Southern Baptist leader wants to genetically alter gays, To make them straight before

#28
#28
Has Bush been blamed for this yet? If not, I'd like to go ahead and say it's his fault. I believe Halliburton is developing the genetic alteration device (in Dubai) as we speak.
 
#29
#29
Sorry. The Baptists beat him to it. Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson have a triumverate going on this issue. Purge sin....forget medieval 'purification' methods.
 
#31
#31
allvol123 said:
You must also be under the impression that every thread in VN adheres strictly to the title. There was a comment made that genetically altering someone was a bit of an absurd idea. I played off that. You can connect the dots if you are willing, or not.
Click to expand...
you got me. I thought you were comparing the two when you apparently weren't.
 
#33
#33
Does anybody in here believe that humans are actually born with no sexual tendencies? That their attractions are formed through experience, hence they are learned?
 
#34
#34
therealUT said:
Does anybody in here believe that humans are actually born with no sexual tendencies? That their attractions are formed through experience, hence they are learned?
Click to expand...
Again, how is this genetic trait reproduced? How does it still exist in the gene pool? Only logical answer would be that gay people are reproducing by performing straight sex, which makes me question whether being gay is an insurmountable genetic predisposition, or just giving in to your carnal desires.
 
#35
#35
therealUT said:
Does anybody in here believe that humans are actually born with no sexual tendencies? That their attractions are formed through experience, hence they are learned?
Click to expand...

VolunteerHillbilly said:
Again, how is this genetic trait reproduced? How does it still exist in the gene pool? Only logical answer would be that gay people are reproducing by performing straight sex, which makes me question whether being gay is an insurmountable genetic predisposition, or just giving in to your carnal desires.
Click to expand...
Did you even read my post before quoting it and responding?
 
#36
#36
Then again could it be that while Homosexuals are still human and preverse though they aspire to depravity which is of humanism. And while the disgust of the flock be lain upon them, and while the unclean among the Vols fans judge this not to be clean....They themselves are among the unclean. Is it then true and white that those with sin and cast stones will have their share of the hellfire?
 
#37
#37
therealUT said:
Did you even read my post before quoting it and responding?
Click to expand...
Yes. I guess I was trying to build on your query. Adding questions.
dan4vols said:
Is it then true and white that those with sin and cast stones will have their share of the hellfire?
Click to expand...
The brand of Chrstianity that I practice teaches me that once saved, always saved. People will sin. It's inevitable and it's also the reason to seek forgiveness. I don't know if homosexuality is sinful. I tend to lump it in the "not my problem" stack of social issues. I do have an interest in how a supposed genetic predisposition which would logically cause those who have it not to reproduce continues to exist if in-fact it is genetic. My suspicion is that genetics has nothing to do with it. If my suspicion is true, that does not mean that people should be open to persecution for their choices. After all, religion is a matter of choice and the practitioners of religion are a protected class.
 
#38
#38
There are hosts of genetic diseases that survive despite being completely debilitating to the individual -- (cystic fibrosis was in the news recently as a candidate for gene therapy, are you okay with this gene modification for this reason OE?).

Biologically, the reason these diseases continue to exist is that the genes which cause them are recessive or otherwise abnormal, and thus, it requires that both parents be carriers before the offspring will express whatever traits they encode.

That said, I don't think homosexuality can be easily classified either way. I've heard of it defined as both an inborn trait and a development that came later in life. I remember an article with some WNBA player that, after divorcing her husband, said her orientation had changed. Not sure of what to make of it.
 
#39
#39
jdsa said:
There are hosts of genetic diseases that survive despite being completely debilitating to the individual -- (cystic fibrosis was in the news recently as a candidate for gene therapy, are you okay with this gene modification for this reason OE?).

Biologically, the reason these diseases continue to exist is that the genes which cause them are recessive or otherwise abnormal, and thus, it requires that both parents be carriers before the offspring will express whatever traits they encode.

That said, I don't think homosexuality can be easily classified either way. I've heard of it defined as both a condition from birth and a condition that developed later in life. I remember an article with some WNBA player that, after divorcing her husband, said her orientation had changed. Not sure of what to make of it.
Click to expand...

i am skeptical of anything that defines homosexuality as a "condition" which in this case seems to liken it to a disease.
 
#41
#41
emainvol said:
i am skeptical of anything that defines homosexuality as a "condition" which in this case seems to liken it to a disease.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't "condition" be more apt to the argument than "preference"? If you have a preference, it certainly means you have a choice. If you are of a certain "condition", then you could have ended up at said "condition" either naturally or by choice.

I would be against calling homsexuality a "disease", however, I see no problem in labeling it a "condition".
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top