Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Blame not Homosexuality, but attack the root.

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by User8911
Of course, this is if homosexuality is genetic which hasn't been proven.


Is being straight genetic? I haven't seen any conclusive proof.

You know it's true because you are what you are. You don't choose to be, you just are. Why does sexuality need to be proven?




posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by RyanFromCan
reply to post by DavidWillts
 





And you will continue to feel clever until you actually read and see that I specifically told everyone that I don't believe in the bible nor do i agree with it.


And yet, wait for it......The funny thing is, you QUOTE it, nice job I must say for a non believer, to use something you don't believe in, to support your argument. I stand by my comment just as I did before. By the way, I am a Christian, just not a right wing, nut job bible thump-er.


Its okay buddy, there are somethings in life that are going to be over your head. You can't really expect to get it all 100% of the time.
What was my argument exactly that i was using the bible to support? Please quote it or admit that you are making things up, do it now.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Genes often come in two forms, one 'dominant' and one 'recessive'. The gene for eye colour is an example of such a gene. Everybody inherits two copies, one from their father, the other from their mother. If both copies are of the dominant version, the individual will obviously be born with brown eyes; but if one copy each of the dominant and recessive gene are present, the individual's eyes will still be brown. Only if two copies of the recessive gene are present will the individual in question be blue-eyed.

Imagine another gene of the same kind. Its effect is to confer some kind of reproductive advantage exclusively on women. Perhaps it makes them healthier, or more fertile, or attractive to men. Whatever the advantage, it will be enough to cause the gene to be propagated down the generations.

In men, however, this gene operates differently. The dominant form has no effect on them. The recessive form causes them to develop as homosexuals.

Only a man who inherits two copies of the recessive form, one from his father and one from his mother, will be gay. He himself may not pass on the recessive version of the gene, but he doesn't have to; his heterosexual brothers and sisters, who carry a recessive 'gay' copy as well as a dominant 'straight' one, will do that work for him. Gay genes, if they exist, are mainly passed on by straight people.


Ah nice, exactly how i viewed Homosexuality, the good ol Punnett square. The gene that belongs to a women which should have been a mute expression in male but it is not, which would make it a abnormality.

IMO, i would say Homosexuality is an abnormality in the gene expression. It is still natural but it isn't normal because the ratio of it being expressed is really low.
edit on 4/10/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I thank all for their participation on this thread.

Originally, as the OP, I posted this thread on Social Issues on the mainboard, as I believed that this issue needs to be discussed honestly and forthrightly, to shed better insights, to learn more, and share more, to explore solutions.

Unfortunately, the administrators, in their wisdom, presumed my insignificant post as a rant, and moved it the backwaters, where participation will be minimal, and worse - any and every post here in this thread would be considered as rant by others reading it.

Thus it would be waste of everyone's effort, for there are many here would did share good insights, worthy of further exploration, but will only be a futile effort here. I therefore recommend the administrator close this thread, and further worthy participation be engaged on the main board, perhaps by someone else who may be more significant than me.

But if this thread is not closed, and some wish to participate on, I wish them all the best, but as the OP, I will no longer respond here, as rants are useless cerebral excercises. Mankind deserves better evolution than the usual angry animal and beastly instincts.

I respect the administrator's right to do as they wish, and have no further issues with it. I humbly apologise if I had caused offence in any way to anyone, for it is not my intention, but my purpose was only to explore and reach understandings/compromises on this diversive issue.

Cheers!



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream

IMO, i would say Homosexuality is an abnormality in the gene expression. It is still natural but it isn't normal because the ratio of it being expressed is really low.


Aren't we all basically mutations of the original? (whatever the original was).

08% Redheads
10% Homosexual
10% Left Handed
02% Down Symdrome
05% Polydactylism (extra fingers/toes)

Its really time for this last man-made prejudice to come to an end.


edit on 10-4-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Vixen~

Originally posted by User8911
Of course, this is if homosexuality is genetic which hasn't been proven.


Is being straight genetic? I haven't seen any conclusive proof.

You know it's true because you are what you are. You don't choose to be, you just are. Why does sexuality need to be proven?


There are indicators that same gender attractions is genetic - - - even though it has not been pinpointed yet.

It was not until 2006 that the gene was discovered which appears to increase the odds of being left-handed.

Just because a gene or brain chemical hasn't been pinpointed yet - - - does not mean it doesn't exist.


Gene for left-handedness is found Scientists have discovered the first gene which appears to increase the odds of being left-handed.

The Oxford University-led team believe carrying the gene may also slightly raise the risk of developing psychotic mental illness such as schizophrenia.

The gene, LRRTM1, appears to play a key role in controlling which parts of the brain take control of specific functions, such as speech and emotion.

The study appears in the journal Molecular Psychiatry. news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by luciddream

IMO, i would say Homosexuality is an abnormality in the gene expression. It is still natural but it isn't normal because the ratio of it being expressed is really low.


Aren't we all basically mutations of the original? (whatever the original was).

08% Redheads
10% Homosexual
10% Left Handed
02% Down Symdrome
05% Polydactylism (extra fingers/toes)

Its really time for this last man-made prejudice to come to an end.


edit on 10-4-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)


Its an opinion based on normality i would say lol, for example, black hair and brown eyes are dominant traits and its proven, so anything that doesn't follow that pattern would be a mutation(blonde hair from dominant BlackXBlack haired parents).

Im not saying its not normal so it must be bad, all im saying is that it is a mutation compared to what is normally expressed. Maybe for some reason, in 200 years, red eyes and pink hair is the dominant trait, then we could say that brown eyes and black hair are a mutation.
edit on 4/10/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream


Im not saying its not normal so it must be bad, all im saying is that it is a mutation compared to what is normally expressed. Maybe for some reason, in 200 years, red eyes and pink hair is the dominant trait, then we could say that brown eyes and black hair are a mutation.


Oh - I know you weren't saying its not normal. That's why I responded to you.

If something is only 10% of a majority - - it would be as you say - - a mutation compared to what is normally expressed.

But - it is their normal. It is normal for that person born into that minority.

Left handed people are no longer ostracized by certain groups of people as being abnormal - - or an abomination of God.


The Left Handed Analogy


February 10th, 2011 | Author: Darwin Harmless

Yes, it can look awkward when the world is designed for right handed people.I’ve been thinking about that analogy, mentioned in my last post, between persecution of left handed people and the persecution of gays. It’s an intriguing comparison. We might find it hard to believe that left handed people ever were persecuted. It’s such a foreign concept to our modern culture. I’ve been wondering about the people who did the persecuting, back in the dark ages. Surely they didn’t think of themselves as evil, or bad people. Surely they believed they were correct in their behavior, just as they were correct to burn witches. They saw left handed people as somehow threatening, and made the lives of left handed people a living hell, because they believed they were right. Doesn’t that remind you of the judgmental Christians today? And a mere sixty years ago or so, what were those teachers thinking when they took the pencil out of a child’s left hand and put it in the “right” hand? Did they think they were simply correcting bad behavior, starting the child off right? (Starting the child off right?) I’m fascinated by the arrogance of those who think they are normal. www.darwinharmless.com...



edit on 10-4-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Reproduction is a vital aspect for the survival of the human species. Looking at the woes of a greying Japan, no one can deny the problems on the lack of reproduction on the human part. We may end up extinct one day.


How many people do you need in order to "preserve the species?" We're not even close to being extinct.

To put things into perspective, below is a pic of a stadium full of people. (~82,000) Based on the current world population, (7 Billion) we already have enough people on the planet to fill up a stadium full of people, like this one, for every single person in this pic. (82,000 stadiums with 82,000 people per stadium = ~6.7 Billion)

Hardly an endangered species in my opinion.

edit on 4/10/2012 by ~Vixen~ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Vixen~
How many people do you need in order to "preserve the species?" We're not even close to being extinct.



OMG - - that reproduction argument makes me want to


Besides the point - - the reproductive system of homosexuals is not defective.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ~Vixen~
How many people do you need in order to "preserve the species?" We're not even close to being extinct.



OMG - - that reproduction argument makes me want to


Besides the point - - the reproductive system of homosexuals is not defective.


Reproduction is the least of our issues at this point. People should start adopting instead of having kids...after all, if having a kid is really that important, why make one when you can save a child's life from Uganda?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Reproduction is the least of our issues at this point. People should start adopting instead of having kids...after all, if having a kid is really that important, why make one when you can save a child's life from Uganda?


Give ONE - - just ONE unselfish reason for bringing another child into this world.

Not directed at you Starchild.

It is a question for every one.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Starchild23

Reproduction is the least of our issues at this point. People should start adopting instead of having kids...after all, if having a kid is really that important, why make one when you can save a child's life from Uganda?


Give ONE - - just ONE unselfish reason for bringing another child into this world.

Not directed at you Starchild.

It is a question for every one.


At this point, I don't think there is any unselfish necessity (emphasis on "necessity") to bringing a child into this world.

It's either accident, or it's a sign of love, or it's welfare/fashion.
edit on CTuesdaypm020203f03America/Chicago10 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by mythos
 


If you took the time and read what i posted you would see that I don't agree with nor do i believe in the bible, so don't waste your time. Fact is Christianity Judaism and Catholicism are all against homosexuality no matter how you spin it.



are these Leviticus quotes being taken out of context or twisted?

What a stupid question. Considering you just copy/pasted bible passages i don't see how they could be "twisted" or taken out of context.


i read everyone of your posts, which is why i made mine. you have made your brand of cryptic hubris throughout this thread painfully clear.

instead of explaining more clearly what you intended by your oft repeated question regarding the Leviticus quote being "taken out of context, misused, or twisted" you scoffed at those who did not understand what you intended. if so many folk were getting it wrong, help 'em out a bit, instead of condescending them... or worse giving folk stars when they do "get it". how cloy.

as well.... how is my question any stupider than yours? instead of inquiring what i possibly might have intended in my illustration, you have piled on me a whole heap of assumptions (including that i have not read your posts). i did not even imply that i thought you "believed in the bible." any slight of mine was in response to your coy method of telling us just what it is that you meant.

yet, you yourself have taken issue with others making assumptions about you, and then you make a few about me?!?


i'm not sure if you're a new member, or an old one in a new hat, but a little more effort for open discourse and a little less on the condescending quick-draw will go a long way.



cheers
edit on 10-4-2012 by mythos because: accursed typo



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Pro-Gay or anti-gay.. there sure is a lot of unhealthy obsession concerning others and their sexual preference in favor of or against.We all already know all of these arguments in this thread and its all more self-stroking behavior as usual out of some. How about we dont worry about what others like, who others choose to love, and the "roots" of it. Its really grossly ODD how there is this obsession with some here and elsewhere... Im serious, when I meet someone my first thought isnt " I wonder if they're poking a man or a woman.. hmmmm. "

TO the op, there is whole lot more to us all than the ability/capability to reproduce. Believe it or not, some cultures really dont have an issue with gays or who can or cant reproduce. A person can contribute an incredible amount to society and not need the able to reproduce stamp of approval.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Starchild23

Reproduction is the least of our issues at this point. People should start adopting instead of having kids...after all, if having a kid is really that important, why make one when you can save a child's life from Uganda?


Give ONE - - just ONE unselfish reason for bringing another child into this world.

Not directed at you Starchild.

It is a question for every one.


At this point, I don't think there is any unselfish necessity (emphasis on "necessity") to bringing a child into this world.

It's either accident, or it's a sign of love, or it's welfare/fashion.


NO - there isn't.

Accident - Love - whatever - - - are not unselfish reasons to bring another child into this world.

Abortion - - - can actually be an unselfish act. Birth of another child - - is never an unselfish act.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mythos
 





instead of explaining more clearly what you intended by your oft repeated question regarding the Leviticus quote being "taken out of context, misused, or twisted" you scoffed at those who did not understand what you intended.


Its not so much that they did not understand me it was the fact that they went on to form stupid strawmen arguments instead of just answering or attempting to answer the question no matter how many times it was posted.



as well.... how is my question any stupider than yours?

My question was not stupid. It was a question to the material provided in the OP. Specifically this part.


Misused religious beliefs had been manipulated, as proven regularly by america's bible belt,

I was asking how a bible passage that is perfectly clear on what to do about homosexuals is being "misused".
You copy/pasted bible passages asking if they were taken out of context for no real reason, making it a stupid question that has nothing to do with anything.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


what i was intending on illustrating was how silly Leviticus is, and how cherry picking specific parts of the bible to justify one's pathos is equally as silly. i posed your question, however to also illustrate that (i felt) you were defeating you're own point by being so elusive in your position.

and now, i'm about spun out.

keep on fightin' the good fight, whichever side your on. cheers.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advantage
Pro-Gay or anti-gay.. there sure is a lot of unhealthy obsession concerning others and their sexual preference in favor of or against.


It is not really Pro-Gay.

It is Pro-Equality - - Equal Rights.
edit on 10-4-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Vixen~

Originally posted by DavidWillts

How was that passage from the bible i posted "twisted"? It is plain as day, i really don't know where people get these crazy ideas about the bible being twisted to say these things.


The words from your book are no more relevant than the words from any other book. While it has many positive messages, too many people use your bible to advocate intolerance based on the teachings of men like Leviticus rather than follow the message of love and acceptance that Christ taught.


Yes it is misused by too many people. I just hope this won't isp you from inding some of you're own wisdom from it. You know, the population might have been so small when this was written, that it truly was important not to allow the population to become too homosexual. In fact maybe they couldn't risk having it become widespread so they had to make a law so nobody was allowed to do it. Which basically means people were still doing it but it was concealed and kept at a minimum due to the lessened cultural impact it could have because people would not speak of it openly. Also, remember that back then, men probably had to be away from home for long periods of time, alone with other men, hunting, traveling for trade, or soldiering, also leaving the women at home together while they wait for the men. So homosexuality could have been more widespread back then, so maybe there was a reasonable concern to at least want to lessen it. In hindsight, maybe this was a huge mistake, and I feel very bad for anyone who was punished for this, but I'm just trying to get into the frame of mind they might have found themselves in during that time. I'm certainly not trying to justify it.

Personally I think there was more bisexuality than anything back then. You're basically gonna have sex with whatevers around when you go years without having anyone new come around. My cousin told me that she read in a book that Jim Bowie, of knife fame, had sex with his 13 year old sister because they lived out in the middle of nowhere and there was nobody else around.

Maybe the law was to stop bisexual cheating from going on. Guys wanted their wives to wait for them when they went to battle for years. Or I dunno, maybe not.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join