Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
1 - If you think all there is to evolution is what you learned (or forced to learn depending on your view) in highschool then im sorry to have to tell you that as complicated as THAT material is, its a VERY VERY simplistic analysis of evolution. Again i want to point out evolution is an entire branch of science, one in which people get PHDs in meaning year upon years of study and even then research is continued upon.2 - I started reading the bible, page by page, word by word, not the cherry picking that pastors or priests like to do to make some sort of modern event or political view relevant. What i read disgusted me and i dropped my christian faith right then and there. "God" holds no value to human life and in fact rewards those who take it on his behalf.
What I eluded to in the previous post I can summarize briefly. There`s been studies showing that the structural differences observed in gays are the result of differences in hormonal enviroments in the womb. To support some of what Maddog has said, the more boys a mother has, the more of a certain hormone she produces which has been shown to directly alter brain development (only shown in males but most gay studies are done on males). Geeze, just one of many examples I could cite but it`s hard to talk bio chem to people that don`t understand bio nor chem.
Being a grad student in biochem (one more year and I`ll have my phd) I`ll let everyone in on a little secret- the general public is retarded when it comes to science. Too many people don`t know what cells are, how genes work, what enzymes and hormones do, they don`t understand basic biology (and have no idea about phys. nor chem.).
This is important to note because then the media picks up studies and dumbs them down quite a bit to ensure broad understanding. So we aren`t seeing all of the data, the conclusions, nor most importantly the background information which details why these studies are being done.
Having read many journals specifically on protein differences with the gays, there is a very broad support that biology plays a large portion. This doesn`t mean every `gay` is biologically determined to be, but a large portion are. Of course I can back all of this up with respected journals- but lack the space.
Alright, keith2, do me a favor. Describe to me the moment you CHOSE to be straight. I do not mean the moment you realized ladies were attractive for the first time. I mean the moment you sat down and made a conscious decision of the fact you would only be attracted to females.
Can`t do it? Yeah, didn`t think so.
That`s the kind of idiocy the "choice" argument is. We don`t choose our orientation any more than you do. We do, of course, choose to ACT on that orientation, the same way heterosexual people choose to act on theirs, but we do not choose the orientation. We may choose to be an active part of the prominent gay lifestyle scene, but only in such a way as anyone chooses what scenes and social groups they wish to belong to, but again, the orientation is not chosen, or even required. There are, in fact, many straight supporters who are active members of the gay scene in most places.
I`m watching you two. Consider this a warning.
I do see a problem with public groping, but then again, I don`t care if you are hetero, or gay....I don`t want to see it. Take it elsewhere.
Religious bashers? Yeah, and you are going to judge everyone for the wrong they do...well, have I got news for you...you aren`t perfect either. And if you recall a certain passage in YOUR book... Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.....well...I`m waiting....
I would like to point out one flaw in the idea that homosexuality is a danger to the species. Humans are highly social creatures, like all great apes. It`s one of the defining characteristics of our species. Homosexuals, who do not reproduce themselves, support greater society by helping to raise the children of others. This is also evidenced by the fact that the more children a mother has, the higher the likelihood that each successive child (at least in the case of males) will be homosexual. So, large extended families with homosexuals have people free of their own children to help rear the children of their siblings. In this way, homosexuality serves two vital biological functions by slowing population growth in a species that is far too numerous such as ourselves, and by offering a better social environment for our highly social species.
Actually, that is because alcohol damages the brain, not because of thought processes. It shrinks the frontal lobes.
And sixclaws, I don`t do "angry deletions".
The only thing I`ll say to this is that the vast majority of what makes us up as humans is neither solely genetic nor solely environmental.
And that`s that.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:17:45 PM
zerocyde, it doesn`t say so on your profile... would it be a lucky guess that you`re a Christian?"
Pretty on topic right there. ;)
Joking mostly. Sorry.
I`m not Christian, but by that you mean that u believe evolution is the process in which God creates, correct?
A pretty rational belief if you ask me."
Essentially. The Bible says we were created, not we were created exactly as we are. Evolution is woven into the whole plan.
i`m no longer gona look at this page, need to concentrate on homework. temptation. growing. strong. GAHHH
I`m not Christian, but by that you mean that u believe evolution is the process in which God creates, correct?
A pretty rational belief if you ask me.
lol, the exact opposite. If I was a christian I would not have said; ""I don`t give a poo who you wanna screw, as long as you`re a good person."" I probably would have said; "I HOPE YOU STUPID dratING FAGOTS DIE YOU PIECES OF poo! JESUS HATES YOU YOU dratING DEGENERATE HOMOS!" and then chased them down with a flamethrower, lol.
... also, I probably wouldn`t have mentioned my belief in evolution had I been a christian."
Ignorance incarnate right there. I am a Christian. I believe in evolution and creation. Yes, you can believe in both. I have absolutely nothing against gay people. I do, however, have something against willfully ignorant noobs like you.
dangit why u make me debate again :P
I never said God makes everything all good, a father disciplines his son too, right? also, if a son is walking and he trips, the father couldn`t have prevented it, but helps us up. he doens`t carry us, or else we never grow. that`s wha
of course SOMEONE tries to spark another debate. i`m just letting people know i have good sources :P
and i`ll freely admit i got a 2 on the APUSH test. i`ll admit it. happy? :P
but mentioning Spartans in a history essay usually does not bode too well. a fair warning to all!
Freaking i wish i had nunchucks on my head, that`d be sweet.
and now we all dandily walk through the dainty field of daffodils holding hands :D
... also, I probably wouldn`t have mentioned my belief in evolution had I been a christian.
Other than upbringing and certain childhood influences, there are a few factors and personality traits that help lead to the choice of homosexuality though, and that`s probably what leads to these findings of differences in brain size and whatnot.
I don`t know why gays are so desperate to find proof that it`s "not their fault." drat everyone else, be proud, lol.
"As far as I`m concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay"
...i dont really have an opinions on this tbh. I have no problem with gay people, its any persons right to be who they are.whether your born with it or not..who cares really :S"
I agree completely, they`re gay and that`s fine with me, but sometimes you just have to make your point. ;)
Sixclaw sweetie *pats cheeck* Take a couple a good Religion/Philosophy classes yourself and then come debate the big girls."
That`s politically incorrect, "plus sized" is the preferred term.
Sorry, I had to. ;)
Caboose: I don`t have a problem w/ christians for the most part. I can respect a beautiful tradition of relating to the great mystery. I DO have a problem however when that theology becomes ugly, and when adherents to that philosophy mistreat and dehumanize members of my human family. I have every right to call out those religionists who I see are not staying true to their founding principles."
You do have a right, and even and obligation, to call out religious people who harass your family or do anything that contradicts theirs supposed beliefs. In the Bible, Jesus tells his followers that one of the duties of Christians is to point out and expose hypocritical leaders, both political and religious. Where it becomes damaging, however, is when you begin to categorize all religious people as ignorant blind believers.
Took that last year... I feel so sorry for you
I actually just read that book again (I tried in 7th grade and failed miserably, but junior year is a bit better) and this is where I get a large part of my views. Christians who believe in love seem few these days, but we still stand.
...i dont really have an opinions on this tbh. I have no problem with gay people, its any persons right to be who they are. whether your born with it or not..who cares really :S
In the words of Ron Burgandy, agree to disagree.
I understand fully, I for one am a student of AP Euro. The catholic church of the Middle and Post middle ages angers me just as much as it angers a Jew. However, the way you word it, can be taken as a direct affront to CHristianity. it was my mistake to take it that way, but i do hope you re-word slightly so that an understanding can be made
I do know about religion. I`m a student of comparitive religion. Your Sky Father said "be fruitful and multiply" ergo anyone who isn`t is an affront to God and Nature. We Should all have a mate and have many many children by that reasoning, and if we aren`t we`re in trouble."
You can be a student of whatever you want, your ignorance makes it apparent that you don`t understand religion. Sorry.
Your jumping on the "Survival of the fittest`s" anology which isnt true! Survival of the species is the correct way to look at it. Nature dosnt automatically know who his going to be the smartest of the fittest does it! therefore your smart gay friends argument is moot!:"
Assuming you believe that genetic traits are passed from parent to child, survival of the fittest is inherent to survival of the species. While it`s true that it is occasionally necessary to sacrifice few for the good of the many, overall evolution needs to weed out the damaging genes in order to be useful.
I completely respect your beliefs, but Christianity does have a big difference. mercy. most other beliefs say (let`s exclude Buddhism here) that God will punish you if you do bad. In Christianity, it is all forgiven. All it`s about is love. or supposed to be
So, their is a Christian God, you believe the world is peachy keen as is. The black plague was sooo bad wasn`t it? where is God?
The black plague overall lifted the lower class, gave the peasents and serfs a new position, created a middle class, expanded Europe, increased trade, brought new farming techniques, and helped the longevity of the average European after the ordeal was over.
Holocaust: Production was up, the great depression was ended, surplus is up, the UN is created to protect, and now the world is aware that we must always be watching over others.
For every thing their is a reason
God said that back when there were a couple thousand people. It`s important to be fruitful and multiply, for the human race to sustain itself. You do NOT know what I believe in, and it`s ignorant to assume so. I believe in what CS Lewis believes in. Every Christian is just as sinful as any nonchristian, breaking one more rule doens`t matter, the important part is belief in a God of love, and admittance of sins. Just because i do one more good thing than someone else, doens`t cancel out the thousands of bad things i do every day. Christianity is about mercy, not about hatred and punishment.
<---is sick of hearing that there`s in omnipotent if you ask me, religious fanatics are far worse of a threat to humanity than a few homosexuals."
For the first (and most likely last) time I agree with you. Fanatics of anything are harmful. The religious people who do good are the ones who interpret the words of whatever god they believe in to mean that we are supposed to help and love one another. Christians who kill in the name of God are blaspheming everything Christianity stands for. And homosexuals are not threatening the race. However, you remain wrong about everything else.
Personally, i think God has everything to do with the "pettiness" of life, he`s omnipotent for a reason. For God, 1 second is a million, a million is 1. if he truely loves us for the creations we are, why wouldn`t he watch over every individual one of us? a father will tend to his son, will he not? God has all the time in the world for each one of us. And you`ll probably counter my statement with "but what about all the prayers unfulfilled, and all the tragedies of the world"
Well my count limit is almost up, i`ll continue in the next post.
because when you search, you wont find. Someone important said that.. oh yeah, me.
". Something that all christians decided to pick and choose from."
Dammit, how many times do I have to repeat myself. We dont pick and chose. There is a reason we follow some and not all. Its in the writing
Most fanatics in general are threats to humanity, be it Christians, athiests, Jews, Nazis (prob Nazis moreso than others), or Muslims. Christianity has bad rep because we`re the biggest group, everything good we do is "typical", while every bad thing we do is magnified. I`m not saying we don`t make mistakes, but any group will have its fanatics
a small portion of the pop. is gay, It`s not a threat to survival anymore than if I failed to have children.BTW, can any of the fundies explain to me why the almighty hasn`t sent my dream guy to me yet?By that reasoning I should be comfortably paired up w/ a husband by now. I`m waiting..."
Until you have at least a decent understanding of religion, I doubt anyone will bother to explain things to you. Smart religious people don`t pretend to know everything religion has to offer, any more than smart physicists pretend to know all the mysteries of the universe.
Your jumping on the "Survival of the fittest`s" anology which isnt true! Survival of the species is the correct way to look at it. Nature dosnt automatically know who his going to be the smartest of the fittest does it! therefore your smart gay friends argument is moot!
got cut off, before the "negative genes" will show up in humans. we are now providing for the poor, and helping others less fortuanate, giving less chance for natural selection to make way
Come ta think of it, those priests that can`t marry, they have the same problem don`t they???"
No person is an affront to nature. Some people are meant to be fruitful and reproduce, others aren`t. There`s no problem with that. Any Christian who says you`re a bad person for being gay, is basically the pot calling the kettle black.
Check the APA site, not Wiki.
I was not using flame away in reference to gays. It is clear you have never seen IAB before. Your whole three posts confirm this."
The problem with evolution in a species such as humans, is that we no longer follow it. Social Darwin may have a slight effect, however, overall, humans will reproduce before any "
I never said God was here to fix all our problems. God is here to make us grow, he will give us discipline when neccessary and he will reward us when need be. he isn`t here to sugarcoat our lives, and by all means, our lives should not be "better" in terms of material and superficial views compared to any other person. it just might happen to be that way once in a while
Come ta think of it, those priests that can`t marry, they have the same problem don`t they???
sixclaws13, i`m sorry, but i don`t think you understand how evolution (or should i say, the theory of...) works. Nature randomly spits out 1000`s of variations, and through competition and natural selection, the strongest should survive (more often), thus improving the species. That in mind however, i don`t think that applys to humans that much anymore because we don`t eat our young or horde all the food so the weak go hungry. I think your evolution only improves a species idea is completely misinformed.. and your "flame away" ending was a complete DICK thing to say.**unless, of couse, you weren`t using it as a reference to gays, which i doubt**"
I was not using flame away in reference to gays. It is clear you have never seen IAB before. Your whole three posts confirm this.
although, i am seeing quite a lot less Christian bashing lately. that makes me happy enough. at least a bit of us are now respectful towards each other... the work of the mods?
completely wrong... gay is a direct threat to reproduction, and if 1 to 10 men are guy, that`s an extremely high percent. 10%. apparently higher in women. something`s gone wrong with evolution, or statistics aren`t up to date.
and why God wouldn`t send you a husband? it`s because you`re not ready for it yet. i`m not a conventional fundamentalist, but they`d agree with most Christians that God answers prayers that you are ready for. if it doesn`t progress you in maturity, than it`s not worth answering. no?
wikipedia FTWi drating hate that saying
Acctually thats quite the wrong way to look at it. If we are talking science and evolution, it makes perfect sense. After all, homosexuality has been observed in many other creatures. The urge to mate is the same as the urge to breed. This is could well be one of evolutions crowd control methods. If a species breeds to much and has no natual predators then food runs out>>"
Evolution undeniably has crowd control methods, but those methods also act to assure that mainly the strong survive and reproduce. Methods to keep the population in check affect the vulnerable, the sick and weak, first, because those are the least desirable to have add their traits to the gene pool. Saying homosexuality is meant to keep a stable population is saying nature is making gays gay to make sure they don`t breed, which I do not believe is true, since some of the smartest, most capable people I know are gay.
or finally it would usher in some much needed population control.
Go figure! Someone who belives in invisible sky beings! Well..we wont be listening to your opinion because "the bible says so" isnt a valid one!
The whole nature vs nurture is a bs argument. Why would 1 person turn out gay but not their siblings?Why would one twin be straight but the other gay (yes I do know a set of twin`s and thats exactly what happened).
Evolution does not select out gayness b/c it`s not a threat to survival. It happens and is about as important as having blue eyes or red hair. It makes no difference in the specie`s survival anymore than an individual that doesn`t reproduce. You sound just like the Saddleback minister."
If you are gay, and as such you have sex only with your own gender, you will not reproduce. If we were all gay, none of us would reproduce. So in a sense, homosexuality would be a threat to a species survival.
My point is..I dont think it`s a choice. I know enough gay men and women and all of them state it`s how they have allways felt and how they will allways feel.
And even if it was a choice just leave them the hell alone. Its none of your business!
Acctually thats quite the wrong way to look at it. If we are talking science and evolution, it makes perfect sense. After all, homosexuality has been observed in many other creatures. The urge to mate is the same as the urge to breed. This is could well be one of evolutions crowd control methods. If a species breeds to much and has no natual predators then food runs out>>
13-17? seriously? your going to try and come at us like you lived a 100 lifetimes and your not even old enough to know what you want out of life... please... let the grown ups have a real debate, meanwhile you go back to myspace and write a blog and watch Cribs, or Flavor of love...
*Silken cord descends from ceilling* *Yank* Overmann I summon you!! Your scientific know how is needed!
There is statistical significance that people with a bigger left side of the brain, suggest that they like men.
"There is physical evidence - a correlation between the two is evidence....what on earth is your definition of evidence?"
No, the only time you can have evidence is in an experiment. In a correlational study there are way too many possible variables.
For example: there is a statistical significance that shows that limiting the amount of tv a child watches, show to go with higher test scores. (cont)""
The issue I`m pointing out isn`t if there is evidence, its that you`re dogging the journalist for misrepresenting the facts - which looks like he isn`t doing. Now, if the scientist is the one who is drawing a line and calling it clear evidence, then that`s another issue entirely.
And will the fundies please knock it off, we know you`re hiding under bad propaganda to disguise the fact that you have no good reasoning.
Anyone who`d like to contradict me please put your money where your mouth is and take my "Gay for a day" challenge and become legitmately gay yourself. It simply can`t be done. And lets go a step further here, how ridiculous is the notion that somehow your parents "teach" your orientation? I mean I totally had the "how to like men talk" from my parents. Absurd.
Oh i think there are those that willingly try to buck the system just to either be different or to gain attention. There is also the opposite end, someone who lied to themselves for years trying to convince themselves they are straight, maybe they are even born again and member of their church, but deep down they know they are gay. Their whole lives they lie to themselves for the sake of their family or church or society. Then one day they break down, admit to themselves what theyve always known inside. It tears apart families, but that person gets tired of living a lie... Theres an argument here for all sides...
...That`s exactly what they were saying, they`re on your side there.
Somewhere in the middle.
Is it just me, or do the non religious folks start the debates (read:Flame Wars)
I agree, it doesn`t really matter. People are human no matter what, and that`s really the most important thing. Unfortunately, not everyone holds that value for other people`s happiness.
Dr Qazi RahmanQueen Mary, University of London
I couldn`t help but chuckle at "Queen Mary"! It`s so ironic given the subject! Anyone else read that wrong at first?
But then fancy doesnt pay his rent....
"No offence guys but I`m going to go with a University of London study published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, rather than Foote, cdpickels09 and primetimekin..."
I was fine with the study until I read the quote by the scientist... that sounded like experimenter bias (God my psychology teacher has that word engraved in my head)
Well im off for an hour, hopefully there will be a good debate brewing. Hold down the fort davy
No offence guys but I`m going to go with a University of London study published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, rather than Foote, cdpickels09 and primetimekin...
It could possibly be that people with a bigger left side of the brain are more artistic. Then they are influenced by outside sources such as media that leads them to believe that people who are artistic are women, or gay men. Child then associates himself with gay men.
Im not saying that is the case, but for reasons like that you cant call it evidence. You can say its correlation, or statistically significant
i have nothing against gays (certainly nothing religious) but sexual prefreence just like everything else is a choice.
also correlation doesnt prove poo.
so you cant say its evidence, but you can say there is a correlation.
Correlational studies are never evidence.
What you can say is:(I dont remember what specific side it is so just pretend the details are right)
For example: there is a statistical significance that shows that limiting the amount of tv a child watches, show to go with higher test scores. (cont)
Correlation IS evidence. It`s evidence, not proof.
And to everyone else. If you like dogs better than cats, you can`t CHOOSE to like cats better. You can pretend to like cats better, but that`s not the same thing.
There is physical evidence - a correlation between the two is evidence....what on earth is your definition of evidence?
They also found a similar thing with men who wanted a sex change. Thank God we are so ignorant over in the UK (I won`t say Europe because lets be honest there are still some parts that are as backward as the US).
Hmm.. when a scientist says "As far as I`m concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," then chances are the words of the journalist are accurate to what is mentioned in the article regarding if it was evidence or not.
God I hate journalism. This isn`t evidence. Its correlation.