38 replies to this topic

[Nick]

Source? Have they ever proven that these "differences" cause this feeling of homosexuality? How can a man live his entire life and then become homosexual at the age of 30-40 (there are countless stories of this happening)? I'd like to see what subjects they used to test and found these differences. To be honest when it comes to stuff like this it's very easy to find one difference and instantly label it as being the cause.

I've heard people talk about it being scientific, but I've yet to see any evidence, which is why I'm asking.

Something I learned in my Genetics & Ethics class this year. I'd have to find the material, but I'm sure I could. You can use me as a reference - I didn't become gay until I was in 9th grade. Those men, ages 30-40 were probably just closeted and using it as an excuse for not coming out earlier.

Edited by Urban, 12 June 2008 - 09:29 PM.

[Noitidart]

Im pretty sure that the scientists that say its not a choice are not right. Why would God say that being gay is sin and then create people gay?

[414de7fe6]

there are some christian churches that acknowledge homosexuality as not a sin and there are some that even do marriages. I know of an episcipalian (i can't spell) minister who's gay. tons of different versions of christianity and it's up to them what they decide to do. personally i think it's the governments choice to allow gay marriage because they are the ones who grant the rights to married people.

Then they're not explicitly Christian, since they're completely ignoring a VERY important section of the bible. You either follow all of it, or none of it.

I'm not a devout Christian - I can hardly call myself one at all since I barely do anything concerning it, but I do live my life roughly conformed to the morals and values depicted by the bible. Homosexual marriage is something I am very strongly opposed, yet slightly supportive of (depending on the wording) to, for numerous reasons.

I'm perfectly fine with a legal union that grants similar rights to a marriage, but it must be made clear that this is a legal union, and not a Christian matrimony. This would mean that one of the rights forfeited would be the capability to have children (both through adoption and conception/surrogate mothers). Bringing up a child in an unbalanced environment is very much doing a wrong to the child, and would constitute abuse in my opinion. It would clearly be defined as a union, and not as marriage, and thusly would take place in somewhere other than holy ground.

Besides that, a union of sort has it's advantages. It may help to stem the rather prominent promiscuity within that sort of life style, essentially slowing down STD transmission by quite a bit.

[Nick]

Im pretty sure that the scientists that say its not a choice are not right. Why would God say that being gay is sin and then create people gay?

Because there is no such thing as God. Religion is a false hope for the pathetic human race to escape the reality of death. That being said, why the fuck should my marriage be determined by something that isn't even necessarily real.

[Sweeney]

Well that's interesting.

According to the American Psychological Association:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Emphasis mine.

Discussion of the precise cause does not equate to dissent from the theory that homosexuality is, for the overwhelming majority of people, not a choice.

[Ives]

Then they're not explicitly Christian, since they're completely ignoring a VERY important section of the bible. You either follow all of it, or none of it.

I'm not a devout Christian - I can hardly call myself one at all since I barely do anything concerning it, but I do live my life roughly conformed to the morals and values depicted by the bible. Homosexual marriage is something I am very strongly opposed, yet slightly supportive of (depending on the wording) to, for numerous reasons.

I'm perfectly fine with a legal union that grants similar rights to a marriage, but it must be made clear that this is a legal union, and not a Christian matrimony. This would mean that one of the rights forfeited would be the capability to have children (both through adoption and conception/surrogate mothers). Bringing up a child in an unbalanced environment is very much doing a wrong to the child, and would constitute abuse in my opinion. It would clearly be defined as a union, and not as marriage, and thusly would take place in somewhere other than holy ground.

Besides that, a union of sort has it's advantages. It may help to stem the rather prominent promiscuity within that sort of life style, essentially slowing down STD transmission by quite a bit.

You claim not to be devout and then tell people to follow it all? Where the fuck did you get that logic that puts you to be the exception to getting to avoid some of the laws but not others? (Which gay Christians do, though it is in debate that pederasty is more the idea they're referring to than man.)

I don't care if you come to conclusions which derive values from the bible and Christian philosophy, but why even bother claiming to be Christian in the slightest if you're not even going to bother rationalizing with a concrete argument why you don't follow through with living biblically as much as you can? Understood you are no exception to the various members of protestantism, catholicism, and nontrinitarianism, but from an atheist perspective, I'd much rather a flawed, guilt torn fundamentalist to someone who wants to call themself Christian so they can collectivize with a group of people so they don't have to reason their argument nearly as much.

"Unbalanced" doesn't say much, does it? If there's any reasons for homosexuals to have ANY sort of biological or social function, it seems to be to maintain the significant portion of the population which lacks the father and mother to begin with. Government is not the bible and it's absurd to assume that the government has the right to maintain religion, especially when we're talking about something so very profound as the idea of a God.

Joe, the entire point of me even posting that was simply because I was discussing the scientific tests that have been performed to support the theory that it's not a choice. Apparently not many have been successful. I'm reluctant to believe it's scientific solely because people say they think it's not a choice.

Afraid I have to agree it is a choice to embrace the lifestyle and culture related to homosexuality, but it cannot be argued that there are some people which are rather strongly emotionally and sexually attracted to the same sex. Urges to be with the same sex that can be avoided is probably more common place. In this case, I can understand under Christian logic these people should stick by as much as they can. But by the same count, I don't think making a psychological mess out of a person is the right way to go. Assuming I were a Christian, I'd much rather encourage a program which encourages celibacy among homosexual men and women, even if they are cohabiting with someone.

Edited by Athean, 15 June 2008 - 09:05 AM.

[Gone]

I just wanted to add a little side note.

The Y chromosome that men have and contribute to the woman to make a son is deteriorating. This means that men are becoming more primitive or "de-evolved" and are also becoming more "feminine". This is happening to all men. Women are still going to be smart and whatever they choose to be.

Another side note. The "Holy Bible" has been translated and moved through so many times, but people forget to mention that it is plagiarized ( Original is in Medu Netcher in dubbed "Book of the Dead", I believe). Its hard to say what was the original teachings but people preach their own interpretations of things.

Labeling things is pointless and some marriages circumstantial. There is a marrying tradition where if a man has no sons then he marries his oldest daughter off to the woman in order to continue the family line, even if she is pregnant and has a husband. There is no "evil" in that but is a technique to keep the family alive.

Marriage is one of the oldest legally binding contracts in the world and has much debate about it. Dowry and Bride-price are just two things and even forced relations under the banner of "your our my wife and I own you" is another. The same-gendered marriage shouldn't matter. There are religious saying of no murder and adultery but people still kill (also through death penalty) and many have extra affairs. I gotta go with what Rosanne(comedian) said about letting the gays be allowed to be just as miserable in marriage just like everybody else. "Free-love" is also a issue that would be limited through legalized marriage for all.

[Gone]

1) The Y chromosome deteriorating has never been linked to homosexuality.
2) The conspiracy of the Medu Netcher by far is one of the most uneducated out there. Many of the mainstream "facts" that seem to support it are severely constructed misinterpretations of the meaning of Christianity.
3) Just because people still murder doesn't make it right. That's like saying the law says murder is wrong, but people still murder, so it shouldn't matter either way.

I could probably same more but honestly I was at an overall loss of what exactly you were trying to say in that post.

response to 1) A guy being more feminie does not mean gay. It implies that he has tendencies that are usually believed to be femine (crap about "metrosexual"). I was not pointing it out to link it to homosexuality, it was just something I thought was interesting that a doctor brought up.

response to 2)Many "religions" came before the before stated Christanity. Medu Netcher is real and has evidence. Christainity orgins are under much scrutiny. To dismiss Medu Netcher is to show that you have limited views on understanding other cultures. Many cultures have religious myths(does not mean fake stories) that are similar in story. Medu Netcher is a writing, so how is that conspiracy? Christanity is not an original religion that was started in the many fabled and televised ways. Its sad when other religions are denounced as pagan when they were the original religions of all humans.

response to 3) Was soppose to explain how some religious people are hypocrits (religion against killing but pro the death penalty). So to use a religion as a excuse to not allow a person a right that everyone should enjoy doesn't make since. You took the comment too literally and didn't understand the underlying message.

There shouldn't even be labels like "gay" marriage since that implies that certain marriages are "straight" but their are also "bisexual" or "transgendered" marriages. The states are not soppose to be run by religious institutions so it is not fair for them to impact a place's legislature.

[Gone]

2) The conspiracy is that it's actually related to Christianity and that Christianity was "based" off of it, which is ludicrous. Any historian or archeologist who's familiar with the culture of the Israelites would laugh if you made that accusation.

3) What? We're not talking about freedom of speech here. This is an entity that has existed for thousands of years, that has been clearly defined for thousands of years, and that is holy to the Church. Since when did it become a right to come steal all of this away? I'm not taking their right to a union, they can have it. Marriage is logically not that union because it's reserved between a man and a woman.

The state is not basing this off religion. Their using common sense in realizing that marriage is between a man and a woman. They also realize that changing the definition would be infringing on this pretend separation of Church and State.

I think your mind is full of way too many hate views. You seem to think anyone that opposes homosexuality and homosexual "marriages" is some homophobic retard that has an agenda against them and enjoys making homosexual's life's miserable. Know what's interesting about that? That's EXACTLY what these homosexual political activists are preaching.

response to question 2) Yet agai n how is a piece of writing conspiracy. The writing has nothing do specifically with Christanity but is a writing lanquage, you know nouns, verbs etc. What anthropologist do you know because several anthropologist support this claim just like how all cultures of the world have a common AFRICAN ancestor. Did I say Christanity was based off it,no. I said christanity , as Europeans took it, was completely a plagerism of the writings made in some of the more spiritual stories that were written in Medu Netcher. Israelites would laugh why. Laugh at a devine "Jesus" that could have been made up and that they themselves don't believe to be devine. A Jesus whose presence in history is questioned. I'm talking about the history of religion, orgin of it.Israelites would recognize that their "religion" is not the first. I do enjoy college and exploring information on my own. People should do this also.

question 3) I didn't say anything about freedom of speech. You are misunderstanding what I am typing about. What are you talking about? I never said anything against people who oppose homosexual marriages as being "homophobic", so are you insane? I was talking about a joke Rosanne made about how uptight people are about homosexual marriages needing to be banded. Please reread before you go off the rail at nothing that was present at the first place. No one is changing the definition of marriage since there isn't a universal definition present. Union between people occured thousands of years before church and religion were even thought of, as part of a basic need of survival. They probably were not like what certain unions are considered today but inorder for communities to survive there was a need for people to band together closely.

Hate views? I'm not religious and I am not for or against any type of marriage. I never made it out like the world was against a certain group of people because of their orientation. Seriously, hate views? I never implied that people against certain marriages were prejudice and I explained that some same-gendered marriages in other countries are circumstanial. You are the one explicitly speaking of hate and discrimination and you are reminding of the religious people(hopefully limited group) who are against trivial things but don't make a big fuss about incest (Frankin D. Roosevelt recieved little or no protest about his marriage to his cousin Eleanor Roosevelt).

You are changing the course of the debate into an argument when you suggest statements are "uneducated" (almost all of my sources, who if you give me some time to look for I can list, have PHD's and are accreditted and respected around the world). That is a personal attack that makes a debate into an argument or "flame" war. I have also questioned your sanity in an earlier comment not to insult you but to ask you where are you getting your statements from because I do not beat around the bush and the information you are writing that you believe I am implying is not the case. If you need clarity, then ask for it, instead of assuming.

[Frizzle]

I feel sorry for you Josh. People usually misinterpret you as anti-gay when you're actually more pro-church? Am I right?

[Cory]

Please do not feed the trolls. One person banned from this thread for acting like an idiot.

[Gone]

2) The conspiracy I'm talking about IS about Christianity. This is not something I just made up, go google it. It's been quite popular in debates before, but nonetheless illogical. I really don't even know where you're trying to go with this. I would have thought that if you liked seeking knowledge you would not have so many misconceptions in your head. Now you're questioning the existence of Jesus? There are several historic, both Jewish and secular (Roman) that documented Jesus' life. Entire epistles were wrote about His life by men that followed Him (this is relevant because these men then spread the message, you would think if Jesus never existed these people would have noticed). The evidence goes on.

Okay, I stated that some of the writing in Medu Netcher is religious. You called all of Medu Netcher a conspirarcy. medu Netcher does not all deal with religion so Medu Netcher, in general, is not a conspiracy (the book of the dead is what you should proclaim as a conspiracy not the actual writing, that would be silly).

As, for the comment about questioning Jesus existence. I never said I question the existence but certain people in a religion does. I am not religious but I am all about history. There was conflict between some religious folk (Christain and Jewish) because the Jewish community believe in Jesus, but not as a divine figure (some people believe that Jesus is divine). Also many "writings" on Jesus have been discovered to be fakes. Also, you should know that semite(excuse spelling) is not limited to hebrew persons of Asia(Middle East I do not agree with) Semite is also in upper parts of Africa (focal point Ethiopia, however) and also parts of Europe. The Asian Hebrews contribute their racial background to both Europeans and Africans (Don't worry I took Anthropology and got a A). Please read The Africans who wrote the Bible-Ancient secrets Africa and Christianity Have Never Told, (2002) Because you need to read from more sources than the European ones that you have been reading because they will have a limited view that suits their best interest. Also, look up and watch
cheikh anta diop videos or read his book, he is a world reknowed scholar who uses evidence that the people themselves made and were discovered and accepted by people from around the world. Watch his video about the origin of man.

3) I'm simply making conclusions based on what you've said so far. From your previous posts you've always talked about all the religious people against homosexuality, multiple times, and are still doing it, so I figured you must think all religious people are like crazy homophobics. And by the way questioning my sanity has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

I guess you don't like dry humor. I think you may have misread my previous posts and took it the wrong way. I have nothing against religious institutions or others that the institutions have problems with. I didn't understand why you tried (and failed) at figuring out what I was trying to say. I never said all religous institutions and I never used he word homophobic (many religoius institutions have homosexual attendees so that would be an absurd comment)

I think I mentioned religion as a side note. That means that it is just a mention but does not need to be gone into.

I hate the sin not the sinner. Unfortunately people are too biased to accept that answer. They enjoy riding on people's religious beliefs and then mocking them for stuff they've never even claimed. I've just become used to it.

That is a really nice comment. It goes along with the hypocrite thing I was talking about (you know priest and certain people thing that was happening).

Also, the questioning of your sanity, I admitted to being inappropiate earlier, so please excuse my even drier humor but doing the same thing to me made no sense. I questioned your sanity because you blew off the handle and I din't understasnd how you could interpret my writing to be "name-calling" the religious institutions. As, I said earlier I don't beat around the bush so that was your own mis-interpretation.

I don't really understand how people can let things become such a big issue over nothing(talking about gay marriage topic). People cannot define something from writings that came before them. I mean Roman Catholics(Ancient) were all about Christanity but they( not the ENTIRE population) also enjoyed homosexuality, so I can't understand how someone can get homosexuality as a great evil from a book when the people who were actually around during the writing did not.

[pyke]

To get back on topic a bit, was marriage originally defined by the church?

[Gone]

To get back on topic a bit, was marriage originally defined by the church?

Out of personal opinion (sadly I have no evidence to back this), I believe that the church probably were the first to put a medium between the union of two people. Early people made unions that could be considered marriage when they claimed particular allegiance with a specific person and continued their gene. I think that the early unions probably were not recognized widely, however, and the church provided the opportunity for the union to be accepted in various areas around the world, since usually marriages being well-known were generally with the wealthy so it gave common folk a chance to spread the word. I don't know when the religious medium became the focal point of what is considered a legal marriage.

Side note @Josh

I could have typed it in fewer words but the point of the Semite text, is to explain how the religious writings in Medu Netcher is not neccesarily a conspiracy. The point is to bring up the fact that Semites have origins in various parts of the world. The area that has the religious writing in Medu Netcher is in Africa, which has hebrews. It is possible that the different regions each had a story, (as is a fact with the entire world), that had many similarities. Christanity is younger than the hebrew faith so for Medu Netcher to have some writings in the hebrew faith and being before Christanity does not make it a conspiracy. Christanity came from the Hebrew faith and the before hand mentioned religious writings had Hebrew faith in its writing. I guess it will be more believeable to you if I stated that the religious teachings in Medu Netcher, as well as other religious factors, helped to contribute to the teachings of christanity as we now know it(well maybe not me, I'm not religious). Hopefully, that better explained things. I never meant to imply that you didn't know anything but wanted to let you know that I wasn't a troll and that I do understand many things, but sometimes I don't convey what I'm trying to say clearly. All I ask for is respect in debates.

EDIT: The Hebrew religion came out of Eqypt, and was not a product of it. Monotheism also began with an Eqyptian phaoroah (I forget which Ramses).

Edited by Frowlsar, 15 July 2008 - 03:57 PM.