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

[utvolpj]

Sure seems like more of an attack than question asking to me, but wording isn't really my question. I think everyone is clear on what is compelling the Christians on here. I'm curious as to the compelling force behind the agnostics. Someone makes a statement or starts a thread that homosexuality is not in keeping with the quran and I don't feel the need to address it and I don't see many agnostics or atheists getting up in arms about it either. I guess the question is...why does Christianity rustle your jimmies so?

where are the attacks you see?

I would say the same no matter the religion. You wouldn't get the uproar because the number on Muslims on a UT message board is likely to be very small. They are also not the driving force in this country to get religious laws passed/forced on others

 

[Ostrich]

your ability to worship has not been infringed one bit. Not allowing it at a state function has nothing to do with that. You're arguing the wrong thing



I have worded by responses carefully in an attempt to not attack anything. Simply asking questions and believing differently is not always an attack

Hey, you're a mod. Do your job, please, and move this topic out of the recruiting forum. I stay in this forum because I don't want to see topics like this one. Thanks.

 

[utvolpj]

Hey, you're a mod. Do your job, please, and move this topic out of the recruiting forum. I stay in this forum because I don't want to see topics like this one. Thanks.

do my job? If you want to know, this thread was actually left in the recruiting forum by the board owner. It will likely be moved but until then...

at the top of the thread you'll see a dropdown named 'Thread Tools'. Click that and then 'Ignore this Thread' and you won't be forced to click on it anymore

 

[TNVolsScott]

:ninja:

My man! :hi:

 

[VolunteerVandiver]

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.

Gay bar?

 

[Vols4us]

it's your opinion that God did since all we have is man's translaton of what they think he meant. All this "love the sinner, hate the sin" stuff is merely an attempt to try and appear nonjudgmental. The very act of declaring someone a sinner based on your personal set of morals is doing exactly that

So if other people convinced your sons to do acts you disapproved you would be OK with that, since "declaring someone a sinner based on your personal set of morals is doing exactly that". Maybe your sons commit an act against your personal code, and maybe it is against you individually. That's OK, they have a different set of morals.

Might want to rethink that one.

 

[Aerie Vol]

sorry but your post is not very scientific. A citation from someone who understands genetics might be a good idea or I may have some bad news for my blue-eyed sons

Not scientific? I'll give a lesson on genetics if I need to. You have read the scientific research pointing to the extinction of red hair by some time in the 2200's, I assume.

Here's the science: H = hetero (dominant, or we're doomed) and h = homo (recessive, or we wouldn't still be here.) A given offspring gets one H or h from each parent. The only possible outcomes are HH, Hh, hH, and hh. The last pairing, hh, would result in a homosexual person, who then removes themselves from the gene pool, as they cannot have offspring with their mate. The other three go on to mate with another HH, Hh, or hH, as no hh would be attracted to them.

The results of 2 HH, hH, or Hh mates result in 5/9's of the offspring receiving at least one h. Which means that I was wrong, and the homosexual gene is more likely to be passed on than not. Or was I? It seems 4 of the possible outcomes are hh, which again remove themselves from the gene pool by falling for each other, spending a life of blissful love together, but eradicating their genes from the face of the earth in the process.

The result is in fact 4/9's of all offspring having the homosexual gene and a chance of passing it on. That's a mathematically losing proposition. The more times you take 4/9ths of a total, the smaller and smaller the population gets. "Born gay" by genetic trait is a mathematical impossibility unless the hh's are denying their true identity and mating with a member of the opposite sex. In the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years of human breeding pre-Biblical moral influence, the gene would have eradicated itself and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Did you really want to talk science, or were you just making chit chat? [Groundhog's Day reference]

AV
PS. Please kindly cease asking for a link and prove the above wrong. I welcome an intellectual response.

 

[utvolpj]

So if other people convinced your sons to do acts you disapproved you would be OK with that, since "declaring someone a sinner based on your personal set of morals is doing exactly that". Maybe your sons commit an act against your personal code, and maybe it is against you individually. That's OK, they have a different set of morals.

Might want to rethink that one.

what's to rethink? I have a different set of morals/beliefs than my parents do. I'm not raising my kids to be clones but to be able to think for themselves. I also don't subscribe to the thought of 'sin' when plotting my course in life

 

[VolBalla2014]

I am in the strong belief that you are not born gay but become gay based on condtions surrounding you growing up. I do not believe for one second that god puts us here on earth already gay.

My best friend who I met freshmen year at UT is a recently open gay man. I don't know what conditions you think makes you gay, but he grew up in a southern Baptist family that didn't accept being gay. He also went to Brentwood Academy where the law of "God" (or should I say the laws of the teachers of god) shoved down his throat that homosexuality was a sin, disgusting, and could be fixed. And he tried. He did everything he could from the moment he knew he was gay. He watched straight porn, girl on girl, and went through thousands of pictures of women trying to figure out why he doesn't find Scarlett johannson attractive. He tried having sex with women but literally could not get it up. I know people are just gonna say "well, he's being difficult" or "he didn't try hard enough", but don't you think from 10 years of trying to be straight, that he would be able to choose to like women? Not at all. There are times where I'll say, "Do, Date, Die: Jessica alba, Emma Watson, and Jennifer Anniston" and he always says "I really don't know". To me that's enough evidence that you do not become gay because of your surroundings. People try to change it but the truth is, attraction is subjective and I don't know why I like 6' tall girls with flowy blonde hair and a "pitchfork festival" look, but I do. Just like you can't figure out why he likes men. He doesn't know why he loves Leonardo DiCaprio, but when he was first coming out, he wanted to die from all the hate from people he thought were his friends and family. My best friend is a damn trooper, and I'm so happy he's got his first date of his choice tomorrow. Hate all you want, but god will continue to make boys that like boys, and girls that like girls.

 

[TNVolsScott]

Not scientific? I'll give a lesson on genetics if I need to. You have read the scientific research pointing to the extinction of red hair by some time in the 2200's, I assume.

Here's the science: H = hetero (dominant, or we're doomed) and h = homo (recessive, or we wouldn't still be here.) A given offspring gets one H or h from each parent. The only possible outcomes are HH, Hh, hH, and hh. The last pairing, hh, would result in a homosexual person, who then removes themselves from the gene pool, as they cannot have offspring with their mate. The other three go on to mate with another HH, Hh, or hH, as no hh would be attracted to them.

The results of 2 HH, hH, or Hh mates result in 5/9's of the offspring receiving at least one h. Which means that I was wrong, and the homosexual gene is more likely to be passed on than not. Or was I? It seems 4 of the possible outcomes are hh, which again remove themselves from the gene pool by falling for each other, spending a life of blissful love together, but eradicating their genes from the face of the earth in the process.

The result is in fact 4/9's of all offspring having the homosexual gene and a chance of passing it on. That's a mathematically losing proposition. The more times you take 4/9ths of a total, the smaller and smaller the population gets. "Born gay" by genetic trait is a mathematical impossibility unless the hh's are denying their true identity and mating with a member of the opposite sex. In the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years of human breeding pre-Biblical moral influence, the gene would have eradicated itself and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Did you really want to talk science, or were you just making chit chat? [Groundhog's Day reference]

AV
PS. Please kindly cease asking for a link and prove the above wrong. I welcome an intellectual response.

Serious question: What if a gay male uses a gay female to be a surrogate mother using his sperm and her embryo? Would this allow the hh to continue?

 

[utvolpj]

Did you really want to talk science, or were you just making chit chat? [Groundhog's Day reference]

you're basing your research on an incorrect assumption from the start. But I'll let you figure out where that is. In the mean time I welcome a link to any real research proving your scientific fact

 

[ellisjb0]

Not scientific? I'll give a lesson on genetics if I need to. You have read the scientific research pointing to the extinction of red hair by some time in the 2200's, I assume.

Here's the science: H = hetero (dominant, or we're doomed) and h = homo (recessive, or we wouldn't still be here.) A given offspring gets one H or h from each parent. The only possible outcomes are HH, Hh, hH, and hh. The last pairing, hh, would result in a homosexual person, who then removes themselves from the gene pool, as they cannot have offspring with their mate. The other three go on to mate with another HH, Hh, or hH, as no hh would be attracted to them.

The results of 2 HH, hH, or Hh mates result in 5/9's of the offspring receiving at least one h. Which means that I was wrong, and the homosexual gene is more likely to be passed on than not. Or was I? It seems 4 of the possible outcomes are hh, which again remove themselves from the gene pool by falling for each other, spending a life of blissful love together, but eradicating their genes from the face of the earth in the process.

The result is in fact 4/9's of all offspring having the homosexual gene and a chance of passing it on. That's a mathematically losing proposition. The more times you take 4/9ths of a total, the smaller and smaller the population gets. "Born gay" by genetic trait is a mathematical impossibility unless the hh's are denying their true identity and mating with a member of the opposite sex. In the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years of human breeding pre-Biblical moral influence, the gene would have eradicated itself and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Did you really want to talk science, or were you just making chit chat? [Groundhog's Day reference]

AV
PS. Please kindly cease asking for a link and prove the above wrong. I welcome an intellectual response.

you are quite simply, wrong. do you know what epigenetics are?

 

[Aerie Vol]

you're basing your research on an incorrect assumption from the start. But I'll let you figure out where that is. In the mean time I welcome a link to any real research proving your scientific fact

Straw. Man.

No thanks, please point it out for me.

 

[ellisjb0]

you're basing your research on an incorrect assumption from the start. But I'll let you figure out where that is. In the mean time I welcome a link to any real research proving your scientific fact

but he made the cute post with the capitalized and lowercase H's!!! No need for real empirical evidence!

 

[Aerie Vol]

Serious question: What if a gay male uses a gay female to be a surrogate mother using his sperm and her embryo? Would this allow the hh to continue?

Absolutely. What self-respecting cave man is going to do that? How did homosexuality survive the past?

 

[DoolaidDrinker]

Not scientific? I'll give a lesson on genetics if I need to. You have read the scientific research pointing to the extinction of red hair by some time in the 2200's, I assume.

Here's the science: H = hetero (dominant, or we're doomed) and h = homo (recessive, or we wouldn't still be here.) A given offspring gets one H or h from each parent. The only possible outcomes are HH, Hh, hH, and hh. The last pairing, hh, would result in a homosexual person, who then removes themselves from the gene pool, as they cannot have offspring with their mate. The other three go on to mate with another HH, Hh, or hH, as no hh would be attracted to them.

The results of 2 HH, hH, or Hh mates result in 5/9's of the offspring receiving at least one h. Which means that I was wrong, and the homosexual gene is more likely to be passed on than not. Or was I? It seems 4 of the possible outcomes are hh, which again remove themselves from the gene pool by falling for each other, spending a life of blissful love together, but eradicating their genes from the face of the earth in the process.

The result is in fact 4/9's of all offspring having the homosexual gene and a chance of passing it on. That's a mathematically losing proposition. The more times you take 4/9ths of a total, the smaller and smaller the population gets. "Born gay" by genetic trait is a mathematical impossibility unless the hh's are denying their true identity and mating with a member of the opposite sex. In the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years of human breeding pre-Biblical moral influence, the gene would have eradicated itself and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Did you really want to talk science, or were you just making chit chat? [Groundhog's Day reference]

AV
PS. Please kindly cease asking for a link and prove the above wrong. I welcome an intellectual response.

Using grade school knowledge of genetics and evolution is only going to prove you know nothing about how genes really work.

 

[dhb92]

Well Slydell, read it.

His Mom was a virgin when he was born. He is the Son of God. He healed people. He disciples 12 guys and commissioned them to tell the world about him, and they did. He turned over a bunch of tables in the temple out of anger. He never sinned. He died on a cross to pay the price for my sins, was buried, and 3 days after that he arose from the dead to conquer death; so that I could live eternity in heaven. Right now he's in heaven. In the future he'll come back to Earth, and he rule the earth for 1,000 years, have one last battle with Satan, then destroy the earth with fire.

Is that an H.G. Wells? Haven't read it yet but why'd you ruin the ending?! Gotta put up a spoiler alert or something.

 

[SCvol333]

This will stop being "news" when we stop having LGBT youth killing themselves because of a portion of society that makes them think they're sinners, wrong, disgusting ect.

This man serves as a role model to those youth and makes them think, "Hey, I may be able to do all the things I want to do just like him."

You may not agree with it, but with the LGBT youth suicide rate so high, it's pretty petty to knock this man down.

when I was born it a lot of people in this country didnt think interracial dating was okay either

the thing that gives me hope is every generation seems to be more open to people that are different and just overall seems to have a much lower share of bigots

so every day someone dies who is way more likely to be anti-LGBT than the person that is born that day - that new person won't even understand how someone could be on the other side of something like this

 

[Volfan76]

where are the attacks you see?

I would say the same no matter the religion. You wouldn't get the uproar because the number on Muslims on a UT message board is likely to be very small. They are also not the driving force in this country to get religious laws passed/forced on others

I wouldn't get into an uproar regardless of the number of Muslims on the board because I have confidence in my beliefs and faith. I would get into an uproar however if I had doubts in my beliefs and if I felt compelled to reassure myself by stomping out any notion that I could be held accountable by a God that I don't believe in. Not an argument....just something to think about.

 

[SCvol333]

Absolutely. What self-respecting cave man is going to do that? How did homosexuality survive the past?

the arguments on this front never cease to amaze me

do you really understand this little about how gene's work - seriously man - go get a &$%^# textbook and get off this message board - you are out of your depth

 

[FLVOL_79]

I wouldnt consider 1% or less of the population to be "mainstream". I think most people just don't care anymore and the fear of becoming a social pariah has dissipated over the years, which is rightly so. I care about someones sexuality about as much as I do their Japanese ceramic menagerie collection..

 

[TNVolsScott]

Absolutely. What self-respecting cave man is going to do that? How did homosexuality survive the past?

I wasn't discussing cave men, how homosexuality survived the past, nor am I discussing evolution or the Tree of Life. I simply asked a question that can be modeled based on data today.

Thus, it is not impossible for the hh to continue. Which possibly makes your original premise flawed, and genetics can account for homosexuality depite the 4/9.

Thank you for your response.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

A gay dude playing football! Oh noes!

 

[Aerie Vol]

you are quite simply, wrong. do you know what epigenetics are?

I did not, but I have researched it at the prompting of your question.

Please answer me directly: are you stating that the 5-10% of the US population which is currently estimated to be gay are all genetically identical to their heterosexual parents but have ALL undergone epigenetic mutation causing them to be gay?

Seriously? Epigenetic mutation at that high of a percentage rate? We're doomed if our DNA has lost that much control over our traits.

 

[dhb92]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

Everybody on this board should watch this with a truly open mind. I think Bill Nye destroys Ham's arguments. However, I don't think he disproves creationism. You just can't go into it with a literal interpretation of the Bible. To think that the world is just several thousand years old is asinine and just plain ignoring facts. And with that brings into question what in the Bible actually can be interpreted literally..