Proving the existence of Allah (swt) to an atheist

[Kerr]

Either way, it hardly matters. If Bisexuals also suffered from a genetic disorder, then wouldn't that mean they'd exhibit a "normal DNA pattering" and a "abnormal patterning". Since neither this nor a Gay Gene has been found, one can logically conclude that heredity plays little to no influence on the likelihood of becoming homosexual.

Why does it has to be caused by a disorder? And as said, it is probably a highly complicated equation that determines our sexuality, it seems like genes are a part of that (note I do not believe in a gay gene, it is probably a combination of genetic factors).

 

[Bismillah]

Hehe, that's a bit strong. We don't yet know which genes or combination of genes contribute to specific attributes. There are easier ways of finding out if a trait is strongly influenced by genetics, and certainly our lack of knowledge is no proof of anything.

Yet, I have not seen anything conclusive against the fact that among identical twins, if one brother is homosexual the other brother has a 50% chance of also being homosexual. If they have the exact same gene patterning, why is it only one half. Ideally, it should be closer to 100% and lowering a bit due to enviornmental uprgringing, but not to the point of one half. Does this not indicate that genes play little to no role in your sexuality?

 

[Commoner]

unfortunately, thats just your oppinion on what a statement might be. proves nothing. good try though.

Unfortunatelly that's just your opinion on what an oppinion on what a statement might be might be. proves nothing. good try though.

Seriously, what's with this "oppinion" crap?

 

[Kerr]

Yet, I have not seen anything conclusive against the fact that among identical twins, if one brother is homosexual the other brother has a 50% chance of also being homosexual. If they have the exact same gene patterning, why is it only one half. Ideally, it should be closer to 100% and lowering a bit due to enviornmental uprgringing, but not to the point of one half. Does this not indicate that genes play little to no role in your sexuality?

It is lower at other twins, though, which supports my idea that it is a highly complicated equation in which genes play a roll.

 

[Commoner]

Yet, I have not seen anything conclusive against the fact that among identical twins, if one brother is homosexual the other brother has a 50% chance of also being homosexual. If they have the exact same gene patterning, why is it only one half. Ideally, it should be closer to 100% and lowering a bit due to enviornmental uprgringing, but not to the point of one half. Does this not indicate that genes play little to no role in your sexuality?

50% chance of being gay is 400% higher than an average person has of being gay. A simple interpretation of that might suggest that genes play an 80% role (and the other 20% due to environment and other causes) in determining your sexual preferences.

Of course, this is an oversimplification, but still...

 

[Kerr]

Unfortunatelly that just your opinion on what an oppinion on what a statemant might be might be. proves nothing. good try though.

Seriously, what's with this "oppinion" crap?

Yeah... there is one "p" in "opinion" .

 

[Bismillah]

Why does it has to be caused by a disorder? And as said, it is probably a highly complicated equation that determines our sexuality, it seems like genes are a part of that (note I do not believe in a gay gene, it is probably a combination of genetic factors).

Wouldn't it be a disorder if it is genetic and something abnormal in comparision to the rest of the population? It does not matter if there is a Gay gene/equation/etc. etc.

Humans are biological creatures. Everything that we do, does have a biological component. However, what is the extent of this componenet? Studies like those of the transmissibility of scizophrenia, alcoholism, violence are all very weak. So even if a person is influenced by his genes to become homosexual, it would be just one of many reasons for that person to turn homosexual. So, even it a person is not Gay by choice, it doesn't mean he was destined to be Gay. Differing living conditions etc. etc. could have all affected his sexuality. Isn't this supported by instances of people changing their sexuality and then changing back, due to other stimulus. It's not as if they were the Genetic victims of Homosexuality. We all feel sexual urges, it depends on the context of the situation on how we act on them.

 

[Gharib]

Lol?


it's called a statement with no proof.

you shouldn't have a problem to prove me wrong then.

 

[Gharib]

So they no one can choose after their childhood years, yet some can? That is a contradiction. And you have yet to explain why.

i assume you are talking about a grown man saying he is homosexual after all these years. am i correct?

if you ask such a person whether he chose to be homosexual or not. i bet he'll say it's natural. if it's natural that means he has been a homosexual since childhood but didn't say anything untill now.

no contradiction whatsoever.

 

[Bismillah]

50% chance of being gay is 400% higher than an average person has of being gay. A simple interpretation of that might suggest that genes play an 80% role (and the other 20% due to environment and other causes) in determining your sexual preferences.

Yes, don't these twins also share the same enviornment? The same study, as Kerr mentioned, showed that they were also equally or more likely to agree on extroversion, religiousity, bigotry, religious prejudice. Aren't these all factored largely by society?

Actually there is also another study by Dr. Whitehead (lol) who found identical twins to be 30% likely to be homosexual. Perhaps another indication of how little the effect Genetics play on sexual prefrences?

 

[Kerr]

Wouldn't it be a disorder if it is genetic and something abnormal in comparision to the rest of the population? It does not matter if there is a Gay gene/equation/etc. etc.

By that logic left handed people suffer from a disorder.

 

[Gharib]

Which is basically the same thing. Let me ask you... why do you not think bestiality and hetrosexuality to be the same?

both are disgusting and immoral.

 

[Commoner]

Wouldn't it be a disorder if it is genetic and something abnormal in comparision to the rest of the population? It does not matter if there is a Gay gene/equation/etc. etc.

Well, what's abnormal? Is having red hair abnormal (approximatelly 1-2%)?

 

[Commoner]

both are disgusting and immoral.

Another one of those freudian slip-ups?

 

[Bismillah]

Well, what's abnormal? Is having red hair abnormal (approximatelly 1-2%)?

Yes
"ab·nor·mal (

b-nôr

m

l)adj. Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant."



abnormal - definition of abnormal by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Though if something is abnormal, then it doesn't necessarily mean that it is harmful (see redhead), that is just the connotation of the word and the thing that comes to mind.

 

[Commoner]

Though if something is abnormal, then it doesn't necessarily mean that it is harmful (see redhead), that is just the connotation of the word and the thing that comes to mind.

Maybe that's exactly the reason to avoid using it, huh?

 

[Gharib]

Then you don't know what a disease is then....

enlighten me.

I remember reading online that the gay/lesbian community makeup about 10% of the human population. If this is true then there will be no decline in the human population. There have been gay people from long time past and what we continue to see is gay/lesbian population growth as well as heterosexual population growth....so you may have to show where this decline is....

you expect changes so soon? slow down.

there have been gays/lesbians in the past, but same sex marriage was never allowed. they lived normal lives (this itself prooves that they can change to being heterosexual). but wait and see what happens in the near future whith the homosexual marriage etc becoming legal. you will see the population to start decreasing.

 

[Gharib]

Another one of those freudian slip-ups?

what sorry??

 

[Kerr]

Yes, don't these twins also share the same enviornment? The same study, as Kerr mentioned, showed that they were also equally or more likely to agree on extroversion, religiousity, bigotry, religious prejudice. Isn't these all factored largely by society?

Yes, but who say genetics does not affect that either?

 

[Commoner]

what sorry??

Read Kerr's question again.