Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Protected from what, exactly?Society has no right to tell two adult people what to do in the privacy of their own homes, morality can not be legislated (hence my support of gay marriage). However, when innocent children are involved, I do think they need to be protected.
And I'll respond as I have prewviously to this claim... nonsense.I was trying to explain to her that this is impossible to do - one cannot do this when society's social principles are rooted in religion.
I believe that there most certainly is an objective, absoluyte truth. However, whether any human will ever understand it is much more debateable, and the chances of any two humans agreeing on exactly what it is even more so.So what you are saying is that there is no absolute truth?
This makes no sense. How can reality be absolute and objective, but people's interpretations of the Bible are subjective. How can this be when reality is objective? Are you saying the world is not with personal feelings, influences, etc? Do we not have free will and personal opinions?I believe that there most certainly is an objective, absoluyte truth. However, whether any human will ever understand it is much more debateable, and the chances of any two humans agreeing on exactly what it is even more so.
And before you say "the Bible is the absolute truth!" well, maybe... but until you can explain how just about every different person who reads it comes away with a different, personal take on what it says...
To sumarise...
Yes, there is an absolute truth, an objective reality, if you will.
What makes you so sure that you are interpreting and understanding it correctly though?
Yes it does, try reading it again maybe.This makes no sense.
Quite easily... imagine, if you will for a moment, a world with no people... but its still there, doing its thing. Thats reality, whatever is going on without human observation. So, put humans in the picture... you have one at the North Pole, for him, reality is cold and snowy. Another human, on the equator, believes reality is green and steamy. They both have subjective views, both views are wildly different to each other's, and both are different to what the actual reality is, that it can be both snowy AND green, given a big enough world view.How can reality be absolute and objective, but people's interpretations of the Bible are subjective.
WE do... and they colour our interpretation of all things. They do not, of themselves, effect truth though.Do we not have free will and personal opinions?
I can see what you are saying, and I do agree there is an absolute truth. I think the term "objective reality" is an odd term, but that doesn't matter.Yes it does, try reading it again maybe.Quite easily... imagine, if you will for a moment, a world with no people... but its still there, doing its thing. Thats reality, whatever is going on without human observation. So, put humans in the picture... you have one at the North Pole, for him, reality is cold and snowy. Another human, on the equator, believes reality is green and steamy. They both have subjective views, both views are wildly different to each other's, and both are different to what the actual reality is, that it can be both snowy AND green, given a big enough world view.
So, Bible's the same. Even if it is the absolute undiluted written word of God, 100% true and accurate... (I don't believe it is, different discussion for different time) even if... we KNOW that no two people will read it exactly the same way...because humans interpret reality through their SUBJECTIVE point of view.
Hey, lets make it REAL simple, forget the Bible for a moment... colour blindness... a man with red/green colour blindness cannot distinguish between red and green... in his reality, red and green are the same thing. But is he wrong? Not in HIS mind... then take a normal sighted person... you, perhaps... can distinguis red from green? good for you. But you can't see ultraviolet as a colour... its out there, bees and birds can see it... but does that mean there is something "wrong" with your take on reality?
Not at all, if you accept that we all have a SUBJECTIVE view, and the OBJECTIVE reality will trundle along quite happilly regardless of what our subjective view is.
You can scream at the heavens that there is no such colour as ultra violet, which is true for you, but it isn't true for the absolute truth.
Make sense now?
Free will is an interesting concept. Maybe we can debate it in a different thread.WE do... and they colour our interpretation of all things. They do not, of themselves, effect truth though.
Sure. Be interested to sometime. If you set up the thread and send me a PM about it, I'll join in later... bed time nowFree will is an interesting concept. Maybe we can debate it in a different thread.
So what, you just discard all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is genetic?
So what, you just discard all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is genetic?
Blatantly False Homosexual Propaganda!
There is NO, ZERO, NONE "all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is genetic" Virtually everyone on the pro-homosexual side of these discussions posts this copy/paste rubbish at one time or another. "There are gazillions of studies proving that homosexuality is genetic." I have asked repeatedly for examples of such "evidence," most members simply ignore the request, 1-2 have posted bits and pieces, less than 6 "studies," and I have repeatedly pointed out how these quotes are grossly misrepresented and do NOT prove anything about homosexuality being genetic.
As a matter of fact, the most well known study in this area, Bailey and Pillard, proves just the opposite, That homosexuality CANNOT be genetic.
Here is proof beyond any doubt or argument, now or ever, that homosexuality, whatever it may be, is NOT genetic. Since monozygotic/identical twins are genetically identical, if one twin is homosexual then very, very close to 100% of the other twins should be homosexual, NOT between, 52%, B & P study, and 42% Australian study.
EPII if you have "evidence" bring it on.Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers
52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual.
J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, A genetic study of male sexual orientation, Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991
Better research, however, was based on twins who were recruited for other reasons, and only subsequently asked about their sexual orientation. These are known as "registry" studies, and they similarly gave a concordance rate between identical twins of less than 50%. There have been two major published registry studies (4,5), one based on the Minnesota Registry, the other on the Australian Registry. The larger of the two registry studies is the Australian one, done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland. Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Whether 30% or 50% concordance (snowball samples), all the studies agree it is clearly not 100%.
The critical factor is that if one identical twin is homosexual, only sometimes is the co-twin homosexual. There is no argument about this in the scientific community.
The distribution of sexual orientation among cotwins of the monozygotic probands appeared to be bimodal. In other words, most subjects classified themselves as heterosexual or homosexual, with very few giving evidence of significant bisexuality. This finding is in agreement with other recent studies (e.g. Buhrich et al. 1991).
According to their data, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities of homosexuality were calculated using these results under a wide range of assumptions of the population base rate and ascertainment bias. Under all conditions considered, heritabilities were substantial (h2 was between .31 and .74 in all cases). However, "the rate of homosexuality among nontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and other published reports."
Bailey-Pillard
In December of 1991, Michael Bailey of Northwestern University joined Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine in publishing a study of homosexuality in twins. Their conclusion is that sexual orientation is something one is born with.
Bailey and Pillard surveyed homosexual men about their brothers, and they found some statistics that were rather unexpected. Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent of those twins were also homosexual. 22 percent of those who had fraternal twins said that their twin was gay, and only eleven percent of those who had adopted siblings said that their adopted brothers were also homosexual.
Bailey and Pillard attributed the differences in these percentages to the difference in the amount of genetic material shared. Since identical twins have the same genetic code, they are far more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. In the same way, it is obvious that fraternal twins have more in common genetically than do their adopted siblings.
Gee... like genes for hight huh? YTep, completely unbelievable *rolls eyes*The only possibility would be a multiallilic trait with incomplete varying penetrance and randomly appearing in races than have not been involved sexually for thousands of years. Rediculous, very very unlikly. (Evolution is more likly)
Gee... like genes for hight huh? YTep, completely unbelievable *rolls eyes*
Um... not if its a recessive semi-coding gene... like sickle cell anaemia...Plus heigth is an evolutionary advantage, homosexuality is a disadvantage.
Um... not if its a recessive semi-coding gene... like sickle cell anaemia...
get the sickle cell gene from both parents, and you die... but get it from only one parent, and you have immunity to malaria. The evuidence suggests that genes relating to homosexuality are similar.
Blatantly False Homosexual Propaganda!
There is NO, ZERO, NONE "all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is genetic" Virtually everyone on the pro-homosexual side of these discussions posts this copy/paste rubbish at one time or another. "There are gazillions of studies proving that homosexuality is genetic." I have asked repeatedly for examples of such "evidence," most members simply ignore the request, 1-2 have posted bits and pieces, less than 6 "studies," and I have repeatedly pointed out how these quotes are grossly misrepresented and do NOT prove anything about homosexuality being genetic.
As a matter of fact, the most well known study in this area, Bailey and Pillard, proves just the opposite, That homosexuality CANNOT be genetic.
Here is proof beyond any doubt or argument, now or ever, that homosexuality, whatever it may be, is NOT genetic. Since monozygotic/identical twins are genetically identical, if one twin is homosexual then very, very close to 100% of the other twins should be homosexual, NOT between, 52%, B & P study, and 42% Australian study.
EPII if you have "evidence" bring it on.Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers
52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual.
J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, A genetic study of male sexual orientation, Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991
Better research, however, was based on twins who were recruited for other reasons, and only subsequently asked about their sexual orientation. These are known as "registry" studies, and they similarly gave a concordance rate between identical twins of less than 50%. There have been two major published registry studies (4,5), one based on the Minnesota Registry, the other on the Australian Registry. The larger of the two registry studies is the Australian one, done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland. Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Whether 30% or 50% concordance (snowball samples), all the studies agree it is clearly not 100%.
The critical factor is that if one identical twin is homosexual, only sometimes is the co-twin homosexual. There is no argument about this in the scientific community.
The distribution of sexual orientation among cotwins of the monozygotic probands appeared to be bimodal. In other words, most subjects classified themselves as heterosexual or homosexual, with very few giving evidence of significant bisexuality. This finding is in agreement with other recent studies (e.g. Buhrich et al. 1991).
According to their data, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities of homosexuality were calculated using these results under a wide range of assumptions of the population base rate and ascertainment bias. Under all conditions considered, heritabilities were substantial (h2 was between .31 and .74 in all cases). However, "the rate of homosexuality among nontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and other published reports."
Bailey-Pillard
In December of 1991, Michael Bailey of Northwestern University joined Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine in publishing a study of homosexuality in twins. Their conclusion is that sexual orientation is something one is born with.
Bailey and Pillard surveyed homosexual men about their brothers, and they found some statistics that were rather unexpected. Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent of those twins were also homosexual. 22 percent of those who had fraternal twins said that their twin was gay, and only eleven percent of those who had adopted siblings said that their adopted brothers were also homosexual.
Bailey and Pillard attributed the differences in these percentages to the difference in the amount of genetic material shared. Since identical twins have the same genetic code, they are far more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. In the same way, it is obvious that fraternal twins have more in common genetically than do their adopted siblings.
where are the references to peer reviewed published studies showing that sexual orientation is a choice? Well there are no studies showing thisBlatantly False Homosexual Propaganda!
There is NO, ZERO, NONE "all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is genetic" Virtually everyone on the pro-homosexual side of these discussions posts this copy/paste rubbish at one time or another. "There are gazillions of studies proving that homosexuality is genetic." I have asked repeatedly for examples of such "evidence," most members simply ignore the request, 1-2 have posted bits and pieces, less than 6 "studies," and I have repeatedly pointed out how these quotes are grossly misrepresented and do NOT prove anything about homosexuality being genetic.
As a matter of fact, the most well known study in this area, Bailey and Pillard, proves just the opposite, That homosexuality CANNOT be genetic.
Here is proof beyond any doubt or argument, now or ever, that homosexuality, whatever it may be, is NOT genetic. Since monozygotic/identical twins are genetically identical, if one twin is homosexual then very, very close to 100% of the other twins should be homosexual, NOT between, 52%, B & P study, and 42% Australian study.
EPII if you have "evidence" bring it on.Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers
52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual.
J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, A genetic study of male sexual orientation, Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991
Better research, however, was based on twins who were recruited for other reasons, and only subsequently asked about their sexual orientation. These are known as "registry" studies, and they similarly gave a concordance rate between identical twins of less than 50%. There have been two major published registry studies (4,5), one based on the Minnesota Registry, the other on the Australian Registry. The larger of the two registry studies is the Australian one, done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland. Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Whether 30% or 50% concordance (snowball samples), all the studies agree it is clearly not 100%.
The critical factor is that if one identical twin is homosexual, only sometimes is the co-twin homosexual. There is no argument about this in the scientific community.
The distribution of sexual orientation among cotwins of the monozygotic probands appeared to be bimodal. In other words, most subjects classified themselves as heterosexual or homosexual, with very few giving evidence of significant bisexuality. This finding is in agreement with other recent studies (e.g. Buhrich et al. 1991).
According to their data, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities of homosexuality were calculated using these results under a wide range of assumptions of the population base rate and ascertainment bias. Under all conditions considered, heritabilities were substantial (h2 was between .31 and .74 in all cases). However, "the rate of homosexuality among nontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and other published reports."
Bailey-Pillard
In December of 1991, Michael Bailey of Northwestern University joined Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine in publishing a study of homosexuality in twins. Their conclusion is that sexual orientation is something one is born with.
Bailey and Pillard surveyed homosexual men about their brothers, and they found some statistics that were rather unexpected. Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent of those twins were also homosexual. 22 percent of those who had fraternal twins said that their twin was gay, and only eleven percent of those who had adopted siblings said that their adopted brothers were also homosexual.
Bailey and Pillard attributed the differences in these percentages to the difference in the amount of genetic material shared. Since identical twins have the same genetic code, they are far more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. In the same way, it is obvious that fraternal twins have more in common genetically than do their adopted siblings.
I will ask you for evidence for these claims even though I know you will not actually respondThat brings up a good point actually, inuits are all very short. Etheopians are all very tall. Inuits never randomly have a tall child, Etheopians never have very short children.
Plus heigth is an evolutionary advantage, homosexuality is a disadvantage.
Again you might want to learn a little something about genetics before making laughable statements like thisSo homosexuality should disappear in a few generations. Great!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?