The you don't want to get involved in this discussion thread (split)

#351
#351
LandonVFL said:
Came straight from my biology textbook. So if you want to argue against years of research by more qualified biologists than me and you go right ahead. Bottom line, being gay is not something you inherit genetically.
Click to expand...

Lol your textbook said gay gene? Btw chromosomes make up DNA= genetics
 
#352
#352
utvols74 said:
Another "closet-breaker". Consider the following....

Although it will probably change in the next few years, public bathrooms are separated by gender for modesty (remember that word?) and privacy's sake. This has and is done b/c of the natural attraction between male and female. Considering some (less than 2% of total population) of men are attracted to men, then shouldn't they have their own bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. for modesty and privacy's sake? If you're heterosexual, would you want a man glaring at your manhood? What about your pre-teen or teenage son - who leaves your dinner table at a restaurant b/c nature calls. Would you want a non-heterosexual glaring at him at the stand-up urinal? I'm not saying that all homosexuals behave in this fashion, but I'm not naive, gullible and stupid enough to believe none of them do either (just like a few heterosexual men glaring at hooters at Hooters). So open-minded, accepting of all, nothing-is-outside-the-boundaries thinkers - what do we do now?

Although he is certainly free to declare his sexuality and practice his passions with any of like-mindedness (thanks to many US military personnel and their sacrifices - just try this in Russia, Iran, Irag, Turkey, etc. etc...), I cannot accept it as "natural". Why?

Genitalia sharing between humans, insects, animals, etc. is for pro-creation. Assuming evolution is correct and survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle and further, since homosexuals can't pro-create, do we presume that they are genetic misfits (since they are "born that way" and not made)? If true, proudly admitting that you're homosexual is a bit oxymoronic (proudly admitting you're a genetic misfit). However, if "made", then professions like this are testaments to child-rearing, environment, etc. and if made, then it can be "un-made" as well. Further, if this is to be lumped into the same category as other maladies caused by poor child rearing and/or environment, do we consider it similarly as alcoholism, drug addiction, pornography, poor lifestyles/habits, poverty, etc.?

Either way, I can't accept it as "normal", despite Hollywood's, TV's, media, etc. efforts to convince me otherwise. Do I respect these people and wish them well? Yes, not because they're homosexual, but because they're human. It is possible to disapprove but not disrespect. Fire away - those of you awash in political correctness.
Click to expand...

+1. Very nice post
 
#353
#353
This thread is like a giant dogbone for us to get our offseason frustrations out on. It's going to be legendary if it doesn't get locked or moved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#354
#354
volprof said:
O contrar. I don't care what argument anyone makes, there is absolutely no way to reconcile the god of the OT with the god of the NT, assuming He is timeless and omnipotent (which He claims).
Click to expand...

Marcion of Sinope (circa 85-160), an early Christian Bishop and theologian, took that route and stripped out the OT and basically considered the OT God wicked/illegitimate and the theology of the OT as irreconcilable with the God of the NT and Jesus' teachings. Marcion was actually the first Christian to come up with a Christian Canon. He became extremely influential among the wealthy and powerful Roman's, particularly Roman soldiers (the fact that he was so popular among the military class gave him a lot of power but also made him a threat to others). Eventually, Marcion, like many others during this period, started to fall out of favor and made enemies of his fellow Bishops and was eventually declared a heretic and excommunicated.

However, Marcion's New Testament Canon was the major reason why a universal canon was put together. (there was no such thing as a bible or canon for several centuries which actually makes the borderline idolatry and worship of THE BOOK literalists engage in all the more quizzical since the very apostles who knew Jesus and were charged with spreading the gospel after the death and resurrection of Jesus certainly did not have a bible nor did they bind themselves or limit their beliefs and teachings so rigidly and would've laughed at the notion of literalism - a method of interpretation that doesn't come into existence until American slaveholders used literalism as a method of justifying slavery against the religious arguments of abolitionists). However, the powers that be wanted to streamline Christianity and shape it to fit their own beliefs and the idea of a canon served that purpose. Ironically, there's evidence that Marcion was the first and only major figure to start collecting the Pauline Epistles and no evidence that other early church father's had done so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#355
#355
PerneVedisUncool said:
Lol your textbook said gay gene? Btw chromosomes make up DNA= genetics
Click to expand...

You said "Down syndrome gene". There is not a Down's syndrome gene, you need to know what youre talking about before you say something. It's a mutation of the chromosome, mutations are random. genes do not determine Down's syndrome, random mutations do.
 
Last edited:
#356
#356
volprof said:
Pre-destination, the origins of Puritanism, Christian self-hate and guilt, etc. Calvin led Christianity down a hateful and self-deprecating path.
Click to expand...

What is it about pre-destination that makes your mind think of hatefulness and self deprecation?
 
#357
#357
UTProf said:
Marcion of Sinope (circa 85-160), an early Christian Bishop and theologian, took that route and stripped out the OT and basically considered the OT God wicked/illegitimate and the theology of the OT as irreconcilable with the God of the NT and Jesus' teachings. Marcion was actually the first Christian to come up with a Christian Canon. He became extremely influential among the wealthy and powerful Roman's, particularly Roman soldiers (the fact that he was so popular among the military class gave him a lot of power but also made him a threat to others). Eventually, Marcion, like many others during this period, started to fall out of favor and made enemies of his fellow Bishops and was eventually declared a heretic and excommunicated.

However, Marcion's New Testament Canon was the major reason why a universal canon was put together. (there was no such thing as a bible or canon for several centuries which actually makes the borderline idolatry and worship of THE BOOK literalists engage in all the more quizzical since the very apostles who knew Jesus and were charged with spreading the gospel after the death and resurrection of Jesus certainly did not have a bible nor did they bind themselves or limit their beliefs and teachings so rigidly and would've laughed at the notion of literalism - a method of interpretation that doesn't come into existence until American slaveholders used literalism as a method of justifying slavery against the religious arguments of abolitionists). However, the powers that be wanted to streamline Christianity and shape it to fit their own beliefs and the idea of a canon served that purpose. Ironically, there's evidence that Marcion was the first and only major figure to start collecting the Pauline Epistles and no evidence that other early church father's had done so.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. I love religious history (of all kinds) and learning where people's beliefs came from and how they evolved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#360
#360
LandonVFL said:
You said "Down syndrome gene". There is not a Down's syndrome gene, you need to know what youre talking about before you say something. It's a mutation of the chromosome, mutations are random. genes do not determine Down's syndrome, random mutations do.
Click to expand...

Chromosomes make up DNA DNA are genes
 
#362
#362
utvols74 said:
Another "closet-breaker". Consider the following....

Although it will probably change in the next few years, public bathrooms are separated by gender for modesty (remember that word?) and privacy's sake. This has and is done b/c of the natural attraction between male and female. Considering some (less than 2% of total population) of men are attracted to men, then shouldn't they have their own bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. for modesty and privacy's sake? If you're heterosexual, would you want a man glaring at your manhood? What about your pre-teen or teenage son - who leaves your dinner table at a restaurant b/c nature calls. Would you want a non-heterosexual glaring at him at the stand-up urinal? I'm not saying that all homosexuals behave in this fashion, but I'm not naive, gullible and stupid enough to believe none of them do either (just like a few heterosexual men glaring at hooters at Hooters). So open-minded, accepting of all, nothing-is-outside-the-boundaries thinkers - what do we do now?

Although he is certainly free to declare his sexuality and practice his passions with any of like-mindedness (thanks to many US military personnel and their sacrifices - just try this in Russia, Iran, Irag, Turkey, etc. etc...), I cannot accept it as "natural". Why?

Genitalia sharing between humans, insects, animals, etc. is for pro-creation. Assuming evolution is correct and survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle and further, since homosexuals can't pro-create, do we presume that they are genetic misfits (since they are "born that way" and not made)? If true, proudly admitting that you're homosexual is a bit oxymoronic (proudly admitting you're a genetic misfit). However, if "made", then professions like this are testaments to child-rearing, environment, etc. and if made, then it can be "un-made" as well. Further, if this is to be lumped into the same category as other maladies caused by poor child rearing and/or environment, do we consider it similarly as alcoholism, drug addiction, pornography, poor lifestyles/habits, poverty, etc.?

Either way, I can't accept it as "normal", despite Hollywood's, TV's, media, etc. efforts to convince me otherwise. Do I respect these people and wish them well? Yes, not because they're homosexual, but because they're human. It is possible to disapprove but not disrespect. Fire away - those of you awash in political correctness.
Click to expand...

Do we know enough about the science behind sexuality to say definitively that it is classified in either of those categories? It feels like a false dilemma to me. Maybe there is a genetic cause that will someday be found. Maybe it is determined in a way that humans don't understand.
 
#363
#363
I personally don't care. I hate that the media chooses to push things down our throat that are not newsworthy.

I don't have a problem with people because they are homosexuals, but I have a problem with homosexuality. I think there is definitely something wired wrong in homosexual individuals.

I'm not a bible thumper, or even a religious person whatsoever. My opinion actually comes from a biological perspective. If the majority of any species was homosexual - that species would eventually dwindle and die out. Therefor, homosexuality is an inferior trait.

Nature runs its course through a theory called 'survival of the fittest'. The genes and traits that more successfully result in reproduction are passed on to the next generation. If homosexuality isn't a choice, why hasn't it completely been depleted through generations of genetic selection? I personally, think it is a choice most of the time.

Whether someone consciously chooses to be gay, I don't know. I know people who are gay that don't know if they chose, and some that say they didn't choose. But I believe perhaps something happened subconsciously that directed them down that path, whether they realized it or not.

Also, not all gay people are the same - just as all straight people are not alike. I don't believe in painting a broad brush. I think it's sad that some like to just throw around personal insults and perceived insults such as "bible thumper" just because they differ in opinion.

So, yes. I'm anti-homosexuality. I'm not anti-homosexual.

My 2c.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#366
#366
BlueHalo said:
I personally don't care. I hate that the media chooses to push things down our throat that are not newsworthy.

I don't have a problem with people because they are homosexuals, but I have a problem with homosexuality. I think there is definitely something wired wrong in homosexual individuals.

I'm not a bible thumper, or even a religious person whatsoever. My opinion actually comes from a biological perspective. If the majority of any species was homosexual - that species would eventually dwindle and die out. Therefor, homosexuality is an inferior trait.

Whether someone consciously chooses to be gay, I don't know. I know people who are gay that don't know if they chose, and some that say they didn't choose. But I believe perhaps something happened subconsciously that directed them down that path, whether they realized it or not.

Also, not all gay people are the same - just as all straight people are not alike. I don't believe in painting a broad brush. I think it's sad that some like to just throw around personal insults and perceived insults such as "bible thumper" just because they differ in opinion.

So, yes. I'm anti-homosexuality. I'm not anti-homosexual.

My 2c.
Click to expand...

Pulling the string of the biological side of this, couldn't you argue that homosexuality evolved due to increased population and a trend towards overcrowding, and a percentage if the population being homosexual is a benefit to all of us?
 
#368
#368
Sorry, tried to stay away, but couldn't.

Romans 1:26-28

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done."

The bible says it is a choice, so you cannot be upset with Christians for believing that it is a choice since our Holy Book says that it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#369
#369
I think the fundamental question here is: why are a lot of straight men turned on by lesbians? Just my 2c, IMO TIFWIW
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#370
#370
utvols88 said:
Mark Swartz of Espn said a bar erupted in cheers when it was shown on tv. Bull ****. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. lol.

Goes to show the media will be ridiculous with this. It's sad.
Click to expand...

So, Mark Swartz was at a gay bar? The plot thickens...
 
#371
#371
RockVol said:
Sorry, tried to stay away, but couldn't.

Romans 1:26-28

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done."

The bible says it is a choice, so you cannot be upset with Christians for believing that it is a choice since our Holy Book says that it is.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but please stop eating pork and certain types of seafood if you currently do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#373
#373
I'm a christian and I believe in God. I will never be one to "support' gays because I don't think it is right. I will also never hate someone or harshly judge them because of the way they live. If they are open to hear what I believe then that is great, but if not then there is no reason to get so defensive about it. I believe that over time there are certain things that happen that are choice, but are driven by drives inside people. When humans first figured out they could kill eachother possibly for their own gain it happened. I see this in the same light as being gay. Once people are around eachother long enough there will be gay people. I'm not directly comparing being gay with killing someone.
I think it is a choice and giving into a sinful desire just like many of you think its bred in people. I just do not believe that everything on earth would be created female and male if thats not the way it was meant to be.

There's no reason to be so harsh whatever you may believe and mock anyones religion or beliefs. Even though I don't believe in it, I can't stand it when people are completely ignorant about homosexuality. On the other hand, you sound just as ignorant when bashing someones religion and beliefs.

Go Vols!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#374
#374
jjay2518 said:
Pulling the string of the biological side of this, couldn't you argue that homosexuality evolved due to increased population and a trend towards overcrowding, and a percentage if the population being homosexual is a benefit to all of us?
Click to expand...

Certainly. You can also argue that gravity does not exist.

I don't think it would be a wise argument. Factors like this which limit population (k-value) are brought on by outside sources (think of diseases or viruses). It is not as if our genetics can detect overpopulation, and then start putting more "homo" genes in our genetic code.

For an appropriate example of how these things change: a woodpecker didn't decide to grow a longer beak because it allowed him to penetrate wood better and get more food. It was a slow process in which birds born with longer beaks were healthier, lived longer, and reproduced more because they were able to find a better food source.

The woodpecker population declined because they were overcrowding each other, and viruses that typically got fought off, were passed between each other at faster rates and mutated to the point that their immune systems couldn't combat the virus.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top