Drich Wrote:what's not to understand?

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

That's like saying: Infertile creatures can not reproduce. No reproduction = no infertile genes in the gene pool.

Which is obviously bullshit, there are genes that make creatures infertile.

(October 19, 2015 at 12:56 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Well, on the one hand, you're right... bisexuality is more common than outright homosexuality,

If this is the case then we can point to 'Choice' (choosing to have homosexual sex) and invalidating the "I can not be aroused by the opposite sex" argument.

(Which BTW is my argument, so thanks for that.)

Quote:in humans and animals both. It's not a binary solution-set. Look up the Kinsey Scale, if you want to know what I mean.

I'm also glad you refered to the Kinsey scale, because one can very easily argue the whole 'scale' is based on preference/Choice rather than a hard wired response. Which would then make it a "Binary solution-set." Which BTW is what you need for your last post to work, unless have now flip flopped, and looking to validate Homosexuality not from a genetic POV, but a social.

Quote:It is clear by this point that homosexuality is not genetic,

bingo!

Quote: but epigenetic, relating to the developmental genes which switch on and off at varying times and durations in order to regulate the hormone environment in which the sexuality-governing regions of our brains (and endocrine system) develop.

If this were true then we could easily identify and map this gene in something like a 'fruit fly'/A Creature who's genetic map is well established and has a fast generational cycle, so that we can manipulate 'turn the gene on and off' to validate the 'gay gene' theory.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...094541.htm

Now in the article scientist did biologically manipulate male fruit flies into courting other males, they did this by altering brain function, and not genetics. So again, if their were a 'gay gene' (recessive or not) it should be easy to identify in a lessor creature, and subsequently apply/transfer to more complex ones.

Quote: However, it is a "fixed" thing in adults, wherever they wind up landing on the Kinsey Scale, as demonstrated by experiments like the pheromone-detection blind studies.

Validation of pheromone based attraction to the point of it being the deciding factor in copulation puts us on the same reproductive level as the fruit flies in that article. Meaning if we/Humans have to have equal to or less control of our base desires on whom we have sex with than those fruit flies, for this argument to work... Do you really want to go down that path?

Quote:And even if there is  a gene which has a variant that tends to allow for that epigenetic cascade to occur, it will not necessarily be bred out of a population due to natural selection pressure, due to the "mid-setting" of bi- or pan-sexuality and due to kin selection effects in social species.

Again to make the assumption that their is a 'gay gene' puts you in a realm of faith, not science. You are looking for loop holes for a gene/theory that does not exist in creatures we know everything about. Creatures we can biologically (Drugs) and though gene manipulation (Recreate genetically the same conditions the drugs induce in the creatures brain) to force it into homosexual behavior. Not to mention 20+ years of human Geneome mapping, and ever increasing pressure from society to produce something. yet nothing genetic has ever been produced.

To deny Homosexual tendencies is to live with one's head buried in the sand. The reason so far for these tendencies are not completely understood, but they are there. Is their a biological component? Most likely. Is their a social/psychological component again yes. Are people hardwired to be only be gay to where they have absolutly no choice or say in the matter? no. Again unless you content that humanity has less control over it's base urges than lessor creatures do.

Quote:With the exception of the ultra-right-wing conservative Christian group the Family Research Council, every serious study on the subject has shown that homosexuality is a fixed trait, and not a choice in individuals who develop as "Kinsey 6" homosexuals.

But, again even if you blindly accept everything Kinsey says, people who register 1-5 are still making a choice when they are going to be gay and when they are not. Leaving "6"-ers being biologically/psychologically forced to have gay sex (appearently those in whom you consider fruit flies of the population.)

Because again if we can eliminate genetics as being the root cause, then the cause for Homosexuality becomes a biological or psychological in nature. Even so 'we' can choose to ignore, control, or even regulate our biological or psychological needs in a number of different ways. If we so Choose to.

The argument or disagreement we have is whether or not we should be made to make that choice.

Quote: Your suggestion that non-reproduction would automatically breed out of a gene pool is wrong for the same reason that childhood cancers don't breed out of gene pools, why warning-alert behaviors that are deleterious to the lookout but not to his kin group don't breed out, and why altruistic behaviors don't breed out.

Not a correct compareson. Genetically predisposed Cancer is still just Cancer, whether it is early on set (childhood) or late on set (After you passed your genetic material to the next generation) we pass the predisposition for cancer on, not when it occours. Cancer triggers is what determines when a cancer takes hold. Granted sometimes the perfect storm does occour when just the right two parents have a child in that one parent passes on a great number of genes that are/can be triggered by other genes passed by the other parent, but those cases are rare. >1% of all cancer cases
http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/child...statistics

I can't find the article I read last year but Childhood cancer seems to also be heavier is certain regions which indicate either environmental component or a genetic one (perfect storm senerio) But still come out to a fraction of a percent. Why? Because it is all but been 'bred out' of our geneome if infact this was ever an issue over the hundreds of millions of years of our evolution. Point being the numbers of childhood cancer cases (Survival of the fittest) verses the growing number of none reproductive homosexual who supposedly have a hidden gene that no one can find that turns on and off according to soceity's want and will. (Just asking does that only sound silly to me?)

Quote:The first one is an example of a combination of genes that may not be harmful except in a particular combination that results in cancer, while the latter two have deleterious effects in the individual but are helpful to the genes of others who share the same basic gene-set as the individual who has the "deleterious" combination.

That's what I said/meant (Perfect storm)

Quote:Please try to actually understand evolution, rather than bending an oversimplified version to suit your religious prejudices.

You mean like the number of 'Perfect storm" cancer kids (Less than 1%) verses a 5 to 8% of All Americans consider themselves Gay...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demog...ted_States

Again, The cancer gene can be a recessive one that is not active unless the conditions of your "deleterious combination"/My perfect storm paragraph are met. which means a great number (all be it a very small percentage of the population) of parents can pass on genetic material that has a chance of reacting badly with another very specific gene set without any ill effect. Thus over millions of years of evolution represent a less than 1% occourance of childhood cancer (+/-15K kids) Short bus evaluation, the childhood cancer genes are all but bred out of the gene pool, but still remain in a small way because people can pass the gene on without cancer automatically happening to every child.

verses the homosexual/gay gene theory, who's on set of homosexuality is supposedly from birth, and stays with the child all his life which means absolutely no chance of reproduction/passing on the gene. which some how equates to 8% of what 400 million (32,000,000) people being gay?!?!?

Dude, take off the blinders.

That fact that the Homosexual community is growing proves it is not a genetic condition, it is a choice people make, which should not be a problem to anyone unless they are ashamed on a deep level of who they are/choices they make. Which I don't understand. Because if people are willing to deny God, who cares what choices they make for themselves? the net result is the same. Be truly proud of who you are and own the choices you make. Stop making excuses about who you are and why you do things.

(October 19, 2015 at 1:28 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(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. It proves 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.

Ahhh... No.

IDK, Mrs. Mungandur.. But here in 'Merica "Whatever reason" would suggest to most that their is more than any reason listed. The reasons listed being just two of (Whatever reason) All I was looking to do in that statement was elimate the one reason that hinges on a faith based 'gay gene.'

(October 20, 2015 at 11:13 am)Qwest Wrote: 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

You do understand that "The law" includes the laws concening attonement as well as the moral, social and ritual aspects?

If so then you understand "Full fillment of the law" means to complete the laws of atonement because they are the only aspect of the law left open ended/rituals having to be performed for the forgivness of sin.

So according to Christ Nothing goes away, He makes the laws harder/impossible to follow, which takes us/Christians to a place where we need to be in a state of continual/automatic atonement. Which according to everything after your quoted passage in the bible is what Christianity is all about. More over Paul in the book of romans explains in great detail that the whole law is always active, however we are no longer bound to the law as our sole means of righteousness. That righteousness comes from our attonement through Christ.

(October 20, 2015 at 12:35 pm)Evie Wrote:

Drich Wrote:what's not to understand?

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

That's like saying: Infertile creatures can not reproduce. No reproduction = no infertile genes in the gene pool.

Which is obviously bullshit, there are genes that make creatures infertile.

It completely depends on whether or not that gene is active or recessive and the triggers for the gene(s).

With Homosexuality (Kinsey/6) the argument is that one is gay from birth, and can not be aroused by the oppsite sex at all, which would mean their genes would indeed be lost to time.

or at least dimishing as with childhood cancer not increasing.

(October 12, 2015 at 6:36 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 12, 2015 at 3:34 am)ronedee Wrote: Homosexuality is a mental illness, its been medically proven study after study.

Ru-heally? Then you should be able easily to provide, what? A hundred? A dozen? A few really strong ones?

Nah. Let's start with just one. Show us one study that demonstrates that homosexuality is a mental illness. Cuz if you can't, you're lying, and liars make baby Jesus cry.

No he didn't say it was a mental illness! I am straight but I have spent a lot of time and energy fighting this battle. I have been around long enough to see people begin to die of a disease that we had no idea what it was and worked (proudly) all the way up until I was the driving force that made my tiny, red, homophobic county give in and begin to issue marriage liscenses to ALL couples.

I have had teens and young men/women cry on my shoulder because of bigots like this and let me tell you something... If you think that this is what your "God" wants you to do then understand that it is why the youth today are starting to want NOTHING to do with him! Many of us that are older don't believe because of research and what we have learned. The youth simply don't want him because they have decided that they don't want the world of hate that people like you offer. They want a world of love and acceptance. If you want to blame anyone for the lack of faith in the world today I would suggest you look in the mirror.

Thankfully the majority of the country understands that LOVE IS LOVE and we are happy about that. I will not ask you to show proof of your beliefs because it will be some crazy conversion therapy type of scientist who knows nothing anyway

Whether the gay gene(s) are dormant or active... that would still be a matter of genetics.

Drich Wrote:what's not to understand?

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

That's quite .... retarded.

(October 20, 2015 at 1:56 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 20, 2015 at 11:13 am)Qwest Wrote: 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

You do understand that "The law" includes the laws concening attonement as well as the moral, social and ritual aspects?

If so then you understand "Full fillment of the law" means to complete the laws of atonement because they are the only aspect of the law left open ended/rituals having to be performed for the forgivness of sin.

So according to Christ Nothing goes away, He makes the laws harder/impossible to follow, which takes us/Christians to a place where we need to be in a state of continual/automatic atonement. Which according to everything after your quoted passage in the bible is what Christianity is all about. More over Paul in the book of romans explains in great detail that the whole law is always active, however we are no longer bound to the law as our sole means of righteousness. That righteousness comes from our attonement through Christ.

Yes, I do understand that. Then 1. Stop quoting the Old Testament. 2. Let's follow Paul and grab some slaves, concubines, never let women in the churches,... Ohh and don't forget... Thieves, robbers, adulter's (even in the mind), drunkerds and the greedy all rank evenly with these homosexuals you are bashing.

(October 20, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Qwest Wrote: Yes, I do understand that. Then 1. Stop quoting the Old Testament. 2. Let's follow Paul and grab some slaves, concubines, never let women in the churches,... Ohh and don't forget... Thieves, robbers, adulter's (even in the mind), drunkerds and the greedy all rank evenly with these homosexuals you are bashing.

Not to speak of the old book, but people who eat shellfish, cut their hair or wear cloth of two different fabrics are an abomination in the eyes of the lord too. Actually on the same page.

Wonder if Drippy does any of this.