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.
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.
If we replaced every instance of gay or homosexual with something else, would it make people phobic of that thing too?
I wasnt 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.htmPlease, cite your sources. As far as I am aware, the scientific community does not think homosexuality is 'obviously wrong'.
Evolution requires generations, if the non-productive coupling is being passed on by the productive couples the species is diseased rather than evolving.They believe, and the evidence shows, homosexuality has a societal role to play, and the human species has evolved as such.
Of course its simplemale female and hermaphroditeWhat about hermaphrodites? People with female genitalia but XY sex chromosomes? Sex is anything but simple.
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.Then you have a warped view of biology.
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 dont tell me homosexuals cant reproduce just because they dont want to otherwise we have science based in the whims of sexual desires.Simple: kin selection. Though homosexuals themselves can't naturally reproduce, they do help their kin to reproduce.
For what purpose?It is simply a question of finding the best proportion of homosexuals to heterosexuals (in humans, we've evolved a 1:19 ratio).
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.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.
And homosexual couples dont use any protection? The SDs and AIDS bills could be proportionately higherNonsense. First, heterosexual couples use vast amounts of contraceptives and birth controls.
They can. People can chise not to be greedy, adulterous, selfish malicious, I dont see why people cant chose not to act on any desire. You tell me why homosexuals are different .Second, people don't 'choose' to be gay;
then find a partner of the opposite sex otherwise you will simply have to cheat natural biology and evolution by artificial means.I, a fully-fledged homosexual, can't wait to become a dad.
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.A main part of the gay agenda it appears.
What Wiccan child said. Citation please?Nonsense I was referring to what the scientific community think is obvious, not what you think I think is obvious.
No one is suggesting otherwise.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.
So... basic biology=what is macroscopically obvious? Just to get our terms sorted out, is that the definition you want to go with?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.
See above, define your terms. However, as far as I'm concerned, I consider understanding evolutionary advantageous traits to be fairly basic biology.that depends on the research but what might be the case is hardly basic biology! You have lurched onto something else.
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?which is a contradiction in terms, how could something evolve that couldn’t reproduce itself. Same-sex cant 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.Yes extinction. It sounds like a disease if the male and female of the species increasingly don’t want to couple to reproduce.
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.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?
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.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.They can. People can chise not to be greedy, adulterous, selfish malicious, I dont see why people cant chose not to act on any desire. You tell me why homosexuals are different .
...which is a contradiction in terms, how could something evolve that couldnt reproduce itself. Same-sex cant reproduce.
I gave the link,seemy last post, and I still haven’t had the link I asked for.What Wiccan child said. Citation please?
How are two people of the same sex going to pass these on? That was my question.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.
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.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.
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.So please, stop thinking in terms of "if everyone were homosexual, humanity would die out!" because that is not what is being discussed.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.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.
They haven’t, men and women have dne all the producing, gays and straights are just people with sexual attractions.Interesting - since straights have done an excellent job of producing gay and lesbian 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.Also, gay and lesbian people are entirely capable of producing offspring.
A. sorry, what link did you ask for?I gave the link,seemy last post, and I still havent 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, thats wrong thinking and major error.
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...How are two people of the same sex going to pass these on? That was my question.
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.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.
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".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.
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...?I dont accept its natural, I accept it exists but its clearly unnatural in biological terms I mean
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.we know its unnatural in Gods purposes.
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.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?
On the contrary, you were saying that it is 'obvious' that male and female anatomy 'fits', so therefore homosexuality is wrongI wasnt referring to homosexuality I was referring to basic biology, male and female, which God created
I am aware of the details of the human reproductive system, thank you.
incidentally here is a source . http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio105/reproduc.htm
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.Evolution requires generations, if the non-productive coupling is being passed on by the productive couples the species is diseased rather than evolving.
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 thats not basic biology." I don't know how you define the phrase "basic biology", but it's certainly not the conventional way.Source please.
If the person has an idealised medial cross-section designed to highlight the features of typical male and female reproductive systems, sure.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.
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.You cant tell what sexual attractions the baby has nor can they define it by them, so thats not basic biology.
They can reproduce with someone of the opposite sex.Homosexuals can reproduce if they are of the same sex.
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.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 dont tell me homosexuals cant reproduce just because they dont want to otherwise we have science based in the whims of sexual desires.
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.For what purpose?
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?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.
Of course they do. But you claimed willingly choosing to not reproduce is a disease:And homosexual couples dont use any protection?
It sounds like a disease if the male and female of the species increasingly dont want to couple to reproduce.
I was pointing out that heterosexual couples do the exact same thing. Are you anti-straight as well?
For whom than whom?
The SDs and AIDS bills could be proportionately higher
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.They can. People can chise not to be greedy, adulterous, selfish malicious, I dont see why people cant chose not to act on any desire. You tell me why homosexuals are different.
You mean like heterosexual couples do with IVF?then find a partner of the opposite sex otherwise you will simply have to cheat natural biology and evolution by artificial means.
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'.
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.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.
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.I am homosexual. Its what I am.
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.Were you a heterosexual before you had sex?
Yes thats right.On the contrary, you were saying that it is 'obvious' that male and female anatomy 'fits', so therefore homosexuality is wrong .
You asked for a source so I gave one.I am aware of the details of the human reproductive system, thank you.
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.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 isnt scientifically proven so how can it have done anything. Source please?Homosexuality evolved by the same mechanism that altruism and other seemingly paradoxical behavioural traits evolved.
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.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 thats not basic biology." I don't know how you define the phrase "basic biology", but it's certainly not the conventional way.
yes sure indeed.If the person has an idealised medial cross-section designed to highlight the features of typical male and female reproductive systems, sure.
But nether the human species, nor any other organism, are classified by their sexual attraction but by there sex.That doesn't make it 'not basic biology'. That's just the nature of sexuality:
yes thats 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.They can reproduce with someone of the opposite sex.
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.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.
then the argument is irrelevent.The evolutionary benefit if confers is irrelevant.
Because two people of the same sex cant naturally produce a child.Why?
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.The evidence shows that same-sex parents are just as good (and bad) as mixed-sex parents.
No. same-sex couples cant reproduce whether they are willing or unwilling. You keep throwing in comments which are irrelevant.Of course they do. But you claimed willingly choosing to not reproduce is a disease:
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.I was pointing out that heterosexual couples do the exact same thing. Are you anti-straight as well?
Well for everyone.For whom than whom?
Yes agreed you are right here, people dont necessarily choose to have homosexual attraction just like they dont choose to be tempted in any other way.You are conflating the desire with the action.
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.You mean like heterosexual couples do with IVF?
EnemyPartyII said: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.
EnemyPartyII said: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.
EnemyPartyII said:Were you a heterosexual before you had sex?
And God's purpose is 'what' again ...?I am not a heterosexual, I dont have opposite sex attraction per se, as I am married. I dont do heterosexual or homosexual identity or classification as the terms cut across and confuse Gods purposes.
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 12:9Bingo! An example of someone who perceives themselves as being morally superior to the 'professor' by uttering four well chosen words.
Well I believe Jesus is the truth the way and the life and so I would recommend identity in Him, that’s all.So, as long as she is 'entitled' what's your problem with EnemyPartyll's identity?
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?