• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings

I do, but, it would appear you have never worked in a scientific laboratory in your life, nor have you conducted any type of formal research and, presumably, received a piss-poor scientific education. No, you can't spout anything you'd like and get away with it. Scientific explanation requires evidence, you know, that thing you lack that shows it's just a behavioral deviance. Glad to know you also read two lines and stopped; there are three publications there and why don't you read them? Perhaps a bit of abnegation?

And there's no proof that homosexuality is genetic. None of them gave proof that it's genetic. That's why there's no discovery of "the gay gene". That's why there's no illustration of the exact genetic factors that produces homosexuals. It's because it's not genetic at all. The fact that homosexuals prefer to engage in sex with those that they can't possibly impregnate means that any genetic factor would have had a great deal of difficulty being passed on. You get the gay gene and it's an evolutionary dead end for your chromosome set. Like I said before, turkey basters are too recent a development to have played any role in evolution.
 
I do, but, it would appear you have never worked in a scientific laboratory in your life, nor have you conducted any type of formal research and, presumably, received a piss-poor scientific education. No, you can't spout anything you'd like and get away with it. Scientific explanation requires evidence, you know, that thing you lack that shows it's just a behavioral deviance. Glad to know you also read two lines and stopped; there are three publications there and why don't you read them? Perhaps a bit of abnegation?

This reminds me of that conversation on "Friends" where Phoebe told Ross that she didn't believe in evolution ("It's just a little too easy") and no matter how many things he brought up to show evidence of evolution, she had a counter to it (like fossil evidence was countered by "So the question is, who put those fossils there?").
 
This reminds me of that conversation on "Friends" where Phoebe told Ross that she didn't believe in evolution ("It's just a little too easy") and no matter how many things he brought up to show evidence of evolution, she had a counter to it (like fossil evidence was countered by "So the question is, who put those fossils there?").

People that want to claim homosexuality is genetic seem to be the ones that don't believe in evolution. Ironic, I think.
 
And there's no proof that homosexuality is genetic. None of them gave proof that it's genetic. That's why there's no discovery of "the gay gene". That's why there's no illustration of the exact genetic factors that produces homosexuals. It's because it's not genetic at all. The fact that homosexuals prefer to engage in sex with those that they can't possibly impregnate means that any genetic factor would have had a great deal of difficulty being passed on. You get the gay gene and it's an evolutionary dead end for your chromosome set. Like I said before, turkey basters are too recent a development to have played any role in evolution.

There is also no proof that lefthandedness is genetic. There is evidence though to suggest both, since some things, especially behavior related aspects of humans, are multi-gene influenced, instead of tied to a single gene itself.
 
People that want to claim homosexuality is genetic seem to be the ones that don't believe in evolution. Ironic, I think.

Wrong. You simply don't understand how genetics actually work, particularly when it comes to the case of personality traits, like sexuality.
 
Not what I said at all. Besides, if you go with your logic, everything in the English Bible or Spanish Bible or any Bible not in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek are revisions. Which is false, it's called translation.

Correct, it's called translation. Now, you said the word "homosexual" didn't exist when the KJV was written, which is why it isn't found in my quote. I don't know if you're correct about that or not, so, let's just assume you are. If so, then it follows that the word didn't exist thousands of years before, when the original was written either. So, the injunction against homosexuality must have been added to the original in more modern times. Therefore, using the Bible to support the idea that homosexuality is to be condemned requires revision of the original text.

Like many things written in the Bible, this one is open to interpretation.

How do you suppose the openly gay Episcopal priests interpret it?
 
Correct, it's called translation. Now, you said the word "homosexual" didn't exist when the KJV was written, which is why it isn't found in my quote. I don't know if you're correct about that or not, so, let's just assume you are. If so, then it follows that the word didn't exist thousands of years before, when the original was written either. So, the injunction against homosexuality must have been added to the original in more modern times. Therefore, using the Bible to support the idea that homosexuality is to be condemned requires revision of the original text.

Like many things written in the Bible, this one is open to interpretation.

How do you suppose the openly gay Episcopal priests interpret it?

Just because the word we use today did not exist, doesn't mean an equal word or phrase did not exist. Nice try though.
 
People that want to claim homosexuality is genetic seem to be the ones that don't believe in evolution. Ironic, I think.

You would think so, since homosexuality makes it less likely that genes will be passed to subsequent generations, and yet it does exist in most animals. Homosexuality must, therefore, be a survival advantage in one way or another. I think the issue must be more complex than that.
 
For those of you stuck on stupid and thinking that homosexuality is genetic despite the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution would have made such a genetic failure disappear a long time ago... here:

Identical Twins Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

Wrong. You do not understand twin DNA nor genetic-based personality traits still. There is still a factor of environmental influence, but those twin studies prove that there is a genetic component to a person's sexuality.

Character traits determined genetically? Genes may hold the key to a life of success, study suggests

Despite common belief, identical twins do not actually share completely identical DNA because every fetus goes through 150-200 or more individual genetic mutations during gestation, including individual identical twins.
 
Wrong. You simply don't understand how genetics actually work, particularly when it comes to the case of personality traits, like sexuality.

Look.

* Studies on identical twins all come back with no evidence of a genetic cause.
* Scientists can't find a gene common to all homosexuals as the cause
* Those with the "gay gene" would be very unlikely to pass it on to offspring

Yet 1 out of 10 according to some studies identify themselves as homosexuals. The preponderance of the evidence points to a non-genetic cause no matter how much you want your "genetic theory" to be true. Homosexuals aren't a genetically unique "race" of people. They're normal people that ended up with abnormal sexual preferences.
 
Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to marry gays

Speaking of ****ting all over religious freedom ... I thought the GOP was all about that, guess not when it comes to gays.



Granted, not the most unbiased source in the world. However, don't you think that a religion should be free to perform a religious ceremony?
I'm sure that they'll be free to perform their sick little ceremony. But hopefully, the law won't compel normal people to recognize any legal validity to it.
 
Just because the word we use today did not exist, doesn't mean an equal word or phrase did not exist. Nice try though.

An equal word or phrase did not exist (as far as we know) in Aramaic or Greek or Hebrew to homosexuality. The words being translated to homosexuality in the Bible are used elsewhere in a different concept than those translations of the Bible, than homosexuality itself. Basically, people were being lazy and/or biased and simply said that homosexuality/homosexual was the correct translation instead of the longer, correct translation of the word/words in Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew.
 
An equal word or phrase did not exist (as far as we know) in Aramaic or Greek or Hebrew to homosexuality. The words being translated to homosexuality in the Bible are used elsewhere in a different concept than those translations of the Bible, than homosexuality itself. Basically, people were being lazy and/or biased and simply said that homosexuality/homosexual was the correct translation instead of the longer, correct translation of the word/words in Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew.

μαλακός
malakos

of a catamite

cat·a·mite
/ˈkatəˌmīt/Noun
A boy kept for homosexual practices.
 
You would think so, since homosexuality makes it less likely that genes will be passed to subsequent generations, and yet it does exist in most animals. Homosexuality must, therefore, be a survival advantage in one way or another. I think the issue must be more complex than that.

I don't think it carries any survival advantage. I think what it amounts to is a behavioral deviation that carries little impact on a species overall. Or at least we can say that the species that we see today that give us examples of homosexual behaviors weren't eliminated because of it. It doesn't mean it was a survival advantage. It merely wasn't an obstacle to survival. In most species, from an evolutionary standpoint, a shortage of copulating males was never a problem. Now we might argue that willingness of females might have been a problem, but looking back over human history, we see that probably wouldn't have stopped them from being impregnated, anyway.
 
Look.

* Studies on identical twins all come back with no evidence of a genetic cause.
* Scientists can't find a gene common to all homosexuals as the cause
* Those with the "gay gene" would be very unlikely to pass it on to offspring

Yet 1 out of 10 according to some studies identify themselves as homosexuals. The preponderance of the evidence points to a non-genetic cause no matter how much you want your "genetic theory" to be true. Homosexuals aren't a genetically unique "race" of people. They're normal people that ended up with abnormal sexual preferences.

Actually, twin studies show that there is some genetic component because identical twins are more likely to be homosexual than just full siblings. They aren't always both homosexual because that is not how personality trait related genes work. In most cases, it is not only several genes that influence one trait, but it is also other factors, including hormone levels of the mother and "nurture" to personality. This is why even identical twins do not act the same way or like the same things nor are attracted to even the same type of men/women no matter their actual sexuality. Personality genetics simply does not work the way you believe it does.
 
μαλακός
malakos

of a catamite

Which is talking about pederasty, not homosexuality. You prove that it was a biased/lazy translation and that what is actually being said to be a sin is pederasty, a man having an intimate relationship with a boy, rather than two adult men or women having a relationship.
 
And there's no proof that homosexuality is genetic. None of them gave proof that it's genetic. That's why there's no discovery of "the gay gene". That's why there's no illustration of the exact genetic factors that produces homosexuals. It's because it's not genetic at all. The fact that homosexuals prefer to engage in sex with those that they can't possibly impregnate means that any genetic factor would have had a great deal of difficulty being passed on. You get the gay gene and it's an evolutionary dead end for your chromosome set. Like I said before, turkey basters are too recent a development to have played any role in evolution.

I never claimed it was strictly genetic. If you'd read the publications I linked, maybe you'd understand better. No, homosexuality is not an evolutionary dead end; it's an evolutionary supporter. A gay male can still impregnate a female.

PLOS ONE: Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality

This reminds me of that conversation on "Friends" where Phoebe told Ross that she didn't believe in evolution ("It's just a little too easy") and no matter how many things he brought up to show evidence of evolution, she had a counter to it (like fossil evidence was countered by "So the question is, who put those fossils there?").

I love that episode. Very similar to this scenario. ;)

For those of you stuck on stupid and thinking that homosexuality is genetic despite the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution would have made such a genetic failure disappear a long time ago... here:

Identical Twins Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

Why don't you post actual scientific journals instead of heavily biased, religious, Conservative source? Because that would make you confront your denial?
 
Actually, twin studies show that there is some genetic component because identical twins are more likely to be homosexual than just full siblings.

You really believe that studies showing identical twins are more likely to be homosexual than just full siblings is proof of a genetic component? Seriously? Do you really think you can point to whatever common denominators you wish as a "causal effect". Like insurance studies that show red cars have the highest incidence of accidents is proof that red is an unlucky color?

And the funny thing is that I think it would be great if it was genetic. Then medical science could correct the genetic problem that causes it. And then this whole discussion would be moot point. Thing is... it's not genetic. There will never be a "genetic cure" for homosexuality because genes didn't cause the problem in the first place.
 
I never claimed it was strictly genetic. If you'd read the publications I linked, maybe you'd understand better. No, homosexuality is not an evolutionary dead end; it's an evolutionary supporter. A gay male can still impregnate a female.

PLOS ONE: Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality



I love that episode. Very similar to this scenario. ;)



Why don't you post actual scientific journals instead of heavily biased, religious, Conservative source? Because that would make you confront your denial?

Ad hominem. Of course you disagree with the source, but that doesn't amount to refutation.
 
Ad hominem. Of course you disagree with the source, but that doesn't amount to refutation.

Cause it's non-scientific... Way to address absolutely none of my post, really, either.
 
Which is talking about pederasty, not homosexuality. You prove that it was a biased/lazy translation and that what is actually being said to be a sin is pederasty, a man having an intimate relationship with a boy, rather than two adult men or women having a relationship.

Fine, if you don't want to use that passage let's look to Romans chapter 1.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
 
You really believe that studies showing identical twins are more likely to be homosexual than just full siblings is proof of a genetic component? Seriously? Do you really think you can point to whatever common denominators you wish as a "causal effect". Like insurance studies that show red cars have the highest incidence of accidents is proof that red is an unlucky color?

And the funny thing is that I think it would be great if it was genetic. Then medical science could correct the genetic problem that causes it. And then this whole discussion would be moot point. Thing is... it's not genetic. There will never be a "genetic cure" for homosexuality because genes didn't cause the problem in the first place.

It is proof that genes play a part in it. You are free to show your ignorance about how genes work in affecting our personalities all you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that they do. It is a combination of nature and nurture, just like most things, but genes (several different ones) are still part of the equation.
 
Fine, if you don't want to use that passage let's look to Romans chapter 1.

You are quoting Paul, someone who I personally believe was very biased and not at all inspired by God or even Jesus. He had no idea what he was talking about. So yes, I will attack the "messenger" when that particular messenger was a misogynist who also believed that pretty much all forms of sex were a sin and that only sex with the sole purpose of producing children was acceptable.
 
I'm sure that they'll be free to perform their sick little ceremony. But hopefully, the law won't compel normal people to recognize any legal validity to it.


Drop the bigotry induced blindness and take the time to read the statute as written. It it is rather specific when it states that a minister/preacher/rabbi/imam could be jailed for a period up to 180 days, if said religious functionary performs (solemnizes) a marriage ceremony that is not permitted under Indiana law They will NOT be free to perform their sick little ceremony

I'm not sure I would apply the adjective "normal" to religious bigots. More Americans approve of gay marriage than disapprove
 
Back
Top Bottom