All the facts rest on Zeb’s side and you should be the one on the defensive as from multiple perspectives, your position is incorrect.
You are funny. Zeb himself admits that all the facts don’t rest on his side and that we actually don’t have many of the facts. [/quote]
Regardless of what Zeb has stated, it is a FACT that homosexuality goes against evolution and survival of the fittest (natural selection). So even if you don’t believe in creation and God, homosexuality is contrary to nature and biological function. So until guys can have babies out of their ass (excuse my French), it will always be a fact that homosexuality is contrary to the natural order of nature.
All the facts rest on Zeb’s side and you should be the one on the defensive as from multiple perspectives, your position is incorrect.
You are also the person who thinks that AIDS isn’t transmitted readily through gential sex against all the facts, evidence, and logic. [/quote]
No sport, I’m just repeating the statistical evidence presented on the CDC’s website. You have a problem with their facts, take it up with them.
Not sure what “evidence” you are referring to in regards to the idea that AIDS is transmitted just as easily in genital sex as anal, but I think we would all like to see that. Or perhaps you are doing what you accuse Christians of doing?
bwahahahahahahaha!!! this is THE funniest thread EVER… Just why any straight person would spend so much time pondering something that has nothing to do with them is slightly beyond me. Yes, yes, I read the idea that some mythical gay lobby is perverting a 5000 (?) year old institution, (considering most of your arguments are written in a Christian context I find this figure doesn’t quite add up) but honestly: how is 2 same sex people getting married going to affect YOU? Answer: it isn’t. Although who knows, maybe when I get married to my (female) finacee next year maybe I’ll be thinking, “this would have meant so much more if those pesky queers hadn’t ruined things”.
Some posts on this thread are a perfect illustration of why, depsite having a firm belief in God, I have never been tempted to join in in organised religion.
Oh yeah, and on another subject, to the guy above, I agree that excessively camp men can be very annoying. They probably don’t do much to dissuade the tards above that gayness is a conscious choice either, but why would they care? It seems they’re almost guarenteed a job in reality TV for their efforts…
All the facts rest on Zeb’s side and you should be the one on the defensive as from multiple perspectives, your position is incorrect.
You are funny. Zeb himself admits that all the facts don’t rest on his side and that we actually don’t have many of the facts.
Regardless of what Zeb has stated, it is a FACT that homosexuality goes against evolution and survival of the fittest (natural selection). So even if you don’t believe in creation and God, homosexuality is contrary to nature and biological function. So until guys can have babies out of their ass (excuse my French), it will always be a fact that homosexuality is contrary to the natural order of nature.
[/quote]
It’s not really a fact. It’s an illogical inconsistency. If it’s against God’s plan, why has he allowed it to exist? If it’s against natural selection and evolution why has it continued to exists? Natural selection argubably doesn’t apply to human beings these days. But why is homosexual behavior frequently observed in these animals? If it’s against God and all of these theories, then the theories are either wrong as it exists or it’s covered under the theories.
It is really insulting, patronizing and infuriating to be told over and over that I don’t know anything about how I came to be gay. It is rather a lot like being told I wasn’t having extremely painful menstrual cramps, that it was all in my mind. I did know and I do know. I’ve been this way since I can remember. It is not a phase. I came out when I was sixteen. I am in my forties. My mother knew I was gay when I was a kid.
[/quote]
Would that also be like a young boy who molests his sister who is only 6 years old? He was a child molester from a boy, so it’s genetic?
Or maybe like a boy with hemophilia from a child? Should we say then, “oh, it’s just a his choice and we should respect that” and not treat him as being ill?
You can’t have it both ways sister. Either it is a learned behavior, in which case, you can change (like many have). Or it is genetic, in which case treatment would be in order.
All the facts rest on Zeb’s side and you should be the one on the defensive as from multiple perspectives, your position is incorrect.
You are also the person who thinks that AIDS isn’t transmitted readily through gential sex against all the facts, evidence, and logic.
No sport, I’m just repeating the statistical evidence presented on the CDC’s website. You have a problem with their facts, take it up with them.
Not sure what “evidence” you are referring to in regards to the idea that AIDS is transmitted just as easily in genital sex as anal, but I think we would all like to see that. Or perhaps you are doing what you accuse Christians of doing?
[/quote]
I never said it is transmitted AS easily. I said it was transmitted readily. And it is. I thought you were saying it wasn’t. If you agree that AIDS is highly transmissable through genital sex but MORE transmissable through anal sex, then you are not an idiot and your opinion is consistent with all of the evidence and current medical belief worldwide. In which case, I apologize for misinterpreting.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I haven’t seen any evidence that a kid raised by gay parents has a greater chance of becoming gay. Maybe more likely to be openly gay. But not become gay in the first place. I agree that reseaarch should continue to get a better grasp on causes. But it may always remain a mystery. That shouldn’t matter, however, if we stop stigmatiing it as a society just accept it. Easier said than done, of course. And I’m not completely free of my own prejudices. But I try.[/quote]
Actually, in my experience of knowing a few gay couples with kids, the kids most always turn out straight. Maybe the parents were good models of what NOT to do?
It is really insulting, patronizing and infuriating to be told over and over that I don’t know anything about how I came to be gay. It is rather a lot like being told I wasn’t having extremely painful menstrual cramps, that it was all in my mind. I did know and I do know. I’ve been this way since I can remember. It is not a phase. I came out when I was sixteen. I am in my forties. My mother knew I was gay when I was a kid.
Would that also be like a young boy who molests his sister who is only 6 years old? He was a child molester from a boy, so it’s genetic?
Or maybe like a boy with hemophilia from a child? Should we say then, “oh, it’s just a his choice and we should respect that” and not treat him as being ill?
You can’t have it both ways sister. Either it is a learned behavior, in which case, you can change (like many have). Or it is genetic, in which case treatment would be in order.
You choose?
[/quote]
You are very ignorant. Schizophrenia is genetic. People operate under massive delusional belief systems, or are catatonic, or have visions. It’s certainly not a choice. But it’s not cureable. Not by modern medicine. It’s only manageable.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I haven’t seen any evidence that a kid raised by gay parents has a greater chance of becoming gay. Maybe more likely to be openly gay. But not become gay in the first place. I agree that reseaarch should continue to get a better grasp on causes. But it may always remain a mystery. That shouldn’t matter, however, if we stop stigmatiing it as a society just accept it. Easier said than done, of course. And I’m not completely free of my own prejudices. But I try.
Actually, in my experience of knowing a few gay couples with kids, the kids most always turn out straight. Maybe the parents were good models of what NOT to do?[/quote]
So, fine. There you go. Civil unions will not harm children.
All the facts rest on Zeb’s side and you should be the one on the defensive as from multiple perspectives, your position is incorrect.
You are funny. Zeb himself admits that all the facts don’t rest on his side and that we actually don’t have many of the facts.
Regardless of what Zeb has stated, it is a FACT that homosexuality goes against evolution and survival of the fittest (natural selection). So even if you don’t believe in creation and God, homosexuality is contrary to nature and biological function. So until guys can have babies out of their ass (excuse my French), it will always be a fact that homosexuality is contrary to the natural order of nature.
It’s not really a fact. It’s an illogical inconsistency. If it’s against God’s plan, why has he allowed it to exist? If it’s against natural selection and evolution why has it continued to exists? Natural selection argubably doesn’t apply to human beings these days. But why is homosexual behavior frequently observed in these animals? If it’s against God and all of these theories, then the theories are either wrong as it exists or it’s covered under the theories.
[/quote]
Really? What is illogical about the FACT that if two same gender people hook up they can not produce children, and thus not perpetuate the species? If you don’t think that is fact then I don’t think we have anything else to discuss as you need some remedial education on procreation.
In addition, suicide is also observed in some animals as well. Should we then conclude that it is natural and make suicide in humans legal?
The fact that deviant behaviors in animals and humans is observed at times does not make it something to normalize.
Also, as for God, he did torch Sadam and Gamorah for engaging in all kinds of crap, including gay behavior. So he has done it in the past.
But my point is that gay behavior is against the natural order without bring religion into it.
All the facts rest on Zeb’s side and you should be the one on the defensive as from multiple perspectives, your position is incorrect.
You are also the person who thinks that AIDS isn’t transmitted readily through gential sex against all the facts, evidence, and logic.
No sport, I’m just repeating the statistical evidence presented on the CDC’s website. You have a problem with their facts, take it up with them.
Not sure what “evidence” you are referring to in regards to the idea that AIDS is transmitted just as easily in genital sex as anal, but I think we would all like to see that. Or perhaps you are doing what you accuse Christians of doing?
I never said it is transmitted AS easily. I said it was transmitted readily. And it is. I thought you were saying it wasn’t. If you agree that AIDS is highly transmissable through genital sex but MORE transmissable through anal sex, then you are not an idiot and your opinion is consistent with all of the evidence and current medical belief worldwide. In which case, I apologize for misinterpreting.
[/quote]
Sounds like an issue of semantics. It is transmissible through any blood and some other body secretions, but mostly through anal sex. The reason is that vaginal sex is designed for just that. So there is less trauma, blood, etc. with vaginal sex. The anus was not designed for objects to enter it, only exit. So anal sex transmits HIV much more readily because it was not designed for sex and thus causes more trauma, blood, etc.
So I don’t believe it is a magical thing. It’s just contrary to it’s function, which increases the transmission rate.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I haven’t seen any evidence that a kid raised by gay parents has a greater chance of becoming gay. Maybe more likely to be openly gay. But not become gay in the first place. I agree that reseaarch should continue to get a better grasp on causes. But it may always remain a mystery. That shouldn’t matter, however, if we stop stigmatiing it as a society just accept it. Easier said than done, of course. And I’m not completely free of my own prejudices. But I try.
Actually, in my experience of knowing a few gay couples with kids, the kids most always turn out straight. Maybe the parents were good models of what NOT to do?
So, fine. There you go. Civil unions will not harm children.[/quote]
I never stated I have a problem with civil unions. Just don’t call it marriage.
[quote]juninho wrote:
bwahahahahahahaha!!! this is THE funniest thread EVER… Just why any straight person would spend so much time pondering something that has nothing to do with them is slightly beyond me.[/quote]
There are probably many things beyond you, and me too! But, the gay marriage debate is one that effects us as a society. One can wonder about their own little world and not care exactly what is happening outside of it. Many live their lives that way. Others like to examine why things are the way they are.
In short, when YOU don’t get involved then THEY (whoever “they” happen to be) who are organized, focused and well funded, get to push THEIR agenda (whatever that may be) onto the social/political scene. And then YOU have no say in it because YOU buried YOUR head in the sand.
These are just two, there are many, many more (but why advertise for them:). Gay groups are organized, well funded and quite militant in their delivery.
That you questioned the existence of these groups is rather alarming! And further demonstrates the fact that you have your head buried deep beneath the surface.
Actually, “most” of my arguments are unrelated to Christianity! You need to read the thread before responding.
That is one of the many feeble arguments given from the pro gay marriage folks that you seem to have gobbled up because you were not paying attention!
(I wonder if he viewed a media that was more balanced and less pro gay he would have such an attitude?)
They do not give quality reasons FOR gay marriage. However, there are plenty of catch phrases. One such phrase: “This does not effect you.” Just relax and let us change the institution of marriage. (zombie look on face) “Yes…you are right that won’t effect me.”
Let me ask you some questions:
How is one man marrying his sister going to effect you?
Do you want to see this take place since it does not yet immediately DIRECTLY effect you?
How is one man marrying many women going to effect you?
Do you want to see this sanctioned as well as it does not yet immediately DIRECTLY effect you?
For that matter how is one man raping his neighbor going to effect you?
It’s only one rape and how in the world does that DIRECTLY effect you? You are not even a woman!
So who cares?
It’s all same argument, and it’s all wrong! You can plug in whatever sort of action that you want. How does someone murdering another person in Alaska DIRECTLY effect you? How is someone marrying their german shepard going to effect you? How is someone shooting their german shepard going to effect you?
How does anything that does not touch you on a daily basis right now going to DIRECTLY effect you?
Hmm…I guess it’s not, so then everything that does not immediately DIRECTLY effect you is okay?
That is a WEAK argument and I hope that you realize it at this point.
There are “things” that have a direct effect upon you. And there are other things that have (or will have) an indirect effect on you. And those are the things that effect society as a whole. And eventually end up effecting us all.
You are part of society and therefore subject to being “effected” by all sorts of things that seemingly “don’t effect” you.
Are you claiming that you don’t care what type of society that you live in as long as your little world is not DIRECTLY effected? Eventually, everything that effects the whole will effect you either directly or indirectly!
Think about it.
[quote]
Some posts on this thread are a perfect illustration of why, depsite having a firm belief in God, I have never been tempted to join in in organised religion. [/quote]
Yea, it’s cool to not be involved in organized religion. At least it’s cool to say it. After all most organized religions have rules…And rules are not at all cool. Especially when those rules tell people that they are doing something that they should not do.
Everything goes baby! Rules? Um…well as long as you don’t effect anyone else DIRECTLY then it’s okay…Right?
YIKES! Moral relativism run amuck!
I think those who bury their heads in the sand are far more annoying…
Zeb, could you point me to the particular study that showed this outcome, or the site that references it?
From the reading that I’ve done on “reparative therapy”, the results are less successful.
The Birk (1980) study was the most successful, with 100% of participants showing total conversion at the end of therapy. The sample size was very small, 14, and only 10 of those remained totally hetero after 4 years.
The other studies:
Nicolosi, Byrd and Potts (1998), Macintosh (1994), Socarides (1979), Hatterer (1970) and Bieber (1962) showed results varying from 23% to 44% for conversion to heterosexuality.
The numbers were much lower for participants that started out “exclusively homosexual”. Bisexuals showed a much higher success rate.
Of those last studies, no long term results were shown, and a large number of the successes included phrases like “almost entirely heterosexual”, “mostly identified with being hetero”, etc. This doesn’t sound like a complete conversion, but I assume that the definition of success according to the study is a cessation of homosexual activity. Without long term studies however I don’t view a short term cessation to be a success.
Could you point me to a study with a large sample group that includes a multi-year follow-up on the longevity of the results?
All the facts rest on Zeb’s side and you should be the one on the defensive as from multiple perspectives, your position is incorrect.
You are also the person who thinks that AIDS isn’t transmitted readily through gential sex against all the facts, evidence, and logic.
No sport, I’m just repeating the statistical evidence presented on the CDC’s website. You have a problem with their facts, take it up with them.
Not sure what “evidence” you are referring to in regards to the idea that AIDS is transmitted just as easily in genital sex as anal, but I think we would all like to see that. Or perhaps you are doing what you accuse Christians of doing?
I never said it is transmitted AS easily. I said it was transmitted readily. And it is. I thought you were saying it wasn’t. If you agree that AIDS is highly transmissable through genital sex but MORE transmissable through anal sex, then you are not an idiot and your opinion is consistent with all of the evidence and current medical belief worldwide. In which case, I apologize for misinterpreting.
Sounds like an issue of semantics. It is transmissible through any blood and some other body secretions, but mostly through anal sex. The reason is that vaginal sex is designed for just that. So there is less trauma, blood, etc. with vaginal sex. The anus was not designed for objects to enter it, only exit. So anal sex transmits HIV much more readily because it was not designed for sex and thus causes more trauma, blood, etc.
So I don’t believe it is a magical thing. It’s just contrary to it’s function, which increases the transmission rate.
[/quote]
It’s not semantics. I just didn’t understand what you were saying. AIDS is definitely more easily transmisable through anal sex. But it’s also readily transmissable through genital sex. If that weren’t the case, there wouldn’t be a worldwide pandemic. Which would be great. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. You were just saying transmission is easier through anal sex as opposed to genital sex which is true.
Really? What is illogical about the FACT that if two same gender people hook up they can not produce children, and thus not perpetuate the species? If you don’t think that is fact then I don’t think we have anything else to discuss as you need some remedial education on procreation.
In addition, suicide is also observed in some animals as well. Should we then conclude that it is natural and make suicide in humans legal?
The fact that deviant behaviors in animals and humans is observed at times does not make it something to normalize.
Also, as for God, he did torch Sadam and Gamorah for engaging in all kinds of crap, including gay behavior. So he has done it in the past.
But my point is that gay behavior is against the natural order without bring religion into it.
[/quote]
This is the last I’m going to speak on this particular aspect of the subject, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from the evidence. If something exists that a theory said should not exist, there are only two possibilites. 1. The theory is wrong. 2. The theory encompasses the thing in question in a way we don’t understand.
Homosexuality and the theory of evolution are not inconsistent. It obviously exists and yet has not derailed the survival of any species it has been seen in. And there are many. There very well could be a purpose in the evolutionary scheme since it only affects small segments of population’s species. People misinterpret and misunderstand evolution as having some grand design too.
Evolution occurs because of a random mutation that allows the organism who posseses it to survive better. Over time more of these survive and pass the same mutation onto their offspring. Small segments of populations being homosexual does not affect this advantageous random mutation that result in evolution over the millenia. And for whatever reason it keeps being perpetuated in numerous species over the eons. You don’t know why. No one does.
As far not concerining me directly, a lot of things don’t concern me directly. Social programs, educational funding, and hurricane relief. It’s called having a social conscience.
Really? What is illogical about the FACT that if two same gender people hook up they can not produce children, and thus not perpetuate the species? If you don’t think that is fact then I don’t think we have anything else to discuss as you need some remedial education on procreation.
In addition, suicide is also observed in some animals as well. Should we then conclude that it is natural and make suicide in humans legal?
The fact that deviant behaviors in animals and humans is observed at times does not make it something to normalize.
Also, as for God, he did torch Sadam and Gamorah for engaging in all kinds of crap, including gay behavior. So he has done it in the past.
But my point is that gay behavior is against the natural order without bring religion into it.
This is the last I’m going to speak on this particular aspect of the subject, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from the evidence. If something exists that a theory said should not exist, there are only two possibilites. 1. The theory is wrong. 2. The theory encompasses the thing in question in a way we don’t understand.
Homosexuality and the theory of evolution are not inconsistent. It obviously exists and yet has not derailed the survival of any species it has been seen in. And there are many. There very well could be a purpose in the evolutionary scheme since it only affects small segments of population’s species. People misinterpret and misunderstand evolution as having some grand design too.
Evolution occurs because of a random mutation that allows the organism who posseses it to survive better. Over time more of these survive and pass the same mutation onto their offspring. Small segments of populations being homosexual does not affect this advantageous random mutation that result in evolution over the millenia. And for whatever reason it keeps being perpetuated in numerous species over the eons. You don’t know why. No one does.[/quote]
So you believe being gay is genetic? If so, is child molesting genetic as well?