(October 19, 2015 at 9:28 am)Drich Wrote: Because again if they were genetically hardwired to only find the same sex attractive their genetics would die with them in just a few generations, million of years ago. That would mean a pair of gay birds, or lions, wolves, ect are not examples of a species propagating the illusive 'gay gene', but the opposite. The prove that gay animals have sex because they chose to have gay sex for whatever reason. The same holds true with social creatures as well. Again, even if they help the group survive, they themselves would not be able to reproduce the prominent gene that makes a creature gay. Which again over time/Millions of years this trait would be bred out of the gene pool.

False dichotomy. There are more possibilities beyond it's genetically hardwired or it's a choice. Bzzzt. Fallacy.

Wait, did someone say we want Bibles "gone"?? WTF would that even mean?

We want the Bible shown for the magical charlatanism that it is, to be looked at the same way we see the Eneuma Elish, as an outdated collection of Bronze Age tribal shepherders' priest-stories about magic and superstition. There's a critical difference. We are no more bigoted against your faith than we are against Native Americans' "Great Spirit" or the animism of hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa. We find them all equally ridiculous and backward, in the light of modern knowledge.

And yes, you do have to hate someone in order to execute them for victimless crimes, or to banish them from their homes and families. Religion gives bigots the power to claim divine justification for such bigotries. It even gives the power (as established by the Bible) to wipe out your neighbors in the claim that God "gave you" this land... a process that is still going on over the same stupid verses, to this day, on the same pieces of land.

(October 19, 2015 at 9:30 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 18, 2015 at 2:00 pm)dyresand Wrote: Mermaid is right you know

concerning what? Again, empty unsupported attack means she/you are doing the very thing you claim I am doing.. Which means I am right... you know.

A woefully ignorant dick and may i add a woefully ignorant homophobic dick who bends the bible to his own will  and ignore the fact that the bible is a racist homophobic misogynistic  book  and not to mention people have used it as guide to child abuse.

(October 19, 2015 at 9:45 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote:

(October 19, 2015 at 9:28 am)Drich Wrote: This.. 'explanation' would only work is a social communal setting where the homosexuals creatures were still having hetrosexual sex. which deletes the idea of the 'pure homosexual' (who can not supposedly be aroused by the opposite sex) Otherwise the 'gay gene' (if it truly ever existed) would have been bred out of the gene pool (Per Darwin's theory not mine) a few dozen generations ago. Why? Because if the gay monkeys gay people descended from could not reproduce/Could not be aroused by the opposite sex) then their pure gay gene died with them, no matter how useful they were to the non gay monkey men. Which means that your 'explanation' then becomes a social/psychological Choice and not one genetically programed in. (Monkeys had gay sex because it was fun for that particular monkey, and not because it 'had to.')

A good example that dispels your explanation would be all the supposedly gay animals who do not commune in herds or packs/families (as your explanation demands for it's validation.)  The fact that non social creatures(One who does not live in any of the social structures you described) who still have homosexual tendencies proves that those animals simply chose to have sex with what they wanted, because it is pleasurable to them, yet could serve no purpose, or rather had no influence on the genetic make up of the species as a whole.

Because again if they were genetically hardwired to only find the same sex attractive their genetics would die with them in just a few generations, million of years ago. That would mean a pair of gay birds, or lions, wolves, ect are not examples of a species propagating the illusive 'gay gene', but the opposite. The prove that gay animals have sex because they chose to have gay sex for whatever reason. The same holds true with social creatures as well. Again, even if they help the group survive, they themselves would not be able to reproduce the prominent gene that makes a creature gay. Which again over time/Millions of years this trait would be bred out of the gene pool.

Maybe that is why genetic science make no claims to "Coming closer to finding the gay gene" And it maybe also why "psychologists/sociologists" seem to be the only ones making those claims. Or so goes my last 3 google searches

I really don't understand your argument here, just another example of the religious attempting to fit new scientific ideas to their prehistoric dogma.

I'd have loved to have seen your take on this a few decades ago...you're an intelligent guy, clearly.  How you can see through your own bullshit astounds me.

what's not to understand?

Gay creatures can not reproduce. No reproduction= no gay genes in the gene pool.

(October 19, 2015 at 10:37 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(October 19, 2015 at 9:33 am)Drich Wrote: Wait a tick...

Your not one of those Stoo-ped Atheists who don't know that bible represents two completely different religions are you?

Or do you not know their are no more OT Jews?

IDK Sandy, maybe it's better if you put me back on "your list." I don't think youtube can help you much on this one.

You're not one of those stupid individuals who doesn't know that the bible represents far more than two completely different religions are you?
Case and point; every single denomination who interprets the Bible radically differently.
If you're going to be insulting could you at least do it properly? 
(FYI; You're using the laughing emote far too much at things that aren't that funny to the point its becoming meaningless.)

I would say the irony of the misspellings and misuse of the word 'your' was lost on you, yet ironically the use of the wasn't even if you claim the oppsite.

(October 20, 2015 at 9:36 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 19, 2015 at 9:45 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: I really don't understand your argument here, just another example of the religious attempting to fit new scientific ideas to their prehistoric dogma.

I'd have loved to have seen your take on this a few decades ago...you're an intelligent guy, clearly.  How you can see through your own bullshit astounds me.

what's not to understand?

Gay creatures can not reproduce. No reproduction= no gay genes in the gene pool.

That's not how it works you ninny if that was the case wouldn't everyone be straight.

(October 20, 2015 at 9:36 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 19, 2015 at 9:45 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: I really don't understand your argument here, just another example of the religious attempting to fit new scientific ideas to their prehistoric dogma.

I'd have loved to have seen your take on this a few decades ago...you're an intelligent guy, clearly.  How you can see through your own bullshit astounds me.

what's not to understand?

Gay creatures can not reproduce. No reproduction= no gay genes in the gene pool.

accidental double post delete this.

Can't pick and choose. Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it". If he didn't come to abolish it then you better start following it all or figure out that you believe he fulfilled it and died for ALL sins and none are worthy of being judged. You have one other option... Figure out it is BS