all sinners.

are debate seems to be , is it sin.
:areyoucra
if i had a march in the streets saying homosexually is sin , you would call it hate.

i preach - you march ---------- see this freedom thing:beach:
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
My belief that your socks are immoral is not based on the Bible. It is based on my interpretation of my holy book, the Qble. It clearly and unequivocally states that your socks are sinful. Therefore they are immoral. What is wrong with this argument?

And btw, even your holy book does not prohibit lesbianism, and only an uncertain translation re: male homosexuality. Really not clear.
Divorce on the other hand...big no no. What do you have to say to the 30% of Christians who get divorced?


nothing is wrong with your argument as long as you throw out the new testament.
and yes, as for lesbians , its in the new testement.

as for divorce........ i think you need to read what Jesus said and Paul. in some cases its not a no, no.
 
Top