For those who believe that homosexuality is genetic (3 Viewers)

[Scorch]

yea its makes them naturally inferior

you see, homosexuals are inferior due to natural selection
they cant procreate, thus they are wiped from the gene pool
its a win win for everybody ~yeewwwww~!~~!!

Again, people such as you are repulsive in almost every way.

 

[boganxcore]

Again, people such as you are repulsive in almost every way.

what? are you a homosexual too?
you'll be wiped out too YAYAYAYAYAYA

 

[shuttle_bus5]

Again, people such as you are repulsive in almost every way.

Don't worry, religion is slowly being eradicated from society. One day science and knowledge will dominate.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Again, people such as you are repulsive in almost every way.

i think he's just trolling lol

 

[Scorch]

i think he's just trolling lol

Of course he is, but it's no less true.

 

[Name_Taken]

I didn't complain, I simply retaliated. Mature people can express frankly and openly without running to mommy when insulted.

I didn't retaliate to you.

An eye for an eye leaves the world blind, mate its just not worth it.

Your idea of equality is based on such nonsense that homosexual relationships are useless as they do not produce offspring and the state should not want to encourage such promiscuity and immorality.

You advocate the state should support promiscuity and immorality?

Now I accept that defining immoral may present a challenge, but most people can agree on things like, promsiscuity, cheating, encouraging of pornography, encouraging of increasingly perverse sexual acts, society's ever increasing obsession with sex, sexualisation of children etc should be oppsed.

Yes, I will. Mainly because this is psuedo-science conducted by people with radically pre-conceived notions in an unscientific manner if they could ever publish a study in any peer-review environment saying such things. It would be utter nonsense and rubbish.

Ok, these should be enough to satisfy your immediate curiosity, however there are probably more. Go nuts.


Promiscuity:
A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309, 314; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

Paul Van de Ven, et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.

Katherine Fethers, et al., “Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who have Sex with Women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections 76 (2000): 348.

STI’s:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2005 (revised June 2007); Vol. 17, Table 17, p. 36.

Edward O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994): p. 298.

Vincent M. B. Silenzio, MD, “Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Health Care Providers: Commentary,” online at: Gay Lesbian Medical Association (accessed November 4, 2003).


Mental Illness:
D. Fergusson, et al., “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999), p. 876.


Substance Abuse:
Katherine A. O’Hanlan, MD, “Ten Things Lesbians Should Discuss with their Health Care Providers: Commentary,” online at: Gay Lesbian Medical Association (accessed November 4, 2003).


Domestic Violence:
Lettie L. Lockhart, et al., “Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469–492.

D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991): p. 14.


Links to Pedophillia:
John Briere, et al., eds., The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1996), pp. 52, 53.

Kurt Freund, Robin Watson, and Douglas Rienzo, “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference,” The Journal of Sex Research 26 (February, 1989): 107.

W. D. Erickson, “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83.


Websites: (not necessarily of the studies above, just miscellaneous links you may want to check out as well):
The Circuit Party Men's Health Survey: findings and implications for gay and bisexual men.
Use of illicit drugs among gay men living with HIV... [AIDS. 2007] - PubMed result
Meth Use Surges Among Gay Men
Health risks of the homosexual lifestyle
Cigarette smoking among lesbians, gays, and bisexu... [Cancer Causes Control. 2004] - PubMed result
Gay/Lesbian sexual orientation increases risk for ... [BMC Public Health. 2006] - PubMed result

 

[ilikebeeef]

So if my morals tell me homosexuality is wrong and should be punished, you can't say your views are more legitimate, right?

I don't think it should be punished btw.

What I'm saying is, a pro-gay (as well as pro-straight) marriage perspective is fairer. My moral values are based on unbiased logic, not because someone told them to me.

When I dumped Christianity (lol yes, "dumped"), I wiped the slate clean, thought about the "controversial" issues carefully, and re-evaluated things. Everyone who's religiously biased should try this (even if it's for a few minutes) for at least their own benefit. It's like seeing a whole another side to the world which you were missing out on when you were blind.

 

[shuttle_bus5]

Name_Taken, religion is far more damaging to society then homosexuality is.

 

[Name_Taken]

Don't worry, religion is slowly being eradicated from society. One day science and knowledge will dominate.

Ironic, since it was religion that made this society great, and will be what leads to the eventual rise and fall of Islam.

Read the Book of Revalations, if you want to know where we're headed.

 

[ilikebeeef]

Ironic, since it was religion that made this society great, and will be what leads to the eventual rise and fall of Islam.

Read the Book of Revalations, if you want to know where we're headed.

So the Bible is a work of fact now?

 

[shuttle_bus5]

Ironic, since it was religion that made this society great.

The reason our society is so great is because of the progression in morals and values and technology.
This is also related to the on going decline of religious adherents amongst all sectors.
So as religion declines, society progresses further.

 

[Name_Taken]

What I'm saying is, a pro-gay (as well as pro-straight) marriage perspective is fairer. My moral values are based on unbiased logic, not because someone told them to me.

When I dumped Christianity (lol yes, "dumped"), I wiped the slate clean, thought about the "controversial" issues carefully, and re-evaluated things. Everyone who's religiously biased should try this (even if it's for a few minutes) for at least their own benefit. It's like seeing a whole another side to the world which you were missing out on when you were blind.

What hes saying is that its basically your own logic, influenced by you own experiences, and its your own personal conclusion, which holds no influence over that of others.

OFC you feel your conclusions are right, and anything else is ridiculous. So does everyone else who came to a conflicting conclusion to you.

Under moral relativism, your opinion is no more valid than anyone elses, and neither is your interpretation of what consititutes moral behaviour.

I have been an athiest most of my life, my family isn't religious @ all. My experience with religion would appear to be the opposite of yours. It was the re-evaluation of myself which led me to Christ and not further away.

 

[Scorch]

I didn't retaliate to you.

I wasn't talking about you.

Now I accept that defining immoral may present a challenge, but most people can agree on things like, promsiscuity, cheating, encouraging of pornography, encouraging of increasingly perverse sexual acts, society's ever increasing obsession with sex, sexualisation of children etc should be oppsed.

There is no rational evidence that any of this is connected to homosexuality. End of story.

That being said, the state ought not to legislate morality that does not intrinsically damage society.

Ok, these should be enough to satisfy your immediate curiosity, however there are probably more. Go nuts.

Kindly check the date and source of most of those articles. Few of them are recent, even fewer are from credible, neutral sources.

Under moral relativism, your opinion is no more valid than anyone elses, and neither is your interpretation of what consititutes moral behaviour.

No, your opinion on morality is no more valid than that of anyone else. Thus society should be legislated by what harms it. Your opinion is only valid insofar as you can support it with evidence.

I have been an athiest most of my life, my family isn't religious @ all. My experience with religion would appear to be the opposite of yours. It was the re-evaluation of myself which led me to Christ and not further away.

So you decided to ignore all the evidence that the Bible is just flat out wrong?

 

[shuttle_bus5]

Scorch, you are arguing with a retard. All christians are backwards and still think the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[Scorch]

Scorch, you are arguing with a retard. All christians are backwards and still think the sun revolves around the earth.

I established that a long time ago. They're not necessarily that backwards, but they still believe in an invisible sky man who can sentence you to hell for thought crime and the 'sins' of imaginary people thousands of years ago that never existed and spend most of their life making excuses for the fact that their Holy Book is a brutal exposé of Bronze Age barbarity at its finest.

 

[shuttle_bus5]

I established that a long time ago. They're not necessarily that backwards, but they still believe in an invisible sky man who can sentence you to hell for thought crime and the 'sins' of imaginary people thousands of years ago that never existed and spend most of their life making excuses for the fact that their Holy Book is a brutal exposé of Bronze Age barbarity at its finest.

haha pwned.

 

[shuttle_bus5]

Invisible sky man....Im more worried about the flying spaghetti monster making me eat undercooked pasta for eternity.

 

[HalcyonSky]

bailey and pillard 1991:

According to their data, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities of homosexuality were calculated using these results under a wide range of assumptions of the population base rate and ascertainment bias. Under all conditions considered, heritabilities were substantial (h[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] was between .31 and .74 in all cases)

kallman 1952:

For the monozygotic twins, a very different picture emerged. Of the 37 index cases whose cotwins were classified, all were concordant for homosexuality (Kinsey ratings 3-6); a concordance rate of 100%. Kallman noted that "the majority of one-egg pairs not only are fully concordant as to the overt practice and quantitative rating of their aberrant sex pattern, but they even tend to be very similar in both the part taken in their individual sex activities and the visible extent of feminized appearance and behavior displayed by some of them" (Kallman's italics). He also pointed out that most of these twins had "developed their sexual tendencies independently and often far apart from each other, and that all of them deny categorically any history of mutuality in overt sex relations."

so the incidence of one twin being gay if the other is gay in monozygotic twins is pretty substantial

 

[ilikebeeef]

What hes saying is that its basically your own logic, influenced by you own experiences, and its your own personal conclusion, which holds no influence over that of others.

I'm not saying that my views influence those of others.

No, it is unbiased logic because I wipe out all experience and previous opinion out of my mind when using unbiased logic.

OFC you feel your conclusions are right, and anything else is ridiculous. So does everyone else who came to a conflicting conclusion to you.

I know, but they are biased. I am not.

Under moral relativism, your opinion is no more valid than anyone elses, and neither is your interpretation of what consititutes moral behaviour.

I am not saying that homosexuality is moral/immoral. I am saying that morality is irrelevant. When making judgements, you should only use facts + no bias.

I have been an athiest most of my life, my family isn't religious @ all. My experience with religion would appear to be the opposite of yours. It was the re-evaluation of myself which led me to Christ and not further away.

Yeah, you started fantasising, that's what. xD

I was a non-religious girl before I met Christianity. Then I started to believe and it sank into me, and controlled me. Then I let it go. And now I'm free.

 

[Name_Taken]

I wasn't talking about you.

Doesn't matter.

There is no rational evidence that any of this is connected to homosexuality. End of story.

I just posted it...

You accused me of looking into the face of "evidence" and rejecting it, but that is what you are doing right now, but you dismiss them as not even being evidence in the first place, because they are not in support of your already pre-concieved ideas regarding homosexuality.

That being said, the state ought not to legislate morality that does not intrinsically damage society.

Pornography destroys families.

It has encouraged a whole generation of people with unhealthy and unrealisitic understandings of sex and a culture which thrives on degrading women in society.

Why shouldn't it be banned? Its both immoral and harmful, sorta like those studies I posted indicated of homosexuality.

Kindly check the date and source of most of those articles. Few of them are recent, even fewer are from credible, neutral sources.

Lol... Do you know any of the people who wrote them, or do you just assume they're all Evangelical Christians who are manipulating data?

The only sources that are creidble are those which support your own pre-concieved ideas on such issues?

They are not that outdated as to render them irrelevant, and not all of them are even that old in the first place.

This is science anyway, we only rely on evidence, and evidence is timeless. One doesn't ignore Newtons laws of motion becuase they are like 200 years old, you shouldn't discount these studies simply because they are not as recent as they perhaps could be, especially without evidence to the contrary or demonstrative of a flawed method used by invesigators.

No, your opinion on morality is no more valid than that of anyone else. Thus society should be legislated by what harms it. Your opinion is only valid insofar as you can support it with evidence.

Those articles demosntrate some of the harms homosexuality inflicts on society, and homosexuals themselves.

And as I said before, pornography has lead to very real, noticable harms within society, and it is utterly immoral.

If I find half a dozen studies which highlight these problems, I'll post them, and we can all agree that since the evidence highlighting the problems caused by porography and demonstrating their existence and impact, that we should actually ban it, and you would totally support me on this, being a man of evidence and all?

So you decided to ignore all the evidence that the Bible is just flat out wrong?

You're ignoring the evidence I just posted regarding the health and social issues relating to the tolerance of homosexuality within society, so even if there was such evidence, we'd both be guilty of the same crime.

And to answer your question, I do believe in the Bible's authenticity and credibility.