God Hates Fags church threatens to picket Basingstoke

[Jin]

Not at all. In modern society as a whole, no "fear" of any minority leads to discrimination or murder.

I'm not sure if this statement is a joke or not. It's so deluded, it must be. Moving on.

You're saying that there's nothing wrong at all with wanting to screw little kids?

Not from an objective perspective, no. Certain subjective moralities may have something to say about it, but arguing over subjective morality is boring and a waste of time.

You sure? There have been conflicting studies -- most of which show that there is no natural cause for changes in sexuality.

Hence why I excluded those who are lying to themselves. Someone who is "gay" is either legitimately attracted to the same sex or isn't. If you're trying to say that no homosexuals are legitimately attracted to the same sex, then homosexuality doesn't exist. You should argue against self-delusions instead.

Because, as I already pointed out, if it is genetic and determined since birth, you can pass on those genes so that your children will find red hair attractive as well. There are no "homosexual genes".

Are you saying there's a "likes red hair" gene? I may not be a geneticist, but I know enough not to think that sexual attractions at a genetic level are as simple as off or on switches. It's a lot more complicated than that. While there may not be a specifically "homosexual" gene, that doesn't mean that a certain arrangement of genes influencing one's likes and dislikes can't also influence sexual orientations. The genetics argument is meaningless, however, as fetishes are caused not only by one's genetic make up, but by one's early life surroundings and experiences as well. My dad does not have the same fetishes that I do. I somehow doubt he was carrying a recessive "likes stockings" gene that was then passed on to me.

I don't get why people treat sexual orientation differently than fetishes. If a man takes it in the ass from a woman with a strap-on, he's got a bizarre fetish, if a man takes it in the ass from another man, he's something completely different? That's silly.

"they're all the same and there's nothing wrong with any of them."

That's the most sensible response.

[Casanova[OCAU]]

Not at all. In modern society as a whole, no "fear" of any minority leads to discrimination or murder.

Shit really? I live in Australia, which has a better standard of gini coefficient and better crime stats than most of America.

You should say that to the family of recently killed president of Australian Medical Association or the asian brain surgeon.

There most certainly is less fear of a minority from a larger chunk of people from metropolitan areas, but fark to say there is 'no fear of any minority leads to discrimination or murder' is a bit rich, especially coming from you, seeing as you support profiling people that look.. well.. brown.

You sure? There have been conflicting studies -- most of which show that there is no natural cause for changes in sexuality.

Actually, you might want to read up on the genome studies rather than random psychology ones.

While there is no "sin of femininity", you got the rest right -- you can either believe the Bible, or not.

Well as a christian, do you believe it? You can ignore the rest of my post but this, I'd like an answer for please.

That's a little much, ain't it? I mean, I know these people are complete shitbags, but isn't it a little fascist to say, "we won't let you into our country if we disagree with you"?

LOL if they didn't picket the veteran's funerals, you'd be their biggest fan mate...

There are multiple calls to combat in the Bible. There are also many calls for defense. These include, but are not limited to Luke 22:36, where Jesus says, "if you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Christians can't have it both ways. Are you lot a violent mob or the peaceful docile mob like your majority pretends to be?

Actually, the "spilling of the seed" thing must be taken in context -- one man was being commanded to have children, and he'd pull out and "spill his seed" on the ground instead of in his wife -- so in that specific instance, he was doing something wrong, because it was against what God had told him to do.

This god bloke seems like a real **** doesn't he? Impregnate your wife or I shall smite your ass.. because I can!

Just wondering here -- really, how long can you go without insulting people who don't agree with you? I mean hell, trying to liken people who believe in God to "imaginary friends" and "pink unicorns"?

Why not? ridiculous ideas deserve to be met with ridicule. An insult is personal. I didn't say 'YOU are an idiot' I said 'Religious people' are. If you chose to be a part of that group, the your choice.

You believe that a zombie without a father will save you from the end of the world. I mean really?

Damn all those ignorant, closed-minded people, claiming that they're right and anybody who disagrees with them is wrong, or that those whose beliefs don't match up are brainwashed ... and oh, that's not even talking about religious people.

You'll find that most atheists actually were bought up in very religious families or conservative backgrounds.

I'll bet that most christians were bought up in christian households where they were brainwashed from child birth weren't they? There's a difference between being ignorant and not considering other ideas, and having considered them and then discarded them.

Actually, I have seen that. It was a semi-regular occurance during the Proposition 8 battle in California, and it's not uncommon for other advocates of homosexuality to protest religious conventions.

Now this is interesting. Did these gay people protest that religious people were 'sinners and were doomed to the firey depths of hell'?

While I'm no fan of the Catholic Church or Catholocism, it is extremely ignorant to try to insult them for the few child molestation cases that have come up. When was the last time you called out the public school system? After all, children are more than two hundred times more likely to be molested by a public school employee than by a church employee.

Got a link for that? Actually I'd much prefer the Catholic church to all the American mega churches. They understand evolution, that the earth is round, that the earth is more than 6000 years old and evolution! I don't know 'how' people don't get evolution. It astounds me.

[Sasquatch]

I'm not sure if this statement is a joke or not. It's so deluded, it must be. Moving on.

It's not. Try it -- please show how society as a whole -- and not just select individuals -- is full of murderous hatred towards minorities.

Not from an objective perspective, no. Certain subjective moralities may have something to say about it, but arguing over subjective morality is boring and a waste of time.

You're saying that there's nothing wrong with wanting to have sex with little kids or animals? If I catch you near my nieces, you're getting shot.

Hence why I excluded those who are lying to themselves. Someone who is "gay" is either legitimately attracted to the same sex or isn't. If you're trying to say that no homosexuals are legitimately attracted to the same sex, then homosexuality doesn't exist. You should argue against self-delusions instead.

When are you going to respond to the point that there is no natural cause for a change in sexuality?

Are you saying there's a "likes red hair" gene?

Probably not a specific gene, no. But preferences are likely passed on to children. And not just through raising.

While there may not be a specifically "homosexual" gene, that doesn't mean that a certain arrangement of genes influencing one's likes and dislikes can't also influence sexual orientations.

Then there must be a natural cause for those genes to arrange in that order.

I don't get why people treat sexual orientation differently than fetishes.

So homosexuality -- or liking red hair -- is no different than pedophilia or wanting to get crapped on?

That's the most sensible response.

If you find nothing wrong with wanting to bone children or animals, it is. If you realize that some "fetishes" or "orientations" are not only sick, they're unnatural, then no, it's not the most sensible response.

Shit really? I live in Australia, which has a better standard of gini coefficient and better crime stats than most of America.

You should say that to the family of recently killed president of Australian Medical Association or the asian brain surgeon.

And society as a whole formed a lynch mob and killed them, did they? Or was it just a few nuts?

Wait, was my argument that nobody holds any prejudices against anybody, or that modern society isn't filled with murderous hate against minorities?

There most certainly is less fear of a minority from a larger chunk of people from metropolitan areas, but fark to say there is 'no fear of any minority leads to discrimination or murder' is a bit rich ...

... which is why I didn't say it.

... especially coming from you, seeing as you support profiling people that look.. well.. brown.

Really? Any other opinions I hold that you want to tell me about?

Actually, you might want to read up on the genome studies rather than random psychology ones.

Then show me some studies that homosexuality is genetic.

Well as a christian, do you believe it? You can ignore the rest of my post but this, I'd like an answer for please.

Believe what -- Creation? That homosexuality is wrong? Yes.

You can ignore the rest of my post, but I'd like an answer for this, so I'll ask it again: What Bible passages say that women "are the source of evil", or that they "are meant as property" or "have no understanding of the realities of human life"?

LOL if they didn't picket the veteran's funerals, you'd be their biggest fan mate...

Again? Please, let me know if there's any other opinions I hold that I don't know about yet. Don't let my actual beliefs stop you from holding ignorant opinions about me.

Christians can't have it both ways. Are you lot a violent mob or the peaceful docile mob like your majority pretends to be?

Christians can't want justified violence and only justified violence?

This god bloke seems like a real **** doesn't he? Impregnate your wife or I shall smite your ass.. because I can!

Hey, I don't make the rules. He told somebody to do something, and the guy kept avoiding it -- so He told the guy to stop avoiding it.

Why not? ridiculous ideas deserve to be met with ridicule. An insult is personal. I didn't say 'YOU are an idiot' I said 'Religious people' are. If you chose to be a part of that group, the your choice.

Ah, that's my bad. I'm used to having respect for people I disagree with. You don't see me calling you a dumbass for believing that we crawled out of ooze and magically sprouted arms and legs, do you? No matter how stupid that idea is. You can respect people without respecting what they believe. You get used to calling people idiots because they disagree with you, and you won't make it out of high school.

You'll find that most atheists actually were bought up in very religious families or conservative backgrounds.

Got a cite for that? Or just your opinion again?

I'll bet that most christians were bought up in christian households where they were brainwashed from child birth weren't they? There's a difference between being ignorant and not considering other ideas, and having considered them and then discarded them.

And you think most Christians haven't been confronted by other ideas ... like, say, having Evolutionism forced down their throats since childhood? More of your opinions trying to be passed off as fact?

Now this is interesting. Did these gay people protest that religious people were 'sinners and were doomed to the firey depths of hell'?

How the hell should I know? Judging by the usual tactics, they probably tried to manipulate the Bible against its believers, called them hypocrites and Nazis, and over-exaggerated the multiple claims and extremely few verified cases of violence towards homosexuals.

Got a link for that?

I'll make you a deal -- I'll look for it, and as soon as you post the Bible verses that you have manipulated into meaning that women are the source of evil, meant as property, and are unable to understand human life ... I'll be glad to post it.

But for now, you can check this out -- 21 employees of one school district in LA were fired for sexual relationships with students. How many Catholic church employees have done the same?

Actually I'd much prefer the Catholic church to all the American mega churches. They understand evolution, that the earth is round, that the earth is more than 6000 years old and evolution!

Actually, it was the Catholic church that tried to shut down the idea that the earth is round. The problem many Christians have with the Catholic church is that they manipulate the Bible as they see fit.

I don't know 'how' people don't get evolution. It astounds me.

It's because people "get" evolution that they don't believe it.

[OceanEyes28]

You believe the entire "Word of God" or you don't believe it at all; that's your opinion. So you believe in the creation story. Talking serpents, a woman being created from a man's rib to be his lesser companion and then eating a fruit and corrupting mankind. You support that throughout history women have been cited as the source of human evil and sin. They are not to have authority over man (1 Tim. 2:12) and are to keep quiet in church (1 Cor. 14:34) and if she "bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; her time of blood purification shall be sixty-six days." (Leviticus 12: 5) You believe in all of that?

Slavery, beating a child with a rod to save him... not rounding off the hair on your temples or marring the edges of your beard (Leviticus 19:27)?

As with women being meant to serve, homosexuality is "sinful" and "unclean" and the scriptures that say so are used to justify hatred and violence.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

The Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.

As a heterosexual Christian male, it must be nice to have yourself validated by your holy Christian text.

But for the rest of us, it is hard to find the sense in believing this ancient book to be the infallible "Word of God." It has some good lessons about love and respect for fellow human beings, but there is a lot of ancient prejudice to sift through.

[Furore]

It's not. Try it -- please show how society as a whole -- and not just select individuals -- is full of murderous hatred towards minorities.

I'd be more inclined to say bigger groups in society rather than society as a whole. Look at things like rednecks lynching blacks and gays and in Australia things like ethnicity fueled fighting...

YouTube - cronulla riots new video

As soon as you get one or more big groups wanting violence for whatever stupid minority hating reason, there's gonna be violence. In the case of the video above, some surfers started some trouble with some lebs as they looked Middle Eastern and therefore 'unaustralian' (noting that in some areas of Australia whites are a definete majority) and the whole thing went nuts. People were going to Cronulla from miles away and it encouraged more rioting elsewhere.

When are you going to respond to the point that there is no natural cause for a change in sexuality?

I personally believe there is. Unfortunately there may be no way for either of us to change our views here though as there's evidence of each as a possibility from both camps. What I feel you should ask yourself though is 'can you help being heterosexual?'. If your answer is 'no', maybe that goes the same way for homosexuals.

Probably not a specific gene, no. But preferences are likely passed on to children. And not just through raising.

I doubt that a lot. Me and my dad's tastes for example differ drastically. And in my extended family, there's a wide variety of different looks in terms of in-laws.

So homosexuality -- or liking red hair -- is no different than pedophilia or wanting to get crapped on?

Yeah, sure. Just like there's no difference between God and Vishnu.

And society as a whole formed a lynch mob and killed them, did they? Or was it just a few nuts?

A lot of nuts. In some cases a ****load of nuts. More nuts than I get on my $12 sundae, and that's a lot of nuts.

Wait, was my argument that nobody holds any prejudices against anybody, or that modern society isn't filled with murderous hate against minorities?

Modern society is filled with a lot of hate and prejudice. Just look at workplaces, common racial and sexual jokes and what happens when too many like-minded dickheads meet in the one place.

Christians can't want justified violence and only justified violence?

The question is really how much violence a Christian can justify as it's very subjective. Some are very pacifistic and others are just plain pesky at times with their forcing of beliefs onto others in ways other groups wouldn't. I personally don't see God and Jesus wanting us to disrespect the dead and force others to believe things through violence and intolerance. If you teach a person a lesson like that, chances are they won't learn the lesson, they'll hate you and what you stand for (God) and they'll look for any opportunity to stab you in the back. I'm for peaceful methods of spreading the word such as information sessions, church activities that better the community and similar, but I'll be damned if I try to force my own religious beliefs on others.

And you think most Christians haven't been confronted by other ideas ... like, say, having Evolutionism forced down their throats since childhood? More of your opinions trying to be passed off as fact?

Hear, hear. Evolution is a model I like to toy with in my mind, but it's still got several things wrong with it. There are other such exampls though where models that aren't flawless are still forced down the throats of every youth.

How the hell should I know? Judging by the usual tactics, they probably tried to manipulate the Bible against its believers, called them hypocrites and Nazis, and over-exaggerated the multiple claims and extremely few verified cases of violence towards homosexuals.

I think a lot of it's still buried in this day and age. Many sexual offences aren't reported due to the embarrassment a victim may feel. You see the same thing with rape cases and the like. A few do go all the way, but it's just the tip of an iceburg. I see enough of it here, and I understand it is a lot worse in some parts of the US, especially in certain specific places where racism and sexism are still prevalent.

But for now, you can check this out -- 21 employees of one school district in LA were fired for sexual relationships with students. How many Catholic church employees have done the same?

I don't know about child molestation as such, but I do recall a certain John Jay report suggesting 4% of US priests (over 4000 I believe) have been accused of sexual abuse of some description. That's still a decent number of priests behaving badly.

Actually, it was the Catholic church that tried to shut down the idea that the earth is round. The problem many Christians have with the Catholic church is that they manipulate the Bible as they see fit.

True that. It's part of the reason I prefer to identify as Christian than any specific denomination.

It's because people "get" evolution that they don't believe it.

Once again, I agree. Some things don't really make sense if evolution alone is to be believed. It either happened and something else did too or it's a flawed model.

[Fluffy]

If you find nothing wrong with wanting to bone children or animals, it is. If you realize that some "fetishes" or "orientations" are not only sick, they're unnatural, then no, it's not the most sensible response.

Only if you think that sick and unnatural equate to wrong. Jin is completely correct. There is nothing wrong with it, unless if you're going into subjective morality, which leads to a very stupid argument.

I think it's been said before, but the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia/zoophilia is consent.

I never consented to gay people wanting to have sex with me, but they're allowed to do it anyway. Why should children or animals have to consent to others wanting to have sex with them? Note: I said wanting to.

In response to Sasquatch wanting studies about sexual orientation and being there from birth, I have none. But I do have a strong belief that it is linked to something genetic. My family seems to have a strong "likes children gene", if I can call it that. In myself, and possibly my father, that seems to have lead to pedophilia. And yes, I have reason to believe that my father is a pedophile. This is also true of another person I know and his father.

I've also seen a study which showed that pedophilia has a far more common reoccurence in families which have pedophilia present in one or more of its members. The study also showed that this is not true of other paraphilia. I didn't bother checking how credible it might be, nor do I really care to find it again. It matters little to me. But if you really want it, I'll try to find it again.

[Jin]

It's not. Try it -- please show how society as a whole -- and not just select individuals -- is full of murderous hatred towards minorities.

Society is made up of individuals. You implied violent fear/hatred of minorities did not exist within the first world, not that it was less common than it used to be.

You're saying that there's nothing wrong with wanting to have sex with little kids or animals? If I catch you near my nieces, you're getting shot.

Why did you bother typing this? This is the exact same question you asked me last time and it has the same answer. You didn't bother to understand it terribly well last time if you think I have any desire to touch your niece, so I'll save both of us some time by not reiterating said answer.

When are you going to respond to the point that there is no natural cause for a change in sexuality?

When you give a definition of the word "natural" as you're using it. I can't read your mind, I don't know what you're trying to say when you use the word. I took a stab at your question using the definition I found the least stupid, given the context. Obviously, I chose the wrong one.

Probably not a specific gene, no. But preferences are likely passed on to children. And not just through raising.

Well then you're "likely" correct. How the hell does it help to tell me something likely happens? Dogs would live to 80 years if it wasn't for dog food. How do I know? Because dog food likely poisons their system.

Then there must be a natural cause for those genes to arrange in that order.

Again, your definition of "natural" is needed. Is a mutation natural? If so, then that would "likely" be the culprit. I have no idea. No one on this forum does, is what I'm trying to get at. This gene talk is all hypothetical and is a waste of time. However, if fetishes are genetic, then there's no reason homosexuality can't be.

So homosexuality -- or liking red hair -- is no different than pedophilia or wanting to get crapped on?

As far as can be proven at this time, no. Not unless a homosexual gene does, in fact, exist. Should I type that twice to get your next post out of the way in which you ask me the exact same question again?

If you find nothing wrong with wanting to bone children or animals, it is. If you realize that some "fetishes" or "orientations" are not only sick, they're unnatural, then no, it's not the most sensible response.

Or if you're speaking from an objective perspective in which morals are meaningless, as I was, it is.

[Voldnesis]

I doubt it's genetic. I can understand we're born innate with the sense of good and evil, however being born homosexual is like the same as saying being born a serial killer. Homosexuality and the character of a serial killer are acquired traits, not innate traits we're born with.

Fallen into certain conditions, our psyche can be manipulated and a desired trait can become realized. Without proper care and guidance, we'll fall into a ditch one after another.

The bible isn't a walk in sesame street. Why would you share your treasure with those who doesn't treasure it with you? Isn't it a wonder why certain things are kept in parables. Only those who seek will find.

[Zardoch]

So you believe in the creation story. Talking serpents, a woman being created from a man's rib to be his lesser companion and then eating a fruit and corrupting mankind. You support that throughout history women have been cited as the source of human evil and sin.

He would support that only if the bible actually stated that as fact and in reality, it doesn't. Women weren't created as lesser beings, but Eve certainly made the mistake of bringing sin into this world. That's the thing though, Eve made such a choice, but Adam did too. Eve wasn't the only one punished for it. Both her and her husband and the rest of the human race was.

They are not to have authority over man (1 Tim. 2:12) and are to keep quiet in church (1 Cor. 14:34) and if she "bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; her time of blood purification shall be sixty-six days." (Leviticus 12: 5) You believe in all of that?

Slavery, beating a child with a rod to save him... not rounding off the hair on your temples or marring the edges of your beard (Leviticus 19:27)?

As with women being meant to serve, homosexuality is "sinful" and "unclean" and the scriptures that say so are used to justify hatred and violence.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Did you actually read each book those verses are from or did you cherry pick the verses that try to substantiate your claims? If the latter, then you haven't proven anything at all. Most verses used to self-refute what the bible teaches are more often than not, taken obviously out of context. Surely, if it were so easy to refute the bible, more people would be turning away from Christianity than converting into it.

Let's take a look at each verse, shall we?

1 Tim 2:12

Here's a well written article about the verse and subject.

Women priests website

1 Corinthians 14 34

Quite a controversial verse, but understandable. The title my bible has for this statement (from v.27-36 in this chapter) is "Avoidance of Confusion in Assemblies". At first it speaks of 'If any man speak an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or three, and of course; let one interpret'. So as Paul continues, he expands on this issue for women to keep silent in churches and speak to their husbands later at home about relevant questions they would have raised in church. As such to 'avoid confusion within the church'.

Leviticus 12: 5, Leviticus 19:27, Leviticus 20:13

One thing that should be made clear is such verses are generally meant for people at that time. Meaning people in those days must follow such rules as spoken from God in order to remain spiritually clean. Since there was no simple manner in which your sins could be forgiven, such things, as cruel as they may sound, were the only way to do things. That all changed during Jesus' death and resurrection as everyone now had a way to have their sins forgiven without going through traditional matters such as offerings. So while me and other Christians accept what the bible teaches, you must remember that what it taught in those days don't qualify today because of Jesus. That is how powerful his sacrifice was. Truly, if we were to live by the standards of the Old Testament, we would be no better than the Westboro church.

Now, that doesn't mean we're to abandon the Old Testament either. Certainly there are philosophies that are useful even today. Just more people need to realize what I just said that various laws of the past don't apply to the present. Mostly because of Jesus himself. If anything, Oceaneyes, if you're really a Christian you need to actually study the bible and learn about such things before making rash conclusions. I, myself, read each verse you mentioned carefully before responding.

The Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.

But for the rest of us, it is hard to find the sense in believing this ancient book to be the infallible "Word of God." It has some good lessons about love and respect for fellow human beings, but there is a lot of ancient prejudice to sift through.

That's just it. They're ancient prejudices. It doesn't matter anymore. Are you going to stand up and try to throw white people into guilt trips for something that happened 50-200 years ago? No, because that only repeats the mistakes of the past. By giving ancient prejudices a reason to still exist, things will never be resolved. No real Christian, in this case, would actually stone a homosexual.

In the end, no matter how many people try to poke holes in the bible, it has lasted for the last 2000+ years and still stands. That has to count for something.

Now, on the subject at hand, I agree that this is getting old, Phantom, of you bringing up these subjects and news articles. It'll always end up the same way and nothing is ever going to change until you let go some of that resentment. The only reason the thread has survived for as long as it has is because religion was thrown into the mix. I mean you might not like Sasquatch, but you need to learn to at least respect his view. Just don't expect to be respected or shown tolerance when you give none.

[Joe]

I doubt it's genetic. I can understand we're born innate with the sense of good and evil, however being born homosexual is like the same as saying being born a serial killer. Homosexuality and the character of a serial killer are acquired traits, not innate traits we're born with.

Fallen into certain conditions, our psyche can be manipulated and a desired trait can become realized. Without proper care and guidance, we'll fall into a ditch one after another.

The bible isn't a walk in sesame street. Why would you share your treasure with those who doesn't treasure it with you? Isn't it a wonder why certain things are kept in parables. Only those who seek will find.

I definitely have to disagree, with Most of your points.

I'd say that Homosexuality is most likely well within standard genetic deviance. Many different animal species (few of which are capable of Real concrete human-like thought) have members that express homosexuality. Do you mean to say that the bunny rabbit in the forest Chose to desire to mate with other male members of his species?

I also am of the opinion that the traits of a serial killer are, while not genetic, certainly not something that one choses to do, in the conventional sense. There's already tendencies in the mind, there from birth, that as the brain and the person mature become more evident. Much like Autism is a neurotype that deviates from the standard, but isn't something that necessarily is caused by outside interference. (research suggests that autism has a strong basis in genetics)

It's because people "get" evolution that they don't believe it.

What is it about the Theory of evolution that you find So off-putting? It's far more likely, in my eyes than some magic all-knowing wizard taking a week to form the entire universe, as well as create mankind, 6000 years ago. not to mention the abundance of evidence suggesting that earth is Not in fact 6000 years old, but much older. (though if the Flying Spaghetti Monster had a say in the data, I would suppose that it would make sense then)

[Pete]

Personally I'm a fan of intelligent design. Y'know, we evolved, but the process was guided along with a little help.

As for everything else. Lets see.

Fluffy, consent is the whole issue. And it's all about actions, not thoughts. Thoughts and desires are a private thing. When those thoughts become words, then consent can become an issue, but in America, we have free speech, so you have to deal with gay catcalls. Animals can't consent. They can't speak human languages nor truly understand them. Yes, they can learn tricks and such, but that's word recognition and due to rewards. As for kids, legally, they can't consent. The law, loosely based on some type of scientific evidence has determined that you really don't know what's right for you or good for you until 18. In short, liking these different things does in fact deviate from the norm. It could be nature, it could be nurture, I can't say for sure. I can say that it isn't normal by any means. The only difference between homosexuality and the rest is that the attraction is between ADULTS, not ANIMALS or CHILDREN.

And yes, us Catholics are known to use the Bible as a means of telling stories and learning from it. Did Lot's wife really turn to salt? I think not. The moral of that story is to do what God (or anyone who directly controls your immediate fate) tells you. If He says you'll turn to salt if you look back, you don't freakin look back. Other than that, I agree with what Val said.

As for societies. A society depends on how you look at it. In a modernized society, people aren't killed by the majority. We don't have this whole Frankenstein-esque world, where entire villages chase people with torches and pitchforks because of differences. Yes there might be a few whackjobs or racists or bigots, but that exists everywhere, in every society. Some people are xenophobic, it happens. Some people are just plain stupid. The MAJORITY of people in modern society are normal people though, good people. Take America for example; Just because we still have a few people down South whose great grandparents may have owned slaves, doesn't make for a nation of bigots or racists. We had a history marred by it, but that doesn't define us.

Lastly, the Church gets a totally bad rap compared to the public schools in America. If you go on fark.com, you'll see at least one teacher getting arrested per day for inappropriate sexual contact with a student. It's an ongoing problem. The Church had a bad streak for a while, but that was only because there were so many cases that got reported all at a single point in time. Today, you hardly hear of it, because most of those bad priests are in jail or long dead. Though once again, it's a case of a few idiots leaving a black eye on the entire community.

[Phantom]

He would support that only if the bible actually stated that as fact and in reality, it doesn't. Women weren't created as lesser beings, but Eve certainly made the mistake of bringing sin into this world. That's the thing though, Eve made such a choice, but Adam did too. Eve wasn't the only one punished for it. Both her and her husband and the rest of the human race was.



Did you actually read each book those verses are from or did you cherry pick the verses that try to substantiate your claims? If the latter, then you haven't proven anything at all. Most verses used to self-refute what the bible teaches are more often than not, taken obviously out of context. Surely, if it were so easy to refute the bible, more people would be turning away from Christianity than converting into it.

Let's take a look at each verse, shall we?

1 Tim 2:12

Here's a well written article about the verse and subject.

Women priests website

1 Corinthians 14 34

Quite a controversial verse, but understandable. The title my bible has for this statement (from v.27-36 in this chapter) is "Avoidance of Confusion in Assemblies". At first it speaks of 'If any man speak an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or three, and of course; let one interpret'. So as Paul continues, he expands on this issue for women to keep silent in churches and speak to their husbands later at home about relevant questions they would have raised in church. As such to 'avoid confusion within the church'.

Leviticus 12: 5, Leviticus 19:27, Leviticus 20:13

One thing that should be made clear is such verses are generally meant for people at that time. Meaning people in those days must follow such rules as spoken from God in order to remain spiritually clean. Since there was no simple manner in which your sins could be forgiven, such things, as cruel as they may sound, were the only way to do things. That all changed during Jesus' death and resurrection as everyone now had a way to have their sins forgiven without going through traditional matters such as offerings. So while me and other Christians accept what the bible teaches, you must remember that what it taught in those days don't qualify today because of Jesus. That is how powerful his sacrifice was. Truly, if we were to live by the standards of the Old Testament, we would be no better than the Westboro church.

Now, that doesn't mean we're to abandon the Old Testament either. Certainly there are philosophies that are useful even today. Just more people need to realize what I just said that various laws of the past don't apply to the present. Mostly because of Jesus himself. If anything, Oceaneyes, if you're really a Christian you need to actually study the bible and learn about such things before making rash conclusions. I, myself, read each verse you mentioned carefully before responding.



That's just it. They're ancient prejudices. It doesn't matter anymore. Are you going to stand up and try to throw white people into guilt trips for something that happened 50-200 years ago? No, because that only repeats the mistakes of the past. By giving ancient prejudices a reason to still exist, things will never be resolved. No real Christian, in this case, would actually stone a homosexual.

In the end, no matter how many people try to poke holes in the bible, it has lasted for the last 2000+ years and still stands. That has to count for something.

Now, on the subject at hand, I agree that this is getting old, Phantom, of you bringing up these subjects and news articles. It'll always end up the same way and nothing is ever going to change until you let go some of that resentment. The only reason the thread has survived for as long as it has is because religion was thrown into the mix. I mean you might not like Sasquatch, but you need to learn to at least respect his view. Just don't expect to be respected or shown tolerance when you give none.

Now, on the subject at hand, I agree that this is getting old, Phantom, of you bringing up these subjects and news articles. It'll always end up the same way and nothing is ever going to change until you let go some of that resentment. The only reason the thread has survived for as long as it has is because religion was thrown into the mix. I mean you might not like Sasquatch, but you need to learn to at least respect his view. Just don't expect to be respected or shown tolerance when you give none.[/QUOTE]




Who said I didn't like him? Maybe if he used a different approach on expressing his viewpoint then druming up tension then maybe we wouldn't have a history, that doesn't mean I hate him, you need to mind your own business Val. Also hate is such a strong word its more like not agreeing with him to a certain extend. Val I don't make these threads to start up agruments even through some does. Secondly I can make these threads if I want too, if you don't like seeing them, why the hell do you bother replying? It's kinda hypocritcal that you and Agr whatever his name is don't like it when I make these threads yet whenever I do make them, you reply anyway (in almost EACH one, yet you don't like them.) Now does that make sense?


The only reason the thread has survived for as long as it has is because religion was thrown into the mix.

No, its because people has thrown in their opinons to make the thread survive. Opinons are important, its not like we get alot of sparking convosations here.

I mean you might not like Sasquatch, but you need to learn to at least respect his view

I don't really care about his view, I've heard it so many times, I've learned to toss it aside for other views. Val notice I never ONCE mentoned Sasquatch in this thread. Notice this sentence from page 1?

Quoted by Sasquatch: EDIT: Five minutes before I get negative rep from this? Damn. Nice

He was making this out to me because in the past I would've given him bad rep on the get go. This wouldn't have been the first time he made a comment to provoke me.

Just don't expect to be respected or shown tolerance when you give none.[/

No Duh genius. Opposite of Christians and others that detest homosexuality, homos like me dont receive much respect or tolerance (especially since that's what Christianity preaches, but mostly never pratices), so why the hell should I give it in return? Not that all Chrisitans are hateful bastards, some are friends of mine (some on this forum), so I've come to respect most people's opinons.


Lastly, I'll give you and Agr some advice: In the words of well...myself: "Don't like it, don't say anything at all, or look at it, especially since you claim to not like it when I post these topics. I mean I GET IT! You don't like them! I know that already! But until it becomes a rule not to post threads on the topics of gays (which they are some on this forum that like to hear the "gay word" and what goes on in the world") and there are people on here that like engaging topics like this one. Val, Agr, and you Sasquatch, I'm not asking you to be tolerate of gays like me, but in the words of my mother: GRIN AND BARE IT.

Sorry for getting off topic guys. Anyway..

@ Fluffy:


In response to Sasquatch wanting studies about sexual orientation and being there from birth, I have none. But I do have a strong belief that it is linked to something genetic. My family seems to have a strong "likes children gene", if I can call it that. In myself, and possibly my father, that seems to have lead to pedophilia. And yes, I have reason to believe that my father is a pedophile. This is also true of another person I know and his father.

I agree with what your saying Fluffy. I'm not sure if it is genetic but it would explain some things. For example, my father had sex with a few other guys before he met my mother, so he has a history of homosexuality or Bisexually. May be it can be a in the blood thing and is passed down from parent to child, I'm not sure on that theory, but this is something to studied.

EDIT: Here is the latest news regarding the Westboro Homophobic Church. I'm only providing the link only:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11263.html

[OceanEyes28]

I, myself, read each verse you mentioned carefully before responding.

Haha. Gold star.

I never said the Bible useless or without any good lessons. But it is used way too often to support hatred, out of context or not.

But I will say...

They're ancient prejudices. It doesn't matter anymore.

Exactly.

So why is there another article for Phantom to post? There are people ignoring messages of forgiveness and love to preach about prejudices that are thousands of years old. Ideally, the ancient prejudice against homosexuals would seem just as ridiculous and outdated and arguable to you and others as that of women. But here we are.

[RamesesII]

Every one is entitled to their own opinion and if they are peacefully protesting let them do so but going to the funerals c'mon thats just pure stupidity.

Myself im Anglican i don't go to church i don't pray i suppose you could call me a soft atheist but i've got a certain tolerance for the gays, jews and the like i mean i have friends who are homosexual i don't question it,it doesn't stop them from being my friend (as long as they don't come onto me lol).

I may have missed the point and most of the opinions but thats mine i say karma. They'll get what they deserve

[Sasquatch]

Well ... got page two done. Gotta go work out, but I'll be back to work on page three.

You support that throughout history women have been cited as the source of human evil and sin.

Where is this found in the Bible?

They are not to have authority over man (1 Tim. 2:12) and are to keep quiet in church (1 Cor. 14:34) and if she "bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; her time of blood purification shall be sixty-six days." (Leviticus 12: 5) You believe in all of that?

Many rules found in the Old Testament have been recast, since there's no need for offerings anymore, after Jesus. While the first two verses here have already been addressed, the third is immediately after instructions on what to do if a woman bears a male child.

Slavery, beating a child with a rod to save him... not rounding off the hair on your temples or marring the edges of your beard (Leviticus 19:27)?

The Bible addresses rules for slaves and owners alike. It doesn't say to "beat" a child, it refers to physical discipline. And again, many rules in Leviticus stopped mattering after Jesus's teachings and the New Testament. Like the "unclean meat" thing.

As with women being meant to serve, homosexuality is "sinful" and "unclean" and the scriptures that say so are used to justify hatred and violence.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

That's talking about homosexuality. Not about "women being meant to serve". And again, after the New Testament, we don't have to pay for our own sins anymore ... which is why there are no more calls for stonings or sacrifices.

As a heterosexual Christian male, it must be nice to have yourself validated by your holy Christian text.

As a normal person? What's up with all the female Christians, were they just "brainwashed"?

Only if you think that sick and unnatural equate to wrong. Jin is completely correct.

So sick and unnatural ... aren't wrong?

In response to Sasquatch wanting studies about sexual orientation and being there from birth, I have none. But I do have a strong belief that it is linked to something genetic.

My point is being illustrated nearly every post. There is nothing that says that homosexuality is genetic. We have some people saying that their parents' preferences have passed on to them, and we have some people saying that they haven't. The only logic here is that homosexuality is as genetic as celibacy.

I've also seen a study which showed that pedophilia has a far more common reoccurence in families which have pedophilia present in one or more of its members. The study also showed that this is not true of other paraphilia.

Interesting ... but is that "nature" or "nurture"? Is it something genetic, or is it the idea that, "Uncle Tommy likes young people but Uncle Tommy's still a good guy," which leads little Timmy to get the idea that liking young people is alright?

Society is made up of individuals. You implied violent fear/hatred of minorities did not exist within the first world, not that it was less common than it used to be.

Society is made up of individuals, but a few extremists don't sway society as a whole. And what did I imply? Lemme check ... Oh, yeah. That modern society as a whole (not specific individuals, but as a whole) isn't filled with murderous hate towards minorities.

I never even came close to implying that nobody at all fears or hates any type of minority. So please, if you'd like to argue against my points, choose points that I've made myself, not points that you've fabricated and attributed to me.

Why did you bother typing this? This is the exact same question you asked me last time and it has the same answer. You didn't bother to understand it terribly well last time if you think I have any desire to touch your niece, so I'll save both of us some time by not reiterating said answer.

Because I wanted everybody to see how friggin' ridiculous it is to find absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to screw a little kid.

When you give a definition of the word "natural" as you're using it. I can't read your mind, I don't know what you're trying to say when you use the word. I took a stab at your question using the definition I found the least stupid, given the context. Obviously, I chose the wrong one.

Maybe this will help.

Natural reasons for changes in sexuality. One does not have to be an Evolutionist to recognize the facts of micro-evolution. A species will change and adapt. If homosexuality was in any way genetic (other than being a defect), it would not get passed down and would eventually die out.

Well then you're "likely" correct. How the hell does it help to tell me something likely happens?

Read the posts of the people here that say that preferences have been passed down to them.

Dogs would live to 80 years if it wasn't for dog food. How do I know? Because dog food likely poisons their system.

And dogs without dog food don't live 80 years. Whoops.

Again, your definition of "natural" is needed. Is a mutation natural? If so, then that would "likely" be the culprit.

So homosexuality is a result of a mutation? Homosexuality is a birth defect?

However, if fetishes are genetic, then there's no reason homosexuality can't be.

Except for the fact that people that like redheads, or Asians, or stockings, can pass down their genes with a partner that is a redhead, or an Asian, or wears stockings. A homosexual cannot pass on their genes with another homosexual. Hence the "homosexuality is as genetic as celibacy" comment.

As far as can be proven at this time, no. Not unless a homosexual gene does, in fact, exist. Should I type that twice to get your next post out of the way in which you ask me the exact same question again?

No, just get your answer straight. You just said that homosexuality could be genetic, then said it wasn't. Pick one.

He would support that only if the bible actually stated that as fact and in reality, it doesn't.

That's where we differ. On Creation, anyway.

Many different animal species (few of which are capable of Real concrete human-like thought) have members that express homosexuality. Do you mean to say that the bunny rabbit in the forest Chose to desire to mate with other male members of his species?

Many different animal species also hump everything they can. Same sex, adolescents, different species, inanimate objects, etc. That doesn't mean it's natural for humans to do the same thing.

Much like Autism is a neurotype that deviates from the standard, but isn't something that necessarily is caused by outside interference. (research suggests that autism has a strong basis in genetics)

Downs Syndrome is caused by genes, as well. Is homosexuality a genetic defect, like autism or Downs Syndrome?

What is it about the Theory of evolution that you find So off-putting?

The gaping holes, the hoaxes, the legal thuggery, the violation of scientific laws, the religion exalting "nature" as its god ... those are part of it.

not to mention the abundance of evidence suggesting that earth is Not in fact 6000 years old, but much older.

Like radiometric dating, which has dated living creatures to millions of years old and Twinkies to hundreds of millions?

[Jin]

I never even came close to implying that nobody at all fears or hates any type of minority.

If that were true, you wouldn't have 3 or 4 people arguing against you as if you had. You misspoke. It's okay, it happens.

Because I wanted everybody to see how friggin' ridiculous it is to find absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to screw a little kid.

I think most people already have moral opinions about that topic. They don't need your help. You still don't seem to understand that your morals aren't natural law and that it's possible to argue outside one's own morals.

Maybe this will help.

Natural reasons for changes in sexuality. One does not have to be an Evolutionist to recognize the facts of micro-evolution. A species will change and adapt. If homosexuality was in any way genetic (other than being a defect), it would not get passed down and would eventually die out.

And the sky is blue. No kidding, hey? Species that don't reproduce tend to die out. No one is refuting that. Speaking from a Darwinist perspective, yes, it is a defect. Assuming that it is genetic. Again, I've never refuted that. However, people can and have passed on genetic defects to their children.

Read the posts of the people here that say that preferences have been passed down to them.

I have and none of it is any better than "likely". No offense, but until someone with a PHD in genetics tells me that beyond any shadow of a doubt, fetishes and so forth are caused solely by one's genetic makeup, I'm not going to believe it, or even say it's likely. I'll stick with "possible".

And dogs without dog food don't live 80 years. Whoops.

You don't read much past the surface, do you?

So homosexuality is a result of a mutation? Homosexuality is a birth defect?

If it were genetic, it'd have to be. Either it's a really stupid evolutionary move on the part of mother nature or just a rudimentary defect. From a Darwinian perspective, at any rate.

Except for the fact that people that like redheads, or Asians, or stockings, can pass down their genes with a partner that is a redhead, or an Asian, or wears stockings. A homosexual cannot pass on their genes with another homosexual. Hence the "homosexuality is as genetic as celibacy" comment.

This comment is just silly. Plenty of homosexuals have biological children.

No, just get your answer straight. You just said that homosexuality could be genetic, then said it wasn't. Pick one.

Of course it could be genetic. It hasn't been proven either way. However, until someone proves that homosexuality or any fetish for that matter is solely genetic, I'm going to believe that genetic influence is, at best, only marginal.

Why do you assume that people are always arguing for what they believe in? You seem to be really having trouble with this.

[Fluffy]

So sick and unnatural ... aren't wrong?

Well, perhaps I should start asking around to see what else is sick, so that we can begin to compile a list of all the things that are wrong in this world? Or would that be a completely stupid idea? Yeah, I think that'd be pretty stupid. Because everyone's opinion of what is sick differs. It isn't a good indication that something is wrong.

And unless if you're going to start arguing that men who like women who shave their body hair, or even women who shave their body hair themselves, or teens being told not to become pregnant even after they've reached the age of maturity are all wrong, then no, I don't see how you can use unnatural as a criterion for wrong, either.

My point is being illustrated nearly every post. There is nothing that says that homosexuality is genetic. We have some people saying that their parents' preferences have passed on to them, and we have some people saying that they haven't.

I'm sure you've at least taken a basic Biology course. Genetic traits are not always passed down. There is only a chance of it happening.

Interesting ... but is that "nature" or "nurture"? Is it something genetic, or is it the idea that, "Uncle Tommy likes young people but Uncle Tommy's still a good guy," which leads little Timmy to get the idea that liking young people is alright?

Are you actually asking and are open to the idea that it might be nature, or have you already determined that it's nurture?

In all my knowledge about pedophiles, I know that the majority of time, we tend to keep it a secret from everyone. Especially our family. So if I had to take a guess at it, I would guess that most likely, these family members did not know that their family members were also pedophiles. That's the best I have; an informed guess.

Nobody ever told me "It's okay to be attracted to little girls." No, the world told me that it was the most horrendous thing. I've lived in denial about this for 13 years. I'd been trying to ignore the fact that I like little girls because I thought it was wrong, because everyone told me it was. I hated myself for it. It wasn't until I fell in love with one that I realized that everything I had been told about people like myself was all a bunch of prejudiced lies.

[Joe]

Many different animal species also hump everything they can. Same sex, adolescents, different species, inanimate objects, etc. That doesn't mean it's natural for humans to do the same thing.

Downs Syndrome is caused by genes, as well. Is homosexuality a genetic defect, like autism or Downs Syndrome?

The gaping holes, the hoaxes, the legal thuggery, the violation of scientific laws, the religion exalting "nature" as its god ... those are part of it.

Like radiometric dating, which has dated living creatures to millions of years old and Twinkies to hundreds of millions?

Yes, many animals hump everything they can. So do humans, for that matter if you really think about it. What's Natural, by Most standards, is that humans seek that which gives them gratification (ever hear of Egoism?). If any particular human finds personal gratification in a homosexual relationship, then who are you to judge them? As many others have said, just because You view things in a certain way, does Not make it right for everyone. that's why there are also different religions as well.

If homosexuality does turn out to be genetic, then yes, according to Darwin it Would be a genetic defect, as it hampers the species ability to reproduce. Down's Syndrome is as well, as it hampers the ability to reproduce. They are still capable, but there's very few opportunities for it. Autism, on the other hand, is NOT a genetic defect, as it does not, in any way hamper ability to reproduce except in the most extreme cases. As I said in my previous post, it's merely a Neurotype, different from the normal, but no better and no worse.

Coudl you elaborate on these legal thuggeries, violations of scientific law, and hwo do you figure that it's a religion exalting Nature as it's god? Evolution never proposes to know where life began. for all we know, so magic wizard could have created the spark of life, however, what Evolution DOES try to explain is how life changed and adapted as the ages wore on, and new circumstances developed.

You don't seriously think that god created every life form at the same time, that dinosaurs walked alongside humans, and that we were born as the exact same humans we are today. That is Preposterous. Explain the appendix.

and the respond to your final point, I was thinking more along the lines of the Fossil record. Not to mention that many species over time have been left with Vestigal appendages, sort of like the appendix. Meaning that many generations before, humans needed and appendix. but now that circumstances have changed, we have Evolved to no longer require it.

[Furore]

Many different animal species also hump everything they can. Same sex, adolescents, different species, inanimate objects, etc. That doesn't mean it's natural for humans to do the same thing.

Doesn't mean it's natural for animals to neither. It's just not uncommon for deviations to exist in many species' sexual practices. Just as it's not uncommon for people to have 'odd' desires.

Downs Syndrome is caused by genes, as well. Is homosexuality a genetic defect, like autism or Downs Syndrome?

Are all 'genetic defects' that bad? I have Aspergers Syndrome myself which is a known form of high functioning Autism. Many leaders of different scientific fields are either known Aspies or were suspected of it. Some of my senses are heightened, and certain parts of my mind work differently than others might, but it seems to come at the expense of fine motor skills and memory. That is to say there are definete advantages balanced by a slight tremble when writing or drawing and an inability to have a 'photographic memory'. It effects individuals differently, and most of the Aspies I know who went mainstream in terms of education and the like aren't the socially retarded stereotype some seem to think they are. In some cases anyways, but I digress...

My point is that not all things abnormal are all that bad, especially in terms of genetic abnormalities. And I disagree that being homosexual is that big a defect as some may say as in this day and age a homosexual can still create offspring. There's every chance he/she could still get with a member of the opposite sex and have a kid AND there's also genetic material donaring and the like. The creations of a species also help to define it's abilities and limitations. As much as a spider's web allows it to do greater things than the spider itself, so do some adaptations for individual humans.

This whole issue is more or less based on personal views and beliefs any way I look at it. Why should some people lose their freedoms because there are those who would disagree with their ways? I think something is needed by more people these days. Some ****ing empathy and the ability to believe something is wrong and abstain yourself without imposing yourself on others.

[Phantom]

Yes, many animals hump everything they can. So do humans, for that matter if you really think about it. What's Natural, by Most standards, is that humans seek that which gives them gratification (ever hear of Egoism?). If any particular human finds personal gratification in a homosexual relationship, then who are you to judge them? As many others have said, just because You view things in a certain way, does Not make it right for everyone. that's why there are also different religions as well.

If homosexuality does turn out to be genetic, then yes, according to Darwin it Would be a genetic defect, as it hampers the species ability to reproduce. Down's Syndrome is as well, as it hampers the ability to reproduce. They are still capable, but there's very few opportunities for it. Autism, on the other hand, is NOT a genetic defect, as it does not, in any way hamper ability to reproduce except in the most extreme cases. As I said in my previous post, it's merely a Neurotype, different from the normal, but no better and no worse.

Coudl you elaborate on these legal thuggeries, violations of scientific law, and hwo do you figure that it's a religion exalting Nature as it's god? Evolution never proposes to know where life began. for all we know, so magic wizard could have created the spark of life, however, what Evolution DOES try to explain is how life changed and adapted as the ages wore on, and new circumstances developed.

You don't seriously think that god created every life form at the same time, that dinosaurs walked alongside humans, and that we were born as the exact same humans we are today. That is Preposterous. Explain the appendix.

and the respond to your final point, I was thinking more along the lines of the Fossil record. Not to mention that many species over time have been left with Vestigal appendages, sort of like the appendix. Meaning that many generations before, humans needed and appendix. but now that circumstances have changed, we have Evolved to no longer require it.

You don't seriously think that god created every life form at the same time, that dinosaurs walked alongside humans, and that we were born as the exact same humans we are today. That is Preposterous. Explain the appendix.




Not trying to change the subject at hand, but that's what makes me believe in the theory of evolution. I remember a episode of Family guy I watched that showed a brief evolution of the world, through its only a show, it kinda hit on what Joe is saying about theres no way that humans were just created on the fly and dinosaurs roamed the land together. I think it was that episode that featured Peter and his family getting locked in some shelter in their house and there was a flood, and Peter told the tale of the evolution of man and the griffins, it was rather funny.

If you guys saw it, he showed the Church's viewpoint on creationism, a jennie popped out of the ocean and zipped a bunny, a man with a briefcase, and a airplane, and other modern things, which was funny and showed how creationism seems flawed. I'm not basing of that on a cartoon but looking through history there were traces of evidence leading to dinosaurs, and prehistoric man (cavemen). I believe we evolved over time to what we are today. No matter how smart we think we are, all in all were still just animals, a species.

If homosexuality does turn out to be genetic, then yes, according to Darwin it Would be a genetic defect, as it hampers the species ability to reproduce. Down's Syndrome is as well, as it hampers the ability to reproduce. They are still capable, but there's very few opportunities for it.


I don't really think of it as a defect, I think of it more along the lines of discovering who we are. Like I stated in a pervious post, I believe that our sexuality is at a default level from birth, its more like its waiting in the wings until we find out and feel what sexuality we are. If you know what you like and you feel it in your heart of hearts that you are straight, gay, or bisexual then you'll know it.


I agree that being gay or bisexual does hamper reproduction, but if you think about it... NOT everyone wants kids. It's our choice as human beings wheither or not we want kids. Some Heterosexuals dont want kids either so you can't base that on just homosexuality because most Straight people dont want kids either. Plus a gay couple can always adopt a child, or go through the process of donating sperm to a woman that can have a child born with the genetic DNA of its father or mother and the gay couple can have the child the woman produced. It can be done, there are clinics like that in the US, and I think maybe in the UK too but I'm not sure. Can someone check to see if that's true?

[Casanova[OCAU]]

Personally I'm a fan of intelligent design. Y'know, we evolved, but the process was guided along with a little help.

Actually, the evidence against intelligent design is abundant. If you 'design' something, then you obviously approach it from a clean slate point of view.

The human body on the other hand, has several 'defects' left to us by evolution. Take the human eye or the gall bladder for example. The human eye has the cones pointing backwards and blood vessels coming all the way across the front. The brain has to go edit all this shit out. The gall bladder is an entirely useless organ for us except if it gets contaminated it could kill us.

Which 'intelligent designer' would make these basic mistakes.

Oh and sasquatch. The 'theory of the flat earth' is still a 'theory', just like 'the theory of the round earth'. Doesn't mean their both 'equal' theories that are going to be taught as equally legitimate points of view. One is based on facts, and the other is based on 2000 year old hallucinations of some bloke who took that one extra toke on the bong.

[Jin]

Actually, the evidence against intelligent design is abundant. If you 'design' something, then you obviously approach it from a clean slate point of view.

The human body on the other hand, has several 'defects' left to us by evolution. Take the human eye or the gall bladder for example. The human eye has the cones pointing backwards and blood vessels coming all the way across the front. The brain has to go edit all this shit out. The gall bladder is an entirely useless organ for us except if it gets contaminated it could kill us.

Which 'intelligent designer' would make these basic mistakes.

How is that evidence against intelligent design? Your argument is riddled with assumptions.

Assumption 1: You're assuming that the designer is infallible. The designer does not have to be the omniscient, omnipotent God from the Bible. He/she/it may be able to make mistakes.

Assumption 2: You're assuming that you're intelligent enough to fathom the designer's reasoning. If it created the universe, there's a good chance that the designer is far more intelligent than humans and is capable of seeing reasons we cannot grasp.

Assumption 3: You're assuming that the designer wanted a perfect world. Perhaps it likes imperfection or is actually mean spirited.

Assumption 4: You're assuming that intelligent design and evolution are incompatible. Pete quite clearly stated that he believes in an admixture of the two. There's no reason the designer could not have set evolution into motion. The designer could have sparked the big bang for all we know.

Assumption 5: You're assuming that it is possible to disprove metaphysical theories with empirical evidence. Don't.

[Pete]

Jin basically hit the nail on the head with this one.

I don't have evidence (obviously) as to why there are such things as defects, it could just be evolutionary. I'm not going to compare God to an electrician, in saying that He made a few minor mistakes. What I do believe though is that the entire process of evolution, as science sees fit, is just a little bit improbable without some divine help. I do believe that it happened, yes, but I just don't think that the world went from something completely uninhabitable to what it is today without just a little help from God.

As my college bio textbook taught me, the earth was pretty much a toxic rock, with conditions so bad that it would've been impossible for anything but single celled organisms to survive. Then, something (not the big bang, that happened already) happened, that allowed for the first steps of evolution to occur. Think along the lines of a lightning strike or similar. Now, if lighting does not strike this one little pool of prehistoric sludge, we're not standing here today. I can't tell you that it was God, but you'll never be able to prove that it wasn't. I just believe that in order to be as advanced as we are, then something else had to help guide the process along.

For some reason it's just hard for me to believe that we've achieved so much in the time we have without some kind of divine being guiding the course. I'm not saying it's all mapped out; maybe it is, I don't know. In that same vein, I believe that everything has a purpose, even super shitty things. There's always a lesson to be learned, even if it's not blatantly in front of us.

[Casanova[OCAU]]

I'm sorry but that just sounds incredibly dumb. What's the point of 'stupid design'? You may as well leave things to random change.. which, incidentally, is what the truth is.

It sounds like to appease your own upbringing/biases you want to somehow 'fit' a god into a model that doesn't intrinsically need or have a supernatural power in it.

Just some sort of blind desire/hope, which doesn't rely on reasoning.

How is that evidence against intelligent design? Your argument is riddled with assumptions.

Now I'm going to ignore all of the stupid 'assumptions' you've listed out, and address the valid ones.

Assumption 4: You're assuming that intelligent design and evolution are incompatible. Pete quite clearly stated that he believes in an admixture of the two. There's no reason the designer could not have set evolution into motion. The designer could have sparked the big bang for all we know.

Firstly, do you have an understanding of what the 'big bang' is? There is no 'before' the big bang.

Also, the human mind is brilliant at compartmentalizing. It will willingly accept two inherently incompaitable states side by side without making any real effort to reconcile them. Just because 'Pete says he believes in a mixture', doesn't mean that that mixture is possible.

Let me break it down. You can't 'negociate' truth. Just because you 'wish' that things just happen or happened to reach a happy medium, it doesn't work that way in reality.

Assumption 5: You're assuming that it is possible to disprove metaphysical theories with empirical evidence. Don't.

You don't 'disprove' things. You prove them.

I don't have evidence (obviously) as to why there are such things as defects, it could just be evolutionary. I'm not going to compare God to an electrician, in saying that He made a few minor mistakes. What I do believe though is that the entire process of evolution, as science sees fit, is just a little bit improbable without some divine help. I do believe that it happened, yes, but I just don't think that the world went from something completely uninhabitable to what it is today without just a little help from God.

Dude we had a few BILLION years. Have you any idea how long that is? Of course it's improbable but **** we had aaaaagggeeesssssss so that we do hit this probability.

As my college bio textbook taught me, the earth was pretty much a toxic rock, with conditions so bad that it would've been impossible for anything but single celled organisms to survive. Then, something (not the big bang, that happened already) happened, that allowed for the first steps of evolution to occur. Think along the lines of a lightning strike or similar. Now, if lighting does not strike this one little pool of prehistoric sludge, we're not standing here today. I can't tell you that it was God, but you'll never be able to prove that it wasn't. I just believe that in order to be as advanced as we are, then something else had to help guide the process along.

You should complain to the faculty for giving you outdated textbooks. Did you know that life forms exist even the the most extreme conditions imaginable? like on the rocks of a volcano, on acidic waters, more harmful to humans than the stuff we find in labs. I'm nto talking about single celled organisms here either.

Once again, it's not like 'all of a sudden' things started developing into complex organisms. It took BILLIONS of years. AAAGGGEEESSSSS.

For some reason it's just hard for me to believe that we've achieved so much in the time we have without some kind of divine being guiding the course. I'm not saying it's all mapped out; maybe it is, I don't know. In that same vein, I believe that everything has a purpose, even super shitty things. There's always a lesson to be learned, even if it's not blatantly in front of us.

We're essentially born into a system. We have control of the variables and a certain 'result' spits out. It's not divine. It's the only way things can exist without collapsing into an unstable heap. Basically, it's this way or no way!

[Jin]

It sounds like to appease your own upbringing/biases you want to somehow 'fit' a god into a model that doesn't intrinsically need or have a supernatural power in it.

My own upbringing? I wasn't raised in a house that believes in any God, nor do I actually. I'm just not silly enough to think I know everything. It sounds more like due to your own bias, you want to fit a scientifically quantifiable phenomenon into a model that doesn't necessarily conform to the scientific method.

Now I'm going to ignore all of the stupid 'assumptions' you've listed out, and address the valid ones.

They were indeed stupid assumptions. Try not to make them in the future.

What's the point of 'stupid design'? You may as well leave things to random change.. which, incidentally, is what the truth is.

Not everything needs a point or has to make sense to be (potentially) true. That was your argument last post, don't change it now because it suits your needs.

Firstly, do you have an understanding of what the 'big bang' is? There is no 'before' the big bang.

For a being that may exist outside of time, that isn't really an issue.

Also, the human mind is brilliant at compartmentalizing. It will willingly accept two inherently incompaitable states side by side without making any real effort to reconcile them. Just because 'Pete says he believes in a mixture', doesn't mean that that mixture is possible.

And just because you don't believe in that mixture, doesn't mean it isn't possible. It's so amusingly funny how sure you are that you've solved the mysteries of the universe.

You don't 'disprove' things. You prove them.

The world isn't a science textbook. Philosophers have no obligation to prove anything, nor do people on this forum who passingly say, "I believe so and so". No one in this thread has ever said that intelligent design is science. That's why it's not taught in science class (except perhaps in the South). Philosophy and science are not the same things and do not follow the same rules. The point of philosophy is to remind you, you specifically in this case, that you don't know anything. I'll assume you've never read a book on epistemology. You may want to sometime, you may just realize how silly you sound. Don't worry though, we've all been there.

[Sasquatch]

Who said I didn't like him?

You did. On multiple occasions. Even if you had never said it, it'd be easy enough to see from your overreactions on extremely simple subjects, like your bitch-fest in the FFVI trivia thread a while ago.

It's kinda hypocritcal that you and Agr whatever his name is don't like it when I make these threads yet whenever I do make them, you reply anyway (in almost EACH one, yet you don't like them.) Now does that make sense?

If somebody repeatedly posted anti-homosexual topics, you wouldn't like them, but I'd bet you would reply. Just because some people are getting annoyed that you only post one type of topic to get responses from people doesn't mean that those topic don't still warrant responses.

Quoted by Sasquatch: EDIT: Five minutes before I get negative rep from this? Damn. Nice

He was making this out to me because in the past I would've given him bad rep on the get go. This wouldn't have been the first time he made a comment to provoke me.

Wrong again. I posted that because I thought it was comedic that it took five minutes for somebody (not you) to give me bad rep on that post.

Just don't expect to be respected or shown tolerance when you give none.[/

No Duh genius.

That's actually a pretty good example of you not deserving respect because you don't give any respect.

Opposite of Christians and others that detest homosexuality, homos like me dont receive much respect or tolerance (especially since that's what Christianity preaches, but mostly never pratices), so why the hell should I give it in return? Not that all Chrisitans are hateful bastards, some are friends of mine (some on this forum), so I've come to respect most people's opinons.

Because it we think it's wrong, we're "hateful bastards"?

If that were true, you wouldn't have 3 or 4 people arguing against you as if you had. You misspoke. It's okay, it happens.

I have one person arguing against me as if I had -- that's you. There are others that are discussing the topic. You are, once again, trying to fabricate an opposing argument, because you're unable to argue against the actual opposing argument. It's okay, it happens ... often, with you.

I think most people already have moral opinions about that topic. They don't need your help. You still don't seem to understand that your morals aren't natural law and that it's possible to argue outside one's own morals.

That's perfectly fine. You can think that wanting to screw little kids is perfectly fine, and I'll let others judge that for themselves.

And the sky is blue. No kidding, hey?

Yeah. Like I said, there's no natural reason for a change in sexuality. No kidding, hey?

Species that don't reproduce tend to die out. No one is refuting that. Speaking from a Darwinist perspective, yes, it is a defect. Assuming that it is genetic. Again, I've never refuted that.

So it's either natural -- and a defect, a dysfunction, etc. -- or it's unnatural. Either way, it's not right. Is that what you're saying?

I have and none of it is any better than "likely". No offense, but until someone with a PHD in genetics tells me that beyond any shadow of a doubt, fetishes and so forth are caused solely by one's genetic makeup, I'm not going to believe it, or even say it's likely. I'll stick with "possible".

So there's no proof either way, but you're going to blindly believe your version, for no reason, until you're presented with proof against it?

You don't read much past the surface, do you?

You're "likely" situation made no sense, and I pointed it out. Sowwy.

This comment is just silly. Plenty of homosexuals have biological children.

Not by being homosexual. Did you miss that part?

Why do you assume that people are always arguing for what they believe in? You seem to be really having trouble with this.

I don't. When certain arguments are flawed, it doesn't matter whether somebody holds that argument for the sake of argument or because it's their personal belief.

Well, perhaps I should start asking around to see what else is sick, so that we can begin to compile a list of all the things that are wrong in this world?

You didn't say it wasn't sick or unnatural, just that that doesn't equate to wrong.

And unless if you're going to start arguing that men who like women who shave their body hair, or even women who shave their body hair themselves, or teens being told not to become pregnant even after they've reached the age of maturity are all wrong, then no, I don't see how you can use unnatural as a criterion for wrong, either.

Except for the fact that somebody who shaves their body hair or somebody that doesn't become pregnant at 13 can still breed.

I'm sure you've at least taken a basic Biology course. Genetic traits are not always passed down. There is only a chance of it happening.

The point is that, since adhering to different sexualities would prevent procreation, it's either a defect or a mutation. If it's genetic, anyway.

Are you actually asking and are open to the idea that it might be nature, or have you already determined that it's nurture?

I'm asking. Hence the question mark. Is it something that's genetic within the family, or is it something that's decided by the family's viewpoint and beliefs?

My family likes baseball. I like baseball. Is that because I've been raised by my family to like baseball, or because an interest in baseball is genetic? (Obviously sexuality isn't too comparable to baseball, but you get the point, right?)

Yes, many animals hump everything they can. So do humans, for that matter if you really think about it.

Most humans don't hump other humans of the same sex, or other species, or adolescents of the same species ... or inanimate objects.

Autism, on the other hand, is NOT a genetic defect, as it does not, in any way hamper ability to reproduce except in the most extreme cases. As I said in my previous post, it's merely a Neurotype, different from the normal, but no better and no worse.

Just because it doesn't interfere with reproduction doesn't mean it's not a genetic defect.

Coudl you elaborate on these legal thuggeries, violations of scientific law, and hwo do you figure that it's a religion exalting Nature as it's god?

Let's see ... legal thuggeries would include shutting down evidence that cannot be manipulated to support Evolutionism. Violations of scientific law would apply more to the Big Bang, but go along with Evolutionism, too. And exalting nature? Again, moreso with the Big Bang (which is usually taken hand-in-hand with Evolutionism), but still ideas claimed as "science" that are not scientific at all.

Most importantly, the huge gaps ... creation of life, animation, split from unicellular to multicellular organisms, life in different regions, etc. etc. etc.

Evolution never proposes to know where life began.

Very convenient for it, isn't it?

You don't seriously think that god created every life form at the same time, that dinosaurs walked alongside humans, and that we were born as the exact same humans we are today.

Of course not at the same time. It was within a few days. If I cared about what others thought of my beliefs, I would have bought in to the Evolutionism that has been forced down my throat since childhood.

and the respond to your final point, I was thinking more along the lines of the Fossil record.

The extremely incomplete and inaccurate fossil record? Good luck with that.

Not to mention that many species over time have been left with Vestigal appendages, sort of like the appendix. Meaning that many generations before, humans needed and appendix. but now that circumstances have changed, we have Evolved to no longer require it.

To back that up, we should have proof somewhere that sometime long ago, the appendix was more useful. I could come up with an idea that we used to have much longer fingers because we used to grab larger things, before we had the technology to make everything smaller ... and until I find proof that we used to have longer fingers, my idea has absolutely no validity.

Look, I'd love to debate ID/Creation vs. Evolutionism. But this topic is different -- if we are to continue on a different topic, let's make another thread for it.

Why should some people lose their freedoms because there are those who would disagree with their ways?

What "freedoms" have been lost?

Actually, the evidence against intelligent design is abundant. If you 'design' something, then you obviously approach it from a clean slate point of view.

So you're saying that you know better than God?

The human body on the other hand, has several 'defects' left to us by evolution. Take the human eye or the gall bladder for example. The human eye has the cones pointing backwards and blood vessels coming all the way across the front. The brain has to go edit all this shit out. The gall bladder is an entirely useless organ for us except if it gets contaminated it could kill us.

The gall bladder is not useless (non-vital doesn't mean useless), and it's not too difficult for the brain to "edit out" parts of the eye. Just like putting on a pair of dirty glasses.

Which 'intelligent designer' would make these basic mistakes.

You wouldn't. That's not to say that nobody else would. I'm sure we would all have different gameplans.

Oh and sasquatch. The 'theory of the flat earth' is still a 'theory', just like 'the theory of the round earth'. Doesn't mean their both 'equal' theories that are going to be taught as equally legitimate points of view. One is based on facts, and the other is based on 2000 year old hallucinations of some bloke who took that one extra toke on the bong.

Please don't tell me that you're ignorant and arrogant enough to equate the idea of flat earth with Creation. I thought you were better than that.

No one in this thread has ever said that intelligent design is science.

ID is as much "science" as Evolutionism.

That's why it's not taught in science class (except perhaps in the South).

Any more ignorant stereotypes you want to throw out? Have you ever been to the South?

[Jin]

I have one person arguing against me as if I had -- that's you. There are others that are discussing the topic. You are, once again, trying to fabricate an opposing argument, because you're unable to argue against the actual opposing argument. It's okay, it happens ... often, with you.

Haha. What exactly am I fabricating, sir? I made a counting mistake in how many people misinterpreted your words, perhaps, but that's all. I have no desire to argue against your actual argument as I don't particularly disagree with it. I was arguing against the argument that your words seemed to imply. Casanova seemed to be doing the same thing and so did Silver to a lesser extent. Those would be the 3 or 4 I was referring to; sorry for the mathematical error. If you'd prefer you can say that we all (or just me if you'd like) read it wrong as opposed to you typing it wrong, I don't really care. Either way, I'm not trying argue the point I understand you to be making now.

That's perfectly fine. You can think that wanting to screw little kids is perfectly fine, and I'll let others judge that for themselves.

Not quite there, but good enough. You have a yourself a deal.

Yeah. Like I said, there's no natural reason for a change in sexuality. No kidding, hey?

In the future, please define exactly what you mean when using ambiguous words like "natural". It'll save a lot of time.

So it's either natural -- and a defect, a dysfunction, etc. -- or it's unnatural. Either way, it's not right. Is that what you're saying?

"Right" is another word like "natural". I can't answer your question until you define the word as you're using it. If you mean "right" in a moral sense, then I can't give you an objective answer at all, only a personal, subjective one in which I disagree. But I'm not here to argue morals.

So there's no proof either way, but you're going to blindly believe your version, for no reason, until you're presented with proof against it?

Based on what I've read and on my own experience and observations, I believe what I have purported to be the most likely scenario, yes, but I acknowledge the possibility that I may be wrong. I wouldn't call that "blindly", but you can if you'd like. What else can one do until concrete, un-refuted evidence surfaces?

You're "likely" situation made no sense, and I pointed it out. Sowwy.

It wasn't supposed to make sense. That was its point.

Not by being homosexual. Did you miss that part?

No, I saw it.

I don't. When certain arguments are flawed, it doesn't matter whether somebody holds that argument for the sake of argument or because it's their personal belief.

Haha, fair enough.

ID is as much "science" as Evolutionism.

Is it? Explain how it uses the scientific method, please.

Have you ever been to the South?

I have, thanks. My comment wasn't an attempt to stereotype so much as it was an attempt to avoid generalizing. Had I said "that's why it's not taught in science class" and left it at that, someone would have no doubt brought up the movement to do just that, most of which, as I understand it, is being initiated in the so called bible belt. Perhaps better wording was required on my part. Like I said, it happens.

[Sasquatch]

What exactly am I fabricating, sir?

The idea that I "implied violent fear/hatred of minorities did not exist within the first world".

I made a counting mistake in how many people misinterpreted your words, perhaps, but that's all.

Misinterpreted, or manipulated?

In the future, please define exactly what you mean when using ambiguous words like "natural". It'll save a lot of time.

Not quite there yet, but I'll post dictionary definitions of every word that seems to confuse you. You've got yourself a deal.

"Right" is another word like "natural". I can't answer your question until you define the word as you're using it.

Here, I may have been too ambiguous. I didn't mean whether it was morally right or not as a question. I was referring to "naturally right", I guess ... I'll rephrase.

What I said: "So it's either natural -- and a defect, a dysfunction, etc. -- or it's unnatural. Either way, it's not right. Is that what you're saying?"

What I meant: So either it's natural -- and a defect, or a dysfunction, etc. -- or it's unnatural. Is that what you're saying? Either way, it wouldn't be something that's supposed to happen.

Based on what I've read and on my own experience and observations, I believe what I have purported to be the most likely scenario, yes, but I acknowledge the possibility that I may be wrong. I wouldn't call that "blindly", but you can if you'd like. What else can one do until concrete, un-refuted evidence surfaces?

Not much. I agree with you -- one can either take the middle ground and not believe either, or judge by their own life experiences and observations and pick one until they're presented with enough evidence to change their mind. What interests me is how many people who are hostile towards those who have applied this tactic to religious beliefs (not you per se, though I don't know) have themselves applied this tactic to other beliefs.

Is it? Explain how it uses the scientific method, please.

I never said that ID is scientifically proveable, just that it is as "scientific" as Evolutionism. For the Scientific Method to apply, the idea must be disprovable.

[Jin]

The idea that I "implied violent fear/hatred of minorities did not exist within the first world".

That wasn't so much fabricated as it was imagined.

Misinterpreted, or manipulated?

The former, but you can believe whatever you'd like.

Not quite there yet, but I'll post dictionary definitions of every word that seems to confuse you. You've got yourself a deal.

So long as you post a specific definition, sure.

What I meant: So either it's natural -- and a defect, or a dysfunction, etc. -- or it's unnatural. Is that what you're saying? Either way, it wouldn't be something that's supposed to happen

Thank you for clarifying. Assuming that an intelligent designer didn't will it for some particular reason, no, I wouldn't imagine so.

What interests me is how many people who are hostile towards those who have applied this tactic to religious beliefs (not you per se, though I don't know) have themselves applied this tactic to other beliefs.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's hypocritical.

I never said that ID is scientifically proveable, just that it is as "scientific" as Evolutionism. For the Scientific Method to apply, the idea must be disprovable..

Oh, I see, you don't think evolution is disprovable? I think it can be, but perhaps not. My knowledge of it is far too limited to say. Again, my misinterpretation.

This post was a bit boring, I'll admit.

[Furore]

What "freedoms" have been lost?

The greatest freedom of all good sir. The freedom to believe what you will and practice acts that wouldn't harm anyone else without being harrassed or undermined in any way.

But people being people, it's more than likely too much to ask for.