• 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!

Bishop says kids ‘spontaneously’ gay and pedos

rivrrat said:
What does any of that have to do with who someone finds sexually appealing?
Click to expand...

Its about being able to prove a genetic link between heterosexuality and no link for homosexuality.


I have no problem with homosexuals, they can live their life as far as I'm conscerned. I also support civil unions but far beyond homosexuality. ie two aunts can live together if they like and for a union.

I object to pretending homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal. One is a proven genetic response and for procreation. The other is not and therefore they cannot be equal or recognized as such.
 
Hatuey said:
Don't remind him that we're debating the nature of sexual orientation and not bodily functions.
Click to expand...

LOL Spoken like someone who can't prove homosexuality is a genetic sexual orientation.

See Hatuey, you can't pretend sexual orientation is unchangeable for homosexuals if you can't produce a shred of evidence of a genetic link in all homosexuals :2wave:

Still waiting for you to prove a boilogical sexual reaction is different for homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals.

You've ducked every challenge I've made to far. Thanks for staying true to form
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
No evidence of a genetic link. Try again.
Click to expand...

Because you say so? Check. No evidence provided.
One of my personal favorite junk science articles on homosexuality. Not only could they not even find their "evidence " in even 50% of the twins but it showed that there was less of a homosexual chance when the twins were separated. LOL Not surprised you didn't read it :)

Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

From the article:

It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic

Whoops! Damn those details! :D

Ok this one is really funny.

From the article: But Larkin suggests there may also be the influence of genes at work, at least in predisposing the animals to homosexuality. This is because selective breeding seems to have been responsible for the high proportion of gay sheep compared with other animals.

So it was not clear whether the differences were related to the disease or to sexual preferences.

All half baked theory and no factual genetic evidence in all homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Do you know how to read? The fact that you can't determine to what extent something is genetic does not mean it isn't genetic, what can not be determined is the full role it plays even though it has already been demonstrated to play a role. Example, I can not determine the extent of your dishonesty. However, I know it exists because you've demonstrated such.

from the article:

Few people can have missed the claim by American researchers that they have identified a portion (called Xq28) of the X-chromosome which appears to predispose men to a 'male sexual orientation

Once again you hold your beliefs on a theory not fact.
Click to expand...

Ah so no facts there even though the fact has already been observed? Lolz.


I just did. :)

Your theoricial arguments and junk science studies without being able to ever once find a genetic link in even a majority of homosexuals proves once you peel away the theories and junk science, you have nothing to base it on :)
Click to expand...

You're trying too hard. Please provide the contradicting evidence from your scientific studies?
 
Hatuey said:
YOUR LINKS? PLEASE? A link to the post? A re-post of the links? Anything?



Are you really this intellectually dishonest? I have already provided the evidence supporting HOMOSEXUALITY ITSELF having a basis in biology, genetics etc. Why would I need to provide a statistic?
Click to expand...

No you didn't. Nothing in your links PROVES a link to a biological reaction for ALL homosexuals different from homosexuals. Go back and try actually reading your articles for a change.

If you still claim it, quote the article that proves it with a direct quote.
 
texmaster said:
Its about being able to prove a genetic link between heterosexuality and no link for homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Why is that even relevant? Is there a genetic link for being sexually attracted to brunettes? Is it even relevant to anything?


I object to pretending homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal. One is a proven genetic response and for procreation. The other is not and therefore they cannot be equal or recognized as such.
Click to expand...
So the only important things in life are things that are genetic responses for procreation?
 
Hatuey said:
Because you say so? Check. No evidence provided.
Click to expand...

LOL Its up to you to prove the link. You can't and its painfully obvious.

Do you know how to read? The fact that you can't determine to what extent something is genetic does not mean it isn't genetic, what can not be determined is the full role it plays even though it has already been demonstrated to play a role. Example, I can not determine the extent of your dishonesty. However, I know it exists because you've demonstrated such.
Click to expand...

And here goes to the HEART of the homosexual argument for genetics.

You want me to accept it even though it isn't proven because you "believe" it is.

That is NOT scientific evidence. It is belief, nothing more.

Ah so no facts there even though the fact has already been observed? Lolz.
Click to expand...

Thats right because observation is NOT fact. And even in the "observation" it was NEVER proven for all subjects or all homosexuals. Its only focus was males and it couldn't even prove it for all male homosexuals.

That is the junk science you believe in . :2wave:
 
rivrrat said:
Why is that even relevant? Is there a genetic link for being sexually attracted to brunettes? Is it even relevant to anything?

So the only important things in life are things that are genetic responses for procreation?
Click to expand...

He has yet to provide a single bit of evidence disproving the links being made homosexuality and genetics. He just keeps saying 'they don't exist'! It's the Stinger shuffle.
 
rivrrat said:
Why is that even relevant? Is there a genetic link for being sexually attracted to brunettes? Is it even relevant to anything?
Click to expand...

Absolutely if you want to change the law. Why would I support changing the law for something that has never proven to be anything more than a choice?

So the only important things in life are things that are genetic responses for procreation?
Click to expand...

I'll say it again. When you want to change law to put homosexuality and heterosexuality on equal footing you need to prove homosexuality is beyond being a choice. Heterosexuality has biological sexual and procreation to prove its link to genetics. Homosexuality cannot make that claim and therfore cannot pretend to be on equal ground with heterosexuality.
 
texmaster said:
LOL Its up to you to prove the link. You can't and its painfully obvious.
Click to expand...

I did. That you discredit them because they don't say what you want them to say is purely dishonest.

And here goes to the HEART of the homosexual argument for genetics.

You want me to accept it even though it isn't proven because you "believe" it is.

That is NOT scientific evidence. It is belief, nothing more.

Thats right because observation is NOT fact. And even in the "observation" it was NEVER proven for all subjects or all homosexuals. Its only focus was males and it couldn't even prove it for all male homosexuals.

That is the junk science you believe in . :2wave:
Click to expand...

I welcome you to provide any scientific evidence contradicting any of the current evidence supporting biological, genetic data on homosexuality. Any evidence. Any study. Until then, so long troll!
 
Hatuey said:
He has yet to provide a single bit of evidence disproving the links being made homosexuality and genetics. He just keeps saying 'they don't exist'! It's the Stinger shuffle.
Click to expand...

I asked you to prove a genetic link in all homosexuals.

You can't. I pointed out the failures of your articles and gave you my evidence based in genetic reproduction and biological sexual reaction none of which you have refuted because you know you can't.
 
Hatuey said:
I did. That you discredit them because they don't say what you want them to say is purely dishonest.
Click to expand...

Please stop being dishonest. None of your links proved a genetic link for all homosexuals. Claiming you did only makes you look even more ridiculous.


I welcome you to provide any scientific evidence contradicting any of the current evidence supporting biological, genetic data on homosexuality. Any evidence. Any study. Until then, so long troll!
Click to expand...

Sorry, can't prove a negative. I like the law as it is. You want to change the law but can't even support your argument with actual factual evidence.

Instead, you run away screaming troll instead of answering my challenges or refuting your findings.
 
texmaster said:
I asked you to prove a genetic link in all homosexuals.

You can't. I pointed out the failures of your articles and gave you my evidence based in genetic reproduction and biological sexual reaction none of which you have refuted because you know you can't.
Click to expand...

What part of this sentence don't you understand:

I have already provided the evidence supporting HOMOSEXUALITY ITSELF having a basis in biology, genetics etc. Why would I need to provide a statistic?
Click to expand...

If the evidence is explaining HOMOSEXUALITY ITSELF then I do not need to provide a study for all homosexuals as that is what the study already does. It is like asking me to provide a study for why all flowers have colors when I have provided one on why flavonoids, carotenoids etc. give flowers color.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Absolutely if you want to change the law. Why would I support changing the law for something that has never proven to be anything more than a choice?


I'll say it again. When you want to change law to put homosexuality and heterosexuality on equal footing you need to prove homosexuality is beyond being a choice. Heterosexuality has biological sexual and procreation to prove its link to genetics. Homosexuality cannot make that claim and therfore cannot pretend to be on equal ground with heterosexuality.
Click to expand...

What law are you talking about?

And who you are attracted to isn't a choice, but even that isn't relevant.
 
texmaster said:
Please stop being dishonest. None of your links proved a genetic link for all homosexuals. Claiming you did only makes you look even more ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Still holding on to this myth? Whenever you can provide evidence to the contrary I welcome you to.

Sorry, can't prove a negative. I like the law as it is. You want to change the law but can't even support your argument with actual factual evidence.
Click to expand...

Actually in this case you can. Prove homosexuality is caused by something else.

Instead, you run away screaming troll instead of answering my challenges or refuting your findings.
Click to expand...

Call a hamster by its name I always say.
 
texmaster said:
I already have, multiple times.

You show me even one of your links claiming a homosexual genetic link that was even found in 70% of homosexuals tested and I'll shut up.

Go ahead. I'll wait :)


And I see you ducked my evidence of the biological sexual reaction in all people. Thanks for staying predicable.


Your articles always implode when they can't find a a trait that is either exclusive to homosexuals or one that can't even be found in all homosexuals.

Thanks for playing :)
Click to expand...

OK, so the OP says that Catholics are still making excuses/obfuscating the fact that they have a homosexual AND a pedophilia problem. The only thing new here is this Bishops involvement.

Now that that is out of the way, let's say for a moment, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality is a chemical imbalance, or a choice. If it's a chemical imbalance then you can't really punish people something they can't control and since such an imbalance is so prevalent in humanity, they must be treated the same as heterosexual people.
If homosexuality is a choice then, you are not allowed to infringe on their freedoms or liberty. If they want to marry each other then you may not infringe on their choice, which does not affect you in any way other than offending your sensibilities.
 
texmaster said:
Its about being able to prove a genetic link between heterosexuality and no link for homosexuality.
Click to expand...

So have scientists found the heterosexual gene?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
If they want to marry each other then you may not infringe on their choice, which does not affect you in any way other than offending your sensibilities.
Click to expand...
Nobody can stop them from "marrying." The relevant issue is whether government should or shouldn't recognize such marriages.
 
These guys wouldn't have any influence if so many people didn't follow them. Always a shame.
 
Taylor said:
The relevant issue is whether government should or shouldn't recognize such marriages.
Click to expand...
Government shouldn't recognize any marriage whether gay or straight.
 
Taylor said:
Nobody can stop them from "marrying." The relevant issue is whether government should or shouldn't recognize such marriages.
Click to expand...

And there is no logical reasons the government shouldn't recognize such marriages.
 
winston53660 said:
So have scientists found the heterosexual gene?
Click to expand...

I've already explained that 4 times in here. What part did you not understand about the biological sexual reaction in people always is in anticipation of heterosexual sex and the fact that natural procreation requires heterosexual sex?
 
TheNextEra said:
And there is no logical reasons the government should recognize such marriages.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you

When you can prove its more than a choice let us know.
 
TheNextEra said:
Fixed it for you,

In the future I suggest you don't alter my quotes unless you want yours altered.
Click to expand...

I actually bolded the one word I changed and I never made it a personal attack.

But since you can't debate the point I'm not surprised you resorted to this tactic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom