How Homophobic Are You?

[Polycarp_fan]

Well I tried desperately to get a 100 and finally did. This little survey does nothing but show the prejudice of gay people against those who agree with God's Word about the sin of homosexual acts.

A main part of the gay agenda it appears.

If we replaced every instance of gay or homosexual with something else, would it make people phobic of that thing too?

Proof of gay debate tactics.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan_Child,

Please, cite your sources. As far as I am aware, the scientific community does not think homosexuality is 'obviously wrong'.

I wasn’t referring to homosexuality I was referring to basic biology, male and female, which God created incidentally here is a source…. http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio105/reproduc.htm

They believe, and the evidence shows, homosexuality has a societal role to play, and the human species has evolved as such.

Evolution requires generations, if the non-productive coupling is being passed on by the productive couples the species is diseased rather than evolving.

What about hermaphrodites? People with female genitalia but XY sex chromosomes? Sex is anything but simple.

Of course its simplemale female and hermaphrodite

Then you have a warped view of biology.

Source please. Here is my example of basic biology again. http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio105/reproduc.htm You can tell the sex of the person.
You cant tell what sexual attractions the baby has nor can they define it by them, so that’s not basic biology.

Simple: kin selection. Though homosexuals themselves can't naturally reproduce, they do help their kin to reproduce.

Homosexuals can reproduce if they are of the same sex. A gay man could reproduce with a lesbian woman if they both wanted to, two straight men cant reproduce even if they wanted to. So don’t tell me homosexuals cant reproduce just because they don’t want to otherwise we have science based in the whims of sexual desires.

It is simply a question of finding the best proportion of homosexuals to heterosexuals (in humans, we've evolved a 1:19 ratio).

For what purpose?

Moreover, homosexual couples act as a sort of natural adoption agency: orphans that would otherwise die in the wild can be taken in by homosexual couples, since they are guaranteed to not have kids of their own.

I presume by homosexual couples you mean couples of the same sex. If you do then it would be so much better if the homosexual couples were heterosexual couples instead so that the orphans would have a normal and natural male and female parents.

Nonsense. First, heterosexual couples use vast amounts of contraceptives and birth controls.

And homosexual couples don’t use any protection? The SD’s and AIDS bills could be proportionately higher

Second, people don't 'choose' to be gay;

They can. People can chise not to be greedy, adulterous, selfish malicious, I don’t see why people cant chose not to act on any desire. You tell me why homosexuals are different .

I, a fully-fledged homosexual, can't wait to become a dad.

then find a partner of the opposite sex otherwise you will simply have to cheat natural biology and evolution by artificial means.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp fan,

A main part of the gay agenda it appears.

The main part of the gay agenda seems to assume that there startung point in any discussion is the same as ours. They build their argyuments on things we contest as flawed. This sort of gay thinking makes it impposible to communicate.
When I talk of the sex of a person, male or female, they refer to he sexual desire of a person heterosexual or homosexual.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Nonsense I was referring to what the scientific community think is obvious, not what you think I think is obvious.

What Wiccan child said. Citation please?

A man is a male because he has a male reproductive organ. A woman is a female by nature of having a female reproductive organs. That’s basic biology.

No one is suggesting otherwise.

When a baby is born one can tell by biology whether it is male, a boy, or female, girl. They can’t tell what sexual attractions the baby has nor can they define it by them, so that’s not basic biology.

So... basic biology=what is macroscopically obvious? Just to get our terms sorted out, is that the definition you want to go with?

that depends on the research but what might be the case is hardly basic biology! You have lurched onto something else.

See above, define your terms. However, as far as I'm concerned, I consider understanding evolutionary advantageous traits to be fairly basic biology.

which is a contradiction in terms, how could something evolve that couldn’t reproduce itself. Same-sex cant reproduce.

Wrongedy wrong wrong wrong. Theres this thing called a "recessive trait"... again, fairly basic biology. Short version means that traits can be passed on by organisms who don't display the trait, but are carriers of the trait. As for your suggestion that organisms that don't directly reproduce can't contribute to population fitness and evolution, how do you thing lions, wolves, whales, bees, ants, termites, and any other social animal with a mating hierarchy came about? Most female lions never breed. Most wolves of both genders never breed, 99.99% of female hymenoptera never breed... you don't think their traits get passed on somehow?

Yes extinction. It sounds like a disease if the male and female of the species increasingly don’t want to couple to reproduce.

No one is saying the maleand female of the species increasingly don't want to reproduce, the current thinking, as bourne out by population research, genetics, sociology and anthropology, suggest that within human populations, roughly 5% of homosexual oriented individuals seems to be the natural distribution. The ratio is different for different species, yet its still there.

So please, stop thinking in terms of "if everyone were homosexual, humanity would die out!" because that is not what is being discussed. No one wants to make anyone who is heterosexual anything else, the issue here is accepting the 5% that are naturally homosexual as they are.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It is simply a question of finding the best proportion of homosexuals to heterosexuals (in humans, we've evolved a 1:19 ratio).
​

For what purpose?

Good question. There are a range of theories, although male homosexuality seems to be linked to female fertility... i.e. a woman who carries the male homosexual gene as a recessive allelle is likely to be more than averagely fertile. When she has children with a man who also carries the recessive homosexual trait, there is a chance that the trait will be a reinforced double recessive and produce a homosexual son.

Exactly the same way two A+ blood type parents can give birth to an O- blood type child.

Female homosexuality is thought to be more complex, and possibly is more greatly influenced by environmental factors than genetics, however statistical surveys of both male and female homosexuals demonstrate that there is a statistically significant link between homosexuality and genetics.

You want links?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

They can. People can chise not to be greedy, adulterous, selfish malicious, I don’t see why people cant chose not to act on any desire. You tell me why homosexuals are different .

People can chose not to act on homosexual desire. This does not mean they are not homosexual, anymore than you chosing not to act on a heterosexual desire would change your heterosexuality.

I am homosexual, fully clothed, as I sit here at my computer. If I never had another intimate encounter for the rest of my life, never even looked at another woman, I would STILL be homosexual. I did not chose to be this way, anymore than I chose my gender, skin colour or height.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

They can. People can chise not to be greedy, adulterous, selfish malicious, I don’t see why people cant chose not to act on any desire. You tell me why homosexuals are different .

People can chose not to act on homosexual desire. This does not mean they are not homosexual, anymore than you chosing not to act on a heterosexual desire would change your heterosexuality.

I am homosexual, fully clothed, as I sit here at my computer. If I never had another intimate encounter for the rest of my life, never even looked at another woman, I would STILL be homosexual. I did not chose to be this way, anymore than I chose my gender, skin colour or height.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

...which is a contradiction in terms, how could something evolve that couldn’t reproduce itself. Same-sex cant reproduce.

Interesting - since straights have done an excellent job of producing gay and lesbian offspring.

Also, gay and lesbian people are entirely capable of producing offspring.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

What Wiccan child said. Citation please?

I gave the link,seemy last post, and I still haven’t had the link I asked for.
You see basic biology is man and woman, not homosexual and heterosexual. The human species consists of male and female, not homosexual and heterosexual, that’s wrong thinking and major error.

Wrongedy wrong wrong wrong. Theres this thing called a "recessive trait"... again, fairly basic biology. Short version means that traits can be passed on by organisms who don't display the trait, but are carriers of the trait.

How are two people of the same sex going to pass these on? That was my question.

No one is saying the male and female of the species increasingly don't want to reproduce, the current thinking, as bourne out by population research, genetics, sociology and anthropology, suggest that within human populations, roughly 5% of homosexual oriented individuals seems to be the natural distribution. The ratio is different for different species, yet its still there.

Ah ok, let me correct that. Evolution is only possible through reproduction. The same-sex coupling cant evolve so it is a defect that the species carries forward.

So please, stop thinking in terms of "if everyone were homosexual, humanity would die out!" because that is not what is being discussed.

so please stop thinking in terms of same sex coupling as evolution, if the species always had this at 5% the n fine its just a defect but if the species developed it hampers its evolution.

No one wants to make anyone who is heterosexual anything else, the issue here is accepting the 5% that are naturally homosexual as they are.

I don’t accept its natural, I accept it exists but its clearly unnatural … in biological terms I mean, we know its unnatural in God’s purposes.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Chalice_Thunder,

Interesting - since straights have done an excellent job of producing gay and lesbian offspring.

They haven’t, men and women have dne all the producing, gays and straights are just people with sexual attractions.

Also, gay and lesbian people are entirely capable of producing offspring.

Not really, reproduction is by man and woman the sexual desires of the men and women is irrelevant as it would only determine whether they wanted to or not.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Actually thats a good point EnemyPartyII. If I never lie, steal, or have an adulterous thought or act in the rest of my life does still make me a lying theiving adulterer? My answer is yes and no, in my self life yes and in my life in Christ no, because thats part of the gospel.
If not then why would you still be homosexual, and if so would you also like to be identified by sin?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I gave the link,seemy last post, and I still haven’t had the link I asked for.
You see basic biology is man and woman, not homosexual and heterosexual. The human species consists of male and female, not homosexual and heterosexual, that’s wrong thinking and major error.

A. sorry, what link did you ask for?
B. Yes, male and female is biology, but so is homosexual/heterosexual... unless you don't think genetic determination is part of biology?

How are two people of the same sex going to pass these on? That was my question.

They don't. However, through kin relationships in a social species, non-reproductive traits can still be selected as they confer an evolutionary benefit to the population...

e.g. a lion pride with 5 non reproducing females, a reproducing female and a reproducing male is fitter than a lion pride of 3 breeding pairs. How do we know? Because thats what we see in nature.

Just like a human population consisting of 5% homosexuals 95%heterosexuals is fitter than a population of 100% heterosexuals. How do we know? Because thats what we see in nature.

Ah ok, let me correct that. Evolution is only possible through reproduction. The same-sex coupling cant evolve so it is a defect that the species carries forward.

I'll try to correct you again... traits that lead to a non-reproducing individual are NOT necesarily "defects". Again, see bees, wolves, lions, ants, and any of the myriad other highly successful species who rely on a significant number of non breeding individuals within their population for their success.

so please stop thinking in terms of same sex coupling as evolution, if the species always had this at 5% the n fine its just a defect but if the species developed it hampers its evolution.

Do you see your mistake yet? Evolution can lead to non-reproducing individuals who benefit their population, and the trait is passed on, often through recessive trait carriers or kin relationships. It is NOT a matter of "defect".

I don’t accept its natural, I accept it exists but its clearly unnatural …in biological terms I mean

I see. and what, precisely, is "unnatural" about it? The fact that it occurs time and again in nature seems to me the very definition of "natural", but I am prepared to accept that you may be able to explain how I am mistaken...?

we know its unnatural in God’s purposes.

No. Thats what you believe. I don't believe it is unnatural in anyway shape or form, and as far as "God's purposes" are concerned, I believe homosexuals are just as important in God's great plan as anyone else.

Are you about to say something about how homosexuals don't reproduce, and reproduction is part of God's plan? Really? So abstinence as preached by Paul is unnatural in God's purposes too?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Actually thats a good point EnemyPartyII. If I never lie, steal, or have an adulterous thought or act in the rest of my life does still make me a lying theiving adulterer? My answer is yes and no, in my self life yes and in my life in Christ no, because thats part of the gospel.
If not then why would you still be homosexual, and if so would you also like to be identified by sin?

Being a homosexual isn't a sin. The Bible never remotely claims that it is. In some people's interpretation, arguably, engaging in certain homosexual acts is thought to be a sin, but nowhere, anywhere, does the Bible claim thyat being a homosexual is, in and of itself, a sin.

I am homosexual. Its what I am.

Were you a heterosexual before you had sex? Would you be a heterosexual if you had never had sex? If you lived your entire life and never once had sex, would you still identify as heterosexual? Honest answer please.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I wasn’t referring to homosexuality I was referring to basic biology, male and female, which God created

On the contrary, you were saying that it is 'obvious' that male and female anatomy 'fits', so therefore homosexuality is wrong .

incidentally here is a source…. http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio105/reproduc.htm

I am aware of the details of the human reproductive system, thank you.

Evolution requires generations, if the non-productive coupling is being passed on by the productive couples the species is diseased rather than evolving.

How so? As I said before, it's to do with kin selection. Evolution is simply the change in allele frequency in a population over time. If having a certain percentage of a population be homosexual is beneficial to a society, then it will be selected for.

Homosexuality evolved by the same mechanism that altruism and other seemingly paradoxical behavioural traits evolved.

Source please.

From your own words. You reiterate it yourself: "You cant tell what sexual attractions the baby has nor can they define it by them, so that’s not basic biology." I don't know how you define the phrase "basic biology", but it's certainly not the conventional way.

Here is my example of basic biology again. http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio105/reproduc.htm You can tell the sex of the person.

If the person has an idealised medial cross-section designed to highlight the features of typical male and female reproductive systems, sure.

You cant tell what sexual attractions the baby has nor can they define it by them, so that’s not basic biology.

That doesn't make it 'not basic biology'. That's just the nature of sexuality: one's orientation is most easily determined by recognising to whom one is attracted (males, females, both, neither). This cannot be done for a baby. Nevertheless, if there one is biologically predisposed to homosexuality (as seems to be the case), this could be tested for in babies.

In any case, sexuality is more to do with psychology than biology. It is not 'basic biology' in the same way that quantum mechanics is not 'basic biology'.

Homosexuals can reproduce if they are of the same sex.

They can reproduce with someone of the opposite sex.

A gay man could reproduce with a lesbian woman if they both wanted to, two straight men cant reproduce even if they wanted to.

Not naturally, they couldn't. But medical science is progressing: sperm can be made from a woman's bone marrow, leading the way for children biologically related to two women.

So don’t tell me homosexuals cant reproduce just because they don’t want to otherwise we have science based in the whims of sexual desires.

For what purpose?

For any number of reasons. Cementing same-sex groups (hunter-gatherer parties, nursing groups, etc), or ensuring childless couples capable of taking in orphans. But this is all speculation on a rather complex phenomenon. What matters to our discussion is merely that it occurs. The evolutionary benefit if confers is irrelevant.

I presume by homosexual couples you mean couples of the same sex. If you do then it would be so much better if the homosexual couples were heterosexual couples instead so that the orphans would have a normal and natural male and female parents.

Why? The evidence shows that same-sex parents are just as good (and bad) as mixed-sex parents. So what do you mean when you say heterosexual couples are "so much better" than their homosexual counterparts?

And homosexual couples don’t use any protection?

Of course they do. But you claimed willingly choosing to not reproduce is a disease:

It sounds like a disease if the male and female of the species increasingly don’t want to couple to reproduce.

I was pointing out that heterosexual couples do the exact same thing. Are you anti-straight as well?

The SD’s and AIDS bills could be proportionately higher

For whom than whom?

They can. People can chise not to be greedy, adulterous, selfish malicious, I don’t see why people cant chose not to act on any desire. You tell me why homosexuals are different.

You are conflating the desire with the action. People can choose to gamble, but not the desire to gamble. People can choose whether to eat or not, but hunger exists nonetheless. A person can choose to abstain from sex, but the attraction to one gender or the other (or both, or indeed neither) remains.

then find a partner of the opposite sex otherwise you will simply have to cheat natural biology and evolution by artificial means.

You mean like heterosexual couples do with IVF?

 

[Technocrat2010]

11 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."

Not too surprising...

 

[Technocrat2010]

In any case, sexuality is more to do with psychology than biology. It is not 'basic biology' in the same way that quantum mechanics is not 'basic biology'.

I wonder about this, though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homose...iological_differences_in_gay_men_and_lesbians

I'm of the opinion that biology has more to do with it than previously thought. However, I don't know enough on the matter to say for sure.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

In some people's interpretation, arguably, engaging in certain homosexual acts is thought to be a sin, but nowhere, anywhere, does the Bible claim thyat being a homosexual is, in and of itself, a sin.

Most people in the world know that the Bible clearly maintains man/woman union is the creation purpose and homosexual unions are error, so I think your comments are wishful thinking and in denial.

I am homosexual. Its what I am.

then your identity is in your sexual desires, mine is in Christ. Therefore you are entitled to follow your sexual desires and live out your identity, just as I am entitled to seek to follow Jesus Christ and His teaching.

Were you a heterosexual before you had sex?

I am not a heterosexual, I don’t have opposite sex attraction per se, as I am married. I don’t do ‘heterosexual’ or ‘homosexual’ identity or classification as the terms cut across and confuse God’s purposes.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan_Child,

On the contrary, you were saying that it is 'obvious' that male and female anatomy 'fits', so therefore homosexuality is wrong .

Yes that’s right.

I am aware of the details of the human reproductive system, thank you.

You asked for a source so I gave one.

How so? As I said before, it's to do with kin selection. Evolution is simply the change in allele frequency in a population over time. If having a certain percentage of a population be homosexual is beneficial to a society, then it will be selected for.

kin selection is not relevant. If a defect that causes non reproductive coupling at 5 % continues to be passed on by the 95% reproductive population there is no evolution.

Homosexuality evolved by the same mechanism that altruism and other seemingly paradoxical behavioural traits evolved.

Homosexuality isn’t scientifically proven so how can it have done anything. Source please?

From your own words. You reiterate it yourself: "You cant tell what sexual attractions the baby has nor can they define it by them, so that’s not basic biology." I don't know how you define the phrase "basic biology", but it's certainly not the conventional way.

Well if you are going to ask me for sources and I provide them, you are going to have to provide your sources please otherwise I am going to treat your point as unsubstantiated and suspect.

If the person has an idealised medial cross-section designed to highlight the features of typical male and female reproductive systems, sure.

yes sure indeed.

That doesn't make it 'not basic biology'. That's just the nature of sexuality:

But nether the human species, nor any other organism, are classified by their sexual attraction but by there sex.

They can reproduce with someone of the opposite sex.

yes that’s right and heterosexuals cant reproduce between then if they are of the same sex. So this should tell you that the terms homosexual and heterosexual are useless in describing the basic biology of male and female reproduction which is necessary for life to continue and even the theory of evolution.

Not naturally, they couldn't. But medical science is progressing: sperm can be made from a woman's bone marrow, leading the way for children biologically related to two women.

Well if they cant naturally why would you want unnaturally? Medical science is not progressing its becoming perverted to the unnatural in this respect. … as I said we have science based in the whims of sexual desires.

The evolutionary benefit if confers is irrelevant.

then the argument is irrelevent.

Why?

Because two people of the same sex cant naturally produce a child.

The evidence shows that same-sex parents are just as good (and bad) as mixed-sex parents.

There are no same-sex parents as they cant produce children. What is being called same-sex parents is abnormal and error for this basic reason. The evidence such as reports like Breakdown Britain last year show this.

Of course they do. But you claimed willingly choosing to not reproduce is a disease:

No. same-sex couples can’t reproduce whether they are willing or unwilling. You keep throwing in comments which are irrelevant.

I was pointing out that heterosexual couples do the exact same thing. Are you anti-straight as well?

Yes I am anti-straight and anti gay as reproduction depends on a man and a woman, gay and straight is irrelevant and perverted thinking. What I am doing is explaining why.

For whom than whom?

Well for everyone.

You are conflating the desire with the action.

Yes agreed you are right here, people don’t necessarily choose to have homosexual attraction just like they don’t choose to be tempted in any other way.

You mean like heterosexual couples do with IVF?

Not quite like that as the issue is not the helping, but the natural coupling of male and female. Also no not like that because a heterosexual couples could be two men who cant reproduce between them even with IVF. The problem is you keep using the words heterosexual/homosexual and gay/straight when it comes to reproduction and these words are useless as one has to assume you are referring to the actual sex of the people rather than their sexual attractions.

 

[KCKID]

In some people's interpretation, arguably, engaging in certain homosexual acts is thought to be a sin, but nowhere, anywhere, does the Bible claim that being a homosexual is, in and of itself, a sin.

Most people in the world know that the Bible clearly maintains man/woman union is the creation purpose and homosexual unions are error, so I think your comments are wishful thinking and in denial.

WHATEVER the Creation purpose was, brightmorningstar, deviating from the 'purpose' is not necessarily 'a sin'. The man/woman union purpose was to fulfill a command to go forth and multiply. Is 'going forth and multiplying' what you have done and continue to do? I trust that you don't have intimate relations for pleasure.

I am homosexual. Its what I am.

Whenever a homosexual professes their homosexuality to a Christian it's as though the Christian is perceived to be of a higher moral standard than the 'professor'.

then your identity is in your sexual desires, mine is in Christ.

Bingo! An example of someone who perceives themselves as being morally superior to the 'professor' by uttering four well chosen words.

"God, I thank you that I am not like other men - robbers, evildoers, adulterers - or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get ...(Luke 18:11-12)"

Therefore you are entitled to follow your sexual desires and live out your identity, just as I am entitled to seek to follow Jesus Christ and His teaching.

So, as long as she is 'entitled' what's your problem with EnemyPartyll's identity?

Were you a heterosexual before you had sex?

I am not a heterosexual, I don’t have opposite sex attraction per se, as I am married. I don’t do ‘heterosexual’ or ‘homosexual’ identity or classification as the terms cut across and confuse God’s purposes.

And God's purpose is 'what' again ...?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

Bingo! An example of someone who perceives themselves as being morally superior to the 'professor' by uttering four well chosen words.

That’s just your opinion, I have made no such claim. On the contrary His grace is sufficient and His power is made perfect in my weakness. 2 Corinthians 12:9

So, as long as she is 'entitled' what's your problem with EnemyPartyll's identity?

Well I believe Jesus is the truth the way and the life and so I would recommend identity in Him, that’s all.