[Split] On perceptions in Russia

[Isaac]

Thorne, an increase in everything takes place before the fall of old civilizations, because civilizations grow until they stop growing.

Nothing personal, Isaac, but the above argument is worthless. It's either painfully obvious or inaccurate in it's dismissal of an argument that it fails to even adequately address, and in either case it need not be mentioned.

First of all, I want you to appreciate how well I'm behaving. I'm doing everything I can to not be a smart ass; I didn't make any jokes about your comment. Secondly, are you ★■◆●ing kidding me? That argument was directly addressing your dad's theory on gays collapsing civilizations.

[vision]

Burn all the sinners.

[Isaac]

On my feed today... relevant...

I don't think it works that way... Poor wife.

[vision]

Someone please find me the bible verse that deals with situations like these. Should be interesting to see what patriarchal Bronze Age thinking can do with this.

[Top Gun]

It really is something watching Thorne spin illogical circles around a fact that he's too scared to accept.

Homosexuality is normal. It serves a biological purpose. Homosexuality does not harm anyone. If you do not agree with these basic facts, then either your interpretation of the Bible is wrong, or the Bible itself is. Take your pick.

[CUDA]

It serves a biological purpose.

how so?

[Will Robinson]

My point, I suppose is that the definition of normal is important, and you can lose all perspective by stretching that definition too much. You're using at least two different definitions in your argument. One to say that homosexuality is normal and therefore should not be shunned, and another to say that disease is normal (even though it's ok to be against disease). I could reverse this on you, Will, and adopt your moveable definition of "normal" in order to demand to know why you would claim pedophilia to be a bad thing... Death is normal, why is murder illegal? ...

Death is unavoidable and usually not the work of another yet murder is someone causing your death prematurely. They take from you the balance of your natural life however long it may last. It is a distinction that all laws and religions make. So I don't think you have created any kind of challenge to my position by raising that scenario.

I am saying that you don't want to go down the rabbit hole unless you're prepared to give it some good hard thought. Most people haven't given it nearly enough thought, and it's not something to be entered into lightly. God did not create people with the design or the desire for them to engage in things which are contrary to his nature and design. First of all that's just foolish, but you can't claim the existence of the God of the Bible without accepting his attributes, otherwise why use the Bible at all if it is a farce, and then how do you know God at all? (is anyone getting dizzy yet?)

I'm not claiming the existence of god but if he is the source of your authority to single out gays as being harmful to the world then I challenge that authority you have availed upon yourself. I demand you show cause.

Truth be told, any behavior that is not wholesome, engaged in as acceptable/wholesome does harm, because it has the very real potential to distort people's perception of reality (this is actually the natural tendency). This is a very obvious argument that I would assume to be difficult to make stick, with people who can see no wrong outside of being "narrow-minded."

Where is the evidence that the love between two humans becomes unwholesome when the two are gay?
Where is the departure from "reality" if I recognize some humans are predestined to be gay by virtue of the way we are all created? I think it is a departure from reality to create a problem where there is none.

Children won't be swayed to homosexuality if they are taught that a small percentage of us are born that way. Their innate orientation is still intact. Teaching children that it is a choice made by the person to become gay teaches the child it is possible for him or her to also change....

My children knew early on that they are not likely to become gay if they don't already feel that orientation and that we would love them the same regardless. They don't have the struggle against the looming gay-bogieman that some children do. Believe me children will worry about stuff happening to them. Mine aren't worried and they don't see gays as people who chose to be deviants. Their gay friends feel welcomed in their presence. I think that is a wholesome way to live and I'll stand before god if he exists and not be ashamed for it.

Does the suffering of revulsion demand a special sort of reason? Apparently some reasons may be deemed inadequate and dismissed or filtered out of reality? If you go back far enough before it was accepted by repetitive exposure and indoctrination, pretty much everyone would express revulsion at the thought of same-sex activity.

WRONG. Go back as far as you like and the percentage of people who were born gay would disagree with you. The reason they didn't rise up and ostracize all the straight cavemen was simply because they were outnumbered...

It's a normal reaction. Homosexuality is very other-than the norm, because heterosexuality is actually contrary-to homosexuality, in that heterosexual men are not attracted to other men, because they are DESIGNED to be attracted to most every attribute a woman has, and another man is just the same as them. And if anyone can't grasp that I would have to say they're in a bad way.

It is 'other than the norm' to be gay simply based on the ratio. It is, however, quite normal for a percentage of the population to be gay. If you were an anthropologist studying a culture of humans anywhere on earth from any era you would think is was abnormal if there were no gays in the group!

And that innate attraction that drives straight people is not exclusive to them. Gays are born with the same drive powered by the same physiologic makeup except they have the gender target switched. They are just as sure of their desire and its natural source as you are of yours.

If we stopped teaching people to despise them, to ostracize as immoral etc., then they would be no more unusual to us than someone born with some other unusual physiology that is apparent to you only when they display some of its effects.

[Spidey]

It serves a biological purpose.

how so?

Population control is the only possible “biological function” but what the hell is the trigger, because we know that homosexuals are born at the same rate in sparse populations as dense ones.

It’s not hard to figure out just how such a system could have evolved. But figuring out how the body knows when to produce gays…is very hard to figure out.

This theory has been around a long time, and never has gotten any traction.

Oh and by the way, that system isn’t working very well, considering the current population.

And the other theories regarding the nurturing of children…is just some kind of PC BS in my opinion.

[Will Robinson]

Isn't it possible that all humans contain a certain average number of 'bad parts' from the factory?

And those mistakes are randomly spread throughout our body?
Some people get colorblind...some people get gender orientation....etc.

Maybe there is no design purpose. Or if there was maybe that's why god isn't here burning bushes and parting seas anymore. He's moved on to the next batch. Earth version. 2.0 where the quality control has been improved and designs have been tweaked.

[Isaac]

It serves a biological purpose.

how so?

Population control is the only possible “biological function” but what the hell is the trigger, because we know that homosexuals are born at the same rate in sparse populations as dense ones.

It’s not hard to figure out just how such a system could have evolved. But figuring out how the body knows when to produce gays…is very hard to figure out.

This theory has been around a long time, and never has gotten any traction.

Oh and by the way, that system isn’t working very well, considering the current population.

And the other theories regarding the nurturing of children…is just some kind of PC BS in my opinion.

Interesting. I never thought of the practical reason for gays.

[vision]

Children won't be swayed to homosexuality if they are taught that a small percentage of us are born that way. Their innate orientation is still intact.

Hard to find a more true statement than this. I was raised in an environment where I encountered gay persons constantly. They were friends of the family. I also had a gay aunt. Exactly zero times in my life have I had the urge to sleep with a man or express any sexual intimacy with a member of the same sex. Want to know why? BECAUSE I'M NOT GAY and no amount of pro-queer upbringing or social change can reverse that.

I still think the best explanation for people who believe sexuality is a choice are in fact bi-sexual themselves and can't/won't admit it due to social pressure or upbringing.


(Still waiting on that bible verse that talks about how to deal with children born with ambiguous gender.)

[flip]

"For boys with penises smaller than one-inch when stretched, this meant getting turned into girls. "

How barbaric.

[Will Robinson]

"For boys with penises smaller than one-inch when stretched, this meant getting turned into girls. "

How barbaric.

I'm afraid to know but feel compelled. What the heck was that from?

[flip]

That's a comment from the link that Vision posted.

EDIT: Maybe that's why we have to normalize homosexuality, to keep guys like Vision from hacking on little babies.

[CUDA]

Still waiting for that bible verse

here ya go




Luke 15:11-32

New International Version (NIV)

The Parable of the Lost Son

11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.

13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’

28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’

31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

[vision]

I'm afraid to know but feel compelled. What the heck was that from?

My post above for Thorne. He is a big fan of "men are men and women are women and that is that." But what happens when a person is biologically both or neither? The bible provides no guidance for such things (I'm not sure what CUDA was posting about, something unrelated to biological sexual ambiguity for sure). And of course, flip misses the point completely because we aren't talking about electro-graviton-waves.

[Spidey]

Isn't it possible that all humans contain a certain average number of 'bad parts' from the factory?

And those mistakes are randomly spread throughout our body?
Some people get colorblind...some people get gender orientation....etc.

Not “mistakes” but variants…and as far as I know there is no purpose to any particular variant. If we are going to start looking for “biological purpose” for being gay, we might as well start looking for the “biological purpose” for being short.

Oh wait….that’s so not everyone will want to be in the NBA, or maybe getting the low hanging fruit. (no pun….)

What is the biological purpose for albinism?

[flip]

Lol, how could we . Well, I guess total acceptance is better than sterilization and mutilation and you as well miss the point.

[Tunnelcat]

Isn't it possible that all humans contain a certain average number of 'bad parts' from the factory?

And those mistakes are randomly spread throughout our body?
Some people get colorblind...some people get gender orientation....etc.

Not “mistakes” but variants…and as far as I know there is no purpose to any particular variant. If we are going to start looking for “biological purpose” for being gay, we might as well start looking for the “biological purpose” for being short.

Oh wait….that’s so not everyone will want to be in the NBA, or maybe getting the low hanging fruit. (no pun….)

What is the biological purpose for albinism?

What about head baldness? What's it's purpose? That's very a prevalent genetic quirk in both males and females alike. I know, it's beginning to happen with me and I'm female. It's not fatal, but it sure makes people's heads vulnerable when it gets cold out. As for a biological purpose for being gay, who knows. There are many genetic variants that occur because our code can be easily altered in non- fatal ways, some good, some bad. That's how we evolve and adapt. Gayness is usually not fatal in and of itself, unless some hetero insecure male decides that gays revolt him so much he thinks that they should all be murdered.

[flip]

Problem is, science refuses to take into account the spiritual nature of man, despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence. I understand that completely, because science should be solely for gathering facts, but as far as an individuals conclusion based on those facts, should not be under the same restrictions.

[Tunnelcat]

Lol, how could we . Well, I guess total acceptance is better than sterilization and mutilation and you as well miss the point.

I just watched this documentary called 8: The Mormon Proposition. Damn there's some nasty things going on against Mormon gays in Utah. The suicide rate is very high among young gay Mormons, and what the Mormons do to the gay people they discover within their flock is revolting and horrid. Electro-aversion therapy to gay porn mainly. Sickos. Never worked in any documented cases either. It tended to make the recipients forever hate ALL sex, or commit suicide. Really messed up their minds. It's scary when a religious order decides what's proper to do to people they deem deviant.

[vision]

Problem is, science refuses to take into account the spiritual nature of man...

Absolutely untrue. The problem is there is no way to test that spiritual nature. If there was, it would be tested. Go ahead, devise an experiment to test the soul. People have tried and results are inconclusive at best.

[Tunnelcat]

Problem is, science refuses to take into account the spiritual nature of man, despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence. I understand that completely, because science should be solely for gathering facts, but as far as an individuals conclusion based on those facts, should not be under the same restrictions.

Native Americans did. They called gay people "Two Spirit". They were not stigmatized, but revered as leaders and teachers.

[flip]

I don't know why people all get in an uproar, except that it is outside the norms. All groups working without reason are susceptible to things like that. It's also why I agree with the path taken. That's something only God should judge. I didn't watch the link but stuff like that just sounds like the Dark Ages to me.

As always Vision misses the point. Even though there is no testable way to prove man's spiritual nature, I said there is still overwhelming evidence for such. So, although science is on a fact finding mission, I am in no way required to separate my personal experience's from what is gathered.

[vision]

...I am in no way required to separate my personal experience's from what is gathered.

Sure! Except as we uncover more knowledge about the physical world we find our experiences, spiritual or otherwise, are byproducts of physical processes in the brain. It's a little scary, but spiritual experiences can be induced, chemically and electrically. Just because your brain can imagine something doesn't mean that thing can or does actually exist in reality outside of your own thoughts. This is disturbing to a lot of people but I think it's pretty neat.

[flip]

Easiest way I can say this is we both agree on one thing, "It's in the blood."

[CUDA]

I'm afraid to know but feel compelled. What the heck was that from?

My post above for Thorne. He is a big fan of "men are men and women are women and that is that." But what happens when a person is biologically both or neither? The bible provides no guidance for such things (I'm not sure what CUDA was posting about, something unrelated to biological sexual ambiguity for sure). And of course, flip misses the point completely because we aren't talking about electro-graviton-waves.

What it explains is you dont understand the bible or it message.


The Bible is explicit about homosexuality. There are some things that are black and white. But what there is also is freedom. Alot of it.
What the Bible is even more explicit about is, if you come to God all things will be forgiven. And being the rule keeper that never strays doesnt make you better in Gods eyes. So I just addressed both you and Thorne with one passage

[Will Robinson]

Easiest way I can say this is we both agree on one thing, "It's in the blood."

lol, thats a good one

[flip]

Heh I thought about it, but it wasn't worth the time or widespread panic it would provoke.

[vision]

What it explains is you dont understand the bible or it message.

What you just explained to me is you actually don't know $hit. I asked for a bible passage that deals with ambiguous sexuality, because there is plenty of bible verses about men, women, and what roles they are to play, then you give me ambiguous bullcrap. Sure, you don't have an answer for me because the bible doesn't have one. It is incomplete, just like the knowledge of those who wrote it. So you next best thing is a vague parable. Pretty goddamn weak attempt if you ask me.

Try again big boy.

[CUDA]

little thick in the head arent ya.

Thornes wrong and so are you DEAL WITH IT.

[Top Gun]

It serves a biological purpose.

how so?

It has nothing to do with population control...quite the opposite, actually. There's been at least one prominent study revealing that the close female relatives of homosexual males are significantly more fertile than average. The idea here is that there's a genetic trait which promotes fertility in female offspring, while simultaneously promoting homosexuality in males. (There hasn't been any corresponding connection found with regards to homosexual women, as far as I know.) Along similar lines, the idea has been raised that homosexual organisms aid in the child-raising of their close family members, thus allowing their genes to be passed on via those relatives; this concept is called kin selection in biology. There's still a lot up in the air here, as human sexuality is something we're still learning a lot about, and the more we look at it, the more it seems like there's a whole mix of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors that come into play...in other words, there's both "nature" and "nurture" going on. Just as one example, it's been shown that when a woman has multiple male children, her later sons are increasingly more likely to be homosexual, suggesting some sort of hormonal action during pregnancy. There are also slight differences in brain structure shared between gay men and straight women, as opposed to straight men and gay women.

At the end of the day, the one thing we do know for sure is that homosexuality isn't actively harmful from a biological standpoint: if being gay inhibited traits from being passed down, then homosexuality would have been selected out long ago, because gay people would have died off without passing on their genes. What we see instead is that the overall percentage of gay people has remained fairly constant across vastly different populations and throughout history. So at the very least, homosexuality is neutral as far as biological "fitness" is concerned, and there's evidence suggesting that it can actually play a positive role in terms of passing on family genes.

[Spidey]

So after reading that link, I would have to say that homosexuality would not have a biological purpose, but more like biological victimhood. Also seems a little strange, because all of the gains of having more fertile women is countered by having less reproductive males.

As far as kin selection, that role can be played by any relative, not just gays.

Now I’m going to go do some mental masturbation, trying to figure out what biological purpose an average white male plays.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Thorne, an increase in everything takes place before the fall of old civilizations, because civilizations grow until they stop growing.

Nothing personal, Isaac, but the above argument is worthless. It's either painfully obvious or inaccurate in it's dismissal of an argument that it fails to even adequately address, and in either case it need not be mentioned.

First of all, I want you to appreciate how well I'm behaving. I'm doing everything I can to not be a smart ass; I didn't make any jokes about your comment. Secondly, are you **** kidding me? That argument was directly addressing your dad's theory on gays collapsing civilizations.

It's not my dad's theory, and suggesting that "gays collapse civilizations" is a stupid oversimplification. But the real problem with your post was that it didn't give the idea even the credibility to be talking about an increase in percentages rather than just an increase in numbers, which is where the "painfully obvious" part comes in. A civilization grows, but when you say there is "an increase in homosexuality" you're obviously saying that the percentage has gone up. Pointing out some growth in a civilization as it stays in step with the population growth would be ridiculous.

[Isaac]

...and suggesting that "gays collapse civilizations" is a stupid oversimplification.

"My dad recently told me that an increase of homosexuality usually takes place before the fall of a civilization (or judgement of a civilization, according to the Bible)." - Sergeant Thorne

Stop hitting yourself.

But the real problem with your post was that it didn't give the idea even the credibility to be talking about an increase in percentages rather than just an increase in numbers, which is where the "painfully obvious" part comes in. A civilization grows, but when you say there is "an increase in homosexuality" you're obviously saying that the percentage has gone up. Pointing out some growth in a civilization as it stays in step with the population growth would be ridiculous.

no i didn't

[Spidey]

Just to be fair, I read Thorne’s comment more along the lines of a symptom or sign…than some kind of sole cause.

It seems to me more and more, people read things into what others say, than actually reading what they say.

Example:

I made a post where I stated I don’t care if people kill their children, before or after they are born, but just don’t give me a bunch of bull★■◆● justifications.

And tc interprets that to mean I want to stop abortions…..

What the hell is the point of having a discussion without actual communication?

/end frustration rant