(October 16, 2014 at 11:29 am)CristW Wrote: <--- Your Logic.

Look amigo, I'm only asking you to do the groundwork here because no matter how hard I try...I can't seem to choose my sexual orientation. I figure, since you seem to think it has something to do with choice...that you must be able to do so. I'd be shocked, schocked I say...if it turns out that you're speaking directly out of your ass.

(October 15, 2014 at 12:38 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: First of all Matthew did meet Jesus he was one of his apostles.

You will, of course, have no problem demonstrating that the Gospel according to Matthew was in fact written by the apostle Matthew.

The fact of the matter is that, contrary to what the church teaches as tradition, we have no idea who wrote any of the four gospels.

(October 16, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(October 15, 2014 at 12:38 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: First of all Matthew did meet Jesus he was one of his apostles.

You will, of course, have no problem demonstrating that the Gospel according to Matthew was in fact written by the apostle Matthew.

The fact of the matter is that, contrary to what the church teaches as tradition, we have no idea who wrote any of the four gospels.

Get yer logic and facts outta here..

(October 16, 2014 at 11:29 am)CristW Wrote: Your formula?...

Attracted to men + Attracted to women = Bi-sexual

Yup.

(October 16, 2014 at 11:29 am)CristW Wrote: Attracted to men + Sexual intercourse with women = (Heterosexual)?

Nope. That's your retarded logic.

(October 16, 2014 at 11:29 am)CristW Wrote: Attracted to men + Sexual intercourse with men = Homosexual

Yes.

(October 16, 2014 at 11:29 am)CristW Wrote: Sexual intercourse with men + Sexual intercourse with women = Bi-sexual.

Again, your logic.

(October 16, 2014 at 11:29 am)CristW Wrote: Sexual intercourse with men + Attracted to women = (Homosexual)?

See above.

(October 16, 2014 at 11:29 am)CristW Wrote: Attracted to women + Sexual intercourse with women = Heterosexual

Yes.

(October 16, 2014 at 11:29 am)CristW Wrote: *Given that it is a Male(Man)* Note: I am the last category.

The only people I know of who need to constantly assert to others that they're heterosexual are not, in fact, heterosexual. I can help with that, if you know what I mean.

(October 16, 2014 at 11:29 am)CristW Wrote: Now, I want you to explain the ones with the question mark and elaborate?

I've already elaborated plenty, but I'll try.
What you do doesn't define what you like. People do things they don't like all the time; it's a part of life. By your logic, kids who eat broccoli actually like to eat it, and kids who do their homework like to do homework. Adults who work double-shifts to keep the power on at home like to work themselves half to death, and adults who flip burgers for a living like to be in a practically dead-end job.
See the problem?

(October 16, 2014 at 11:29 am)CristW Wrote: Point: No matter what is the sexual orientation, the (final) act is still the factor in figuring out sexual orientation.

I see no point.

Well, seeing that all religions are primitive and barbaric. their 'perfect' holy books are unable to evolve with the times, meaning that they are not perfect. I knew this one girl years ago, she is gay, and she would get sick when she tried to 'chose' to be straight. It is not a choice. they are born that way, there for 'god' made them that way. well thats my thoughts.

The bible is a lot harder to justify then the Quran from what it seems. All the Quran has written is the story of a city that who's men were engaged in sex with other men and they were condemned for doing something no nation before them had done. This could be easily said to not be that homosexuality was prohibited but that a society which is most composed of heterosexuals should not be engaged in these acts. It was said in hadiths that there was a trial, that God made the women ugly, as a test for the city. This is why despite being heterosexual, they chose to have sex with men.

Aside from that, all the anti-gay stuff comes from the hadiths.

Hello all,

The lack of any scholarly "groundwork", on this thread, is not really surprising based on my experience on this website. Nevertheless, we have scholarly data from researchers themselves who have given several theories of the origin of Homosexuality. It was no surprise to me to find this in the areas of social science especially in the area of psychology. Well, I am not sure what are your backgrounds, so possibly it would be unfair to me to address the lack of intelligent responses. The evidence given is exactly what I was referring to concerning that scientific data is in DISPUTE and therefore DEBATABLE. Let's look first at the area of sexual attraction since this seems to be an area of recent discussion:

"3. Sexual attraction

A third possibility that homosexuality–promoting genes were selected for because of women’s sexual preferences. The argument is that some women may have been favorably disposed towards homosexually inclined men because of their social, cooperative and empathic qualities. Thus, forming partnerships with those men may have ensured better care for children. Research indeed shows that many women find gay men appealing because they are less threatening than (some) heterosexual men who might be openly aggressive and predatory. Again this hypothesis awaits empirical investigation."

SOURCE: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/natu...osexuality

Let me add, that many areas of psychology deals with social psychology which in some areas cross into sociology. Nevertheless, when "genes" are mentioned this goes into the area of biology. Whether some of the info enters into psychology, sociology, anthropology or biology it simply under the umbrella of social science.

---

(October 16, 2014 at 6:56 pm)Kowlzer Wrote: Well, seeing that all religions are primitive and barbaric. their 'perfect' holy books are unable to evolve with the times, meaning that they are not perfect. I knew this one girl years ago, she is gay, and she would get sick when she tried to 'chose' to be straight. It is not a choice. they are born that way, there for 'god' made them that way. well thats my thoughts.

That's not true. They are not all Barbaric and primitive. They are all outdated and full of flaws.

I don't even know what it means to have or not have a right to be gay. Should people who are gay have rights? Yes, they're people and they should have the same rights as everyone else. But how do you have or not have a right to be gay? I don't get it.

Do Mexicans have a right to be Mexican?

Do gingers have a right to have green eyes?

Whether or not you think they have a right to be Mexican, or gay, or have green eyes they will still be that way because they just are. It's not something they can change, it's not something we can make them change, they don't have a choice. If you're gay you just are regardless of how other people feel about it. Even regardless of how you feel about it.

CristW, copying theists' tactics of Insulting our intelligence when he doesnt agree.

I don't understand the poll. I didn't vote.

Queers have a right to be queer. Being queer goes against nature, it is not healthy and normal behavior for the most part. I don't believe in homosexual marriage. But I think committed homosexuals should be given the right that married couples get.

That is my opinion on queers.

Religion?

It is all man-made gibberish. As such they make up the rules as they go. If they don't become homosexual loving in nature, too much $ will leave their coffers. They must adapt and embrace homosexuals or die.