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

#651
#651
Aerie Vol said:
So, you're suggesting that homo/hetero is genetically akin to whether someone is 5'7" or 6'2"? Or whether someone is a muffin top or pear shaped?

I should point out here that I am a firm believer that some are born with a greater pre-disposition for becoming gay. Just as some are born more likely to become alcoholics, gambling addicts, etc because of a genetic heritage of the same. That doesn't mean they were born an alcoholic any more than it means the guy with extra femine qualities was born gay, for a stereotyped example.
Click to expand...

I was only suggesting that your dominant vs recessive argument was somewhat flawed from your base assumption, albeit a little harshly. I honestly don't care if someone is gay or not gay, nor do I care if they are born that way or not. I just don't like it when people use faulty science in arguments. Knowledge is power and should be used accordingly.
 
#654
#654
ellisjb0 said:
according to James 2:21 and Romans 4:2, there are TWO answers.

MIND EXPLOSION
Click to expand...

If you read James 2 you would see where it says faith was at work through his works. That his works were a result of faith. So the same answer in both.

DOUBLE MIND EXPLOSION
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#655
#655
you said:
Blacks or any other non-whites shouldn't be allowed to play football
Click to expand...

FYP for ya.

There. You might as well be some ignorant hick from Alabama in the 50's and 60's talking about segregation.

This is what this amounts to people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#656
#656
SCvol333 said:
It actually seems highly correlated - just not in the way that fade suggested

the more religious a society is the more brutal and violent it tends to be

I am not sure if it is causal but the correlation seems very strong

I think it would be an easy argument to make that if we could see a 40-50% drop in global churchgoing rates we would likely also see a significant and proportional drop in global violent deaths
Click to expand...

Made up stat. But even if it was even close to accurate it would be largely skewed by the Islamic extremists.

Also a study came out in the last year or two about the most generous/giving states. Vast majority of them were in the Bible Belt.

If Christianity is applied and lived out as intended, it would be loving, humble, and peaceful. But that doesn't mean it is or should be accepting of sin. A true Christian should take a stand against sin - whatever form it takes. But also not be hateful or haughty in doing so. Pride often gets in the way of this being done
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#657
#657
Aerie Vol said:
If you're still around, I'd like to invite you and everyone else here to participate in an experiment. It'll only take about a minute, and we've all already expended much more than that here.

You're God. Congrats. No seriously. Pretend you're God. Now, create. Nothing exists and you decide you want something to. Create. Whatever you want. I don't want to put ideas in your head, but it could be your dream world, or universe, or it may only exist in the ether. It could be a world where our beloved Vols (remember them) are always on the field in Neyland, vs. Bama, and it's always 1997 (Tuscaloosa, I know, but Manning was epic!) Anyway, spend the next 30 to 60 seconds creating a world. Really envision it in your mind, since, you know, it won't really spring forth like you were really God. Create. [jeopardy theme song]
Click to expand...

If you participated, what's your world like? Now, pretend Bill Nye the Science Guy stumbles into your world. He's a good scientist, right? What's he going to say about it. You know, empirically speaking.

Are there men in Neyland playing football? Bill could do an MRI on them and determine they were 20 year old athletes. Are they 20 years old? Yes. And they've been that old for about 5 minutes now - since you created them.

Did you have trees or other plants in your world? If Bill cut one down, what would he see? Would there be rings? Can a tree survive without it's center rings? Ok, that's a bit complicated and questionable. I guess you wanted your tree to die after just a few days, right? No? No. You're a good creator and knew the tree would need dirt with nutrients. How do nutrients get into the soil? Dead stuff. Queue Bill! "Oh look, dead stuff in the soil. These dead leaves have been decomposing here for the past 6 months." But have they? Yes - and they've been doing so for about 7 minutes now - since you created them.

I could go on, but you get the point. Let me proudly profess that I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old. And it's been that way for about 6,000 years now. Since God created it.

Want to argue with me? If you were a truly smart creator, would you create a brand new world? No, because nothing lives in brand new dirt. Adam was 30 (I guess) and he needed to eat, so he needed old trees, bearing fruit. They needed old dirt with already dead stuff in it. If humanity were ever to use oil, there'd have to be some stuff already down there which had been cooking up for millions of years. And He spoke, and behold, it was good.

I don't know if I agree with Ken Ham that dinosaurs walked the earth with humans. But then again, I'm not sure that bones in the ground is proof they ever walked the earth. Are you sure they did?
 
#658
#658
Fellas I have to get to work. I shall return later if fate, chance, happen stance, a divine work, my wife, Mohammed, Jesus, or Freak allows me.
 
#660
#660
ITT: Christian haters pick and choose what's meant to be interpreted in the bible while arguing the laws and ideologies of a secular state. Logical fallacies run rampant
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#661
#661
Aerie Vol said:
If you participated, what's your world like? Now, pretend Bill Nye the Science Guy stumbles into your world. He's a good scientist, right? What's he going to say about it. You know, empirically speaking.

Are there men in Neyland playing football? Bill could do an MRI on them and determine they were 20 year old athletes. Are they 20 years old? Yes. And they've been that old for about 5 minutes now - since you created them.

Did you have trees or other plants in your world? If Bill cut one down, what would he see? Would there be rings? Can a tree survive without it's center rings? Ok, that's a bit complicated and questionable. I guess you wanted your tree to die after just a few days, right? No? No. You're a good creator and knew the tree would need dirt with nutrients. How do nutrients get into the soil? Dead stuff. Queue Bill! "Oh look, dead stuff in the soil. These dead leaves have been decomposing here for the past 6 months." But have they? Yes - and they've been doing so for about 7 minutes now - since you created them.

I could go on, but you get the point. Let me proudly profess that I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old. And it's been that way for about 6,000 years now. Since God created it.

Want to argue with me? If you were a truly smart creator, would you create a brand new world? No, because nothing lives in brand new dirt. Adam was 30 (I guess) and he needed to eat, so he needed old trees, bearing fruit. They needed old dirt with already dead stuff in it. If humanity were ever to use oil, there'd have to be some stuff already down there which had been cooking up for millions of years. And He spoke, and behold, it was good.

I don't know if I agree with Ken Ham that dinosaurs walked the earth with humans. But then again, I'm not sure that bones in the ground is proof they ever walked the earth. Are you sure they did?
Click to expand...

i award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#663
#663
RockVol said:
I understand gay people want to let people know, but I don't care! Keep it to yourself, if you're gay, good for you, but I don't give a crap! I don't want to know about it. I believe it is wrong, but that is part of my religion. Just keep it to yourself!
Click to expand...

This X1000.
 
#665
#665
Aerie Vol said:
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.
Click to expand...
I admit your post was kind of hard to follow, but I think I got the gist of it.

Let's consider sickle cell anemia as our subject for emphasis, instead of homosexuality, and then look at it's implications. We'll use H and h as our alleles for sickle cell anemia, similar to how you used H and h with homosexuality. So with that said, let's begin,

If H gene (for Sickle Cell Anemia) is received from both parents, the subject will be afflicted. (HH)

If h gene is received from both parents, the subject will not. (hh)

Now it gets interesting. If H gene is received from one parent, and h from the other parent (Hh) a strange trait develops. Hh becomes resistant to malaria. Look it up if you don't believe me. This is one of the few examples of a heterzygous advantage in humans. This opens up the theory that homosexuality may actually be beneficial to us.

So why would a bad gene have have a positive counterpart trait, like resistance to malaria? The answer is not simple, but perhaps it is related to how homosexuality works. Also, I feel like it's worth mentioning that natural selection typically works on population as opposed to individual. These are all triggers based on the subject's relative closeness to the said gene (h) within its' own population, ie kin (and there are many, many biological factors as to what trigger the genes/trait - but in utero hormone levels are key in the the case of homosexuality).

So again, one way to look at homosexuality is that it offers a heterzygous advantage in the subject, i.e. it is a combination of the kin's trigger genes that results in a positive outcome in the subject ie homosexuality. Why? Because evolution works on the scale of large population as opposed to individuals and because we are very, very complex creatures - especially when it comes to genes and the brain.

TL;DR genes are not fully responsible for triggering the homosexual trait. It's a slew of different conditions, but genes and biological factors are the biggest factors. IF there is gene for homosexuality, then it's tied up with all those additional biological factors which we silly humans are still trying to decode. It's science!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#666
#666
Orange Death said:
No one asks me what my sexuality is, and I don't go around sharing it. What're you're saying is dumb and assumes people like to be defined by their sexuality.

Short sighted at best. :hmm:
Click to expand...

You guys really should brush up on your reading comprehension.

The ONLY reason it's a big deal is because this society makes it a big deal. What the original quote meant was that the reason gay people say "I'm gay" is because they want others to know that they are a minority of people facing an uphill climb into being accepted for WHO they are NOT by their sexuality. HELL, you can't tell by looking at them if a person's is straight or gay.

Gay people only make it about their sexuality BECAUSE THAT'S WHY PEOPLE DISCRIMINATE AGAINNST THEM.

F*** SAKES
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#667
#667
Ron Swanson said:
It's about human beings wanting to have equal rights and be accepted as equals. Many of the things said on this topic were also said during the civil rights movement. Not too long ago black people were 2nd class citizens just like gay people are today. Why is that so hard to understand?

I can hear it now, "I wish these blacks didn't shove their blackness in our faces all the time!" - many people in the 1960's.
Click to expand...

You are ignorant to equate homosexuality with the civil rights movement. One of the dumbest statements people say easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#669
#669
Volunteer_Kirby said:
I admit your post was kind of hard to follow, but I think I got the gist of it.

Let's consider sickle cell anemia as our subject for emphasis, instead of homosexuality, and then look at it's implications. We'll use H and h as our alleles for sickle cell anemia, similar to how you used H and h with homosexuality. So with that said, let's begin,

If H gene (for Sickle Cell Anemia) is received from both parents, the subject will be afflicted. (HH)

If h gene is received from both parents, the subject will not. (hh)

Now it gets interesting. If H gene is received from one parent, and h from the other parent (Hh) a strange trait develops. Hh becomes resistant to malaria. Look it up if you don't believe me. This is one of the few examples of a heterzygous advantage in humans. This opens up the theory that homosexuality may actually be beneficial to us.

So why would a bad gene have have a positive counterpart trait, like resistance to malaria? The answer is not simple, but perhaps it is related to how homosexuality works. Also, I feel like it's worth mentioning that natural selection typically works on population as opposed to individual. These are all triggers based on the subject's relative closeness to the said gene (h) within its' own population, ie kin (and there are many, many biological factors as to what trigger the genes/trait - but in utero hormone levels are key in the the case of homosexuality).

So again, one way to look at homosexuality is that it offers a heterzygous advantage in the subject, i.e. it is a combination of the kin's trigger genes that results in a positive outcome in the subject ie homosexuality. Why? Because evolution works on the scale of large population as opposed to individuals and because we are very, very complex creatures - especially when it comes to genes and the brain.

TL;DR genes are not fully responsible for triggering the homosexual trait. It's a slew of different conditions, but genes and biological factors are the biggest factors. IF there is gene for homosexuality, then it's tied up with all those additional biological factors which we silly humans are still trying to decode. It's science!
Click to expand...

The problem is the no homosexual gene exists. It is not proven
 
#671
#671
I've not been in this thread since very, very early this morning, but I would like to say the following, then move on:

To all who have participated in this debate in a civil manner, thank you. I have attempted to be fair and civil as well. If, at any time, anyone interpreted my arguments/opinions as personal attacks or as assaults upon their religious/personal beliefs, please don't interpret my actions as attacks. I've always been of an inquisitive mind, and what some may consider offensive actions on my part are simply my way of interrogating the deep issues. I mean no disrespect. Thank you again for respecting my opinions. Good debate, and we'll see you the next time around!

:peace2:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#672
#672
matts42012 said:
You are ignorant to equate homosexuality with the civil rights movement. One of the dumbest statements people say easily.
Click to expand...

Not really at all. This thread is full of dumb though, I agree. It's about equal rights, that's all this is. Some people don't want to give gays equal rights because they think it's wrong. Just like 50 years ago many didn't want blacks to have equal rights because they saw them as beneath the white race. How is it ignorant to see the similarities?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#673
#673
matts42012 said:
The problem is the no homosexual gene exists. It is not proven
Click to expand...
Notice how I'm just quoting what was said in the post you quoted. :loco:

"TL;DR genes are not fully responsible for triggering the homosexual trait. It's a slew of different conditions, but genes and biological factors are the biggest factors. IF there is gene for homosexuality, then it's tied up with all those additional biological factors which we silly humans are still trying to decode. It's science!"
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top