• 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

Wow. Just wow. So you think homosexuals can't pass on their genes? Their sperm is just as viable as yours. Too, more males in the herd leads to more protection and more hunting / gathering.

Turkey basters haven't been around long enough to be part of any evolutionary argument. Homosexuals can dream up all sorts of ways to try to argue that their sexual deviance is actually a blessing to all mankind. Don't stop now. How about the argument tha since you don't get wrapped up with family and wives and such that you are free to live a life of creativity and invention. That's one of many favorites. :)
 
Turkey basters haven't been around long enough to be part of any evolutionary argument. Homosexuals can dream up all sorts of ways to try to argue that their sexual deviance is actually a blessing to all mankind. Don't stop now. How about the argument tha since you don't get wrapped up with family and wives and such that you are free to live a life of creativity and invention. That's one of many favorites. :)

What do turkey basters have to do with anything? Oh, I get it. That's your lame attempt at a joke for sperm implantation. Too bad homosexual men can have sex with a heterosexual woman or even, dare I say it, a homosexual woman. How is homosexuality a deviance? And, to further correct you, homosexuals have families, too.
 
Its just one of many theories, can't say I believe it fully or not. The point is you were wrong that homosexuals need to pass on their own genes in order for homosexuality to potentially be a benefit in the history of evolution. Sorry for humiliating you.

LOL. No apology warranted. You can't humiliate me with ridiculous theories. They're not my theories, so why would I be humiliated by them. That was just silly.
 
LOL. No apology warranted. You can't humiliate me with ridiculous theories. They're not my theories, so why would I be humiliated by them. That was just silly.
And you continue to try to save face. I just proved you completely wrong, deal with it. If you have an actual argument I will respond to you. If not have fun talking to yourself.
 
What do turkey basters have to do with anything? Oh, I get it. That's your lame attempt at a joke for sperm implantation. Too bad homosexual men can have sex with a heterosexual woman or even, dare I say it, a homosexual woman. How is homosexuality a deviance? And, to further correct you, homosexuals have families, too.

Oh, I'm aware that people can and do choose. I think the whole evolutionary argument fails because homosexuality is behavior, not a genetic condition.
 
And you continue to try to save face. I just proved you completely wrong, deal with it. If you have an actual argument I will respond to you. If not have fun talking to yourself.

You recited a stupid theory. If you think that's "proving someone wrong", you are too irrational for me to want to engage in discussion, anyway, so your moving on to find someone down at your own level to engage is a good idea.
 
Except God said it. That is the proof. Eyewitness testimony as well by Paul.

You can't prove God said anything. And as I said, eyewitness testimony is some of the least reliable on the planet, particularly when it comes from someone who wasn't even there.
 
Degradation of society and increase in immorality.

"Degradation of society" cannot be proven and morality (as well as immorality) are subjective. It must be measurable harm. Not what you simply see as bad.
 
Well the first murder was with the first family, that God (of the Bible) actually created, and He made the rules about the murder, so yes.

You cannot prove this.

Murder is a crime because it is defined as a crime. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. It can only be against the law, otherwise, it isn't murder.
 
The evolutionary benefit of homosexuals not passing on their genes to future generations, huh? I suppose if you want to go there, you can go there. But otherwise, there is no evolutionary befit. Someone should take you aside and tell you how evolution works.

Passing on genes is not as simple as every single person must have children. It can also be relatives helping to ensure that children within their families live to pass on shared family traits/genes.
 
You cannot prove this.

Murder is a crime because it is defined as a crime. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. It can only be against the law, otherwise, it isn't murder.

Can't prove it? It's documented.
 
1 Coritinthians Chapter 6 I believe.

King James Version: 1 Corinthians Chapter 6

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Something about judging, a bit about fornication, nothing about homosexuality. Must be somewhere else.
 
King James Version: 1 Corinthians Chapter 6



Something about judging, a bit about fornication, nothing about homosexuality. Must be somewhere else.

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Neither sexually immoral people, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, not drunkards, not abusive persons, not swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And some of you were these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus[c] and by the Spirit of our God. (Lexham English Bible)
The word homosexual did not exist when the KJV was translated.
 
Can't prove it? It's documented.

Eyewitness accounts and testimonies that they heard from God is not proof that they actually did. In fact, it isn't even reliable proof that Jesus did at least some of the things described in the Bible. As I've said multiple times now, eyewitnesses are among the worst possible sources because of many very human factors.
 
Oh, I'm aware that people can and do choose. I think the whole evolutionary argument fails because homosexuality is behavior, not a genetic condition.

I'm sorry you're ignorant of modern science.

"Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." Source.

"Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior." Source.

"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences have any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation (Bell and Weinberg, 1978).

It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006)." Source.
 
The word homosexual did not exist when the KJV was translated.

Which is absolutely why it could have been translated wrong. We are talking about a fairly modern concept being translated from ancient texts but at a time when people believed the concept itself was wrong. It leads to very biased translations.
 
Which is absolutely why it could have been translated wrong. We are talking about a fairly modern concept being translated from ancient texts but at a time when people believed the concept itself was wrong. It leads to very biased translations.

No, the concept is not modern, just the word.
 
Can't prove it? It's documented.

Oh and you still failed to address the very meaning of the word murder is the unlawful killing of another person. Technically, Cain killing Abel wasn't murder at all at that time because there were no laws to make it murder. It was simply an unjustifiable killing.
 
The word homosexual did not exist when the KJV was translated.

Oh, so it had to be added in to the Bible after it existed? That sounds to me like a revision, and for what purpose? Someone must not have liked homosexuals.

I wonder what the original version actually said, the one written in the language of Jesus time?
 
I'm sorry you're ignorant of modern science.

"Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." Source.

"Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior." Source.

"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences have any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation (Bell and Weinberg, 1978).

It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006)." Source.

I guess you don't know what "probably" means, huh? I think you are probably all wet. I think the guy that did the research was probably gay. I think it will probably rain where you live tomorrow. I think I can probably say anything I want and get by with it as long as I qualify it with "probably".

Real science, modern or otherwise isn't built on "probably". Let me know when they find the gay gene.
 
No, the concept is not modern, just the word.

The concept is relatively modern. People didn't think nor care about attraction within the context of relationships for much of human history, throughout most cultures, especially those cultures that were following the Biblical God, either as Jews or as Christians.
 
I guess you don't know what "probably" means, huh? I think you are probably all wet. I think the guy that did the research was probably gay. I think it will probably rain where you live tomorrow. I think I can probably say anything I want and get by with it as long as I qualify it with "probably".

Real science, modern or otherwise isn't built on "probably".

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?
 
Oh, so it had to be added in to the Bible after it existed? That sounds to me like a revision, and for what purpose? Someone must not have liked homosexuals.

I wonder what the original version actually said, the one written in the language of Jesus time?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom