breh, u serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by green91
lol
Printable View
breh, u serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by green91
lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi
You say the people of facebook don't interest you, yet I'm pretty sure almost everyone in this thread has a facebook. I've easliy typed a fraction of what you typed, and who's worked up?Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi
LOL.
Your need to compensate with and flaunt your infinite wisdom and superiority, combined with your need for attention make it easy to have fun with you, Tic Tac.
idk man, hard to come off as deep and intellectual when you're hanging on to that relationship drama bullshit. Girls talk shit after breakups, its what they do. You ever heard a girl say "i was a bitch, i didnt clean, didnt give enough head and wanted to stay out till 3 in the morning dry humping my guy friends at a club, so he dumped me".... nope. they never say that... but what they do always say is "he was jealous and sucked in bed". Breaking up is like those deals in mafia movies. Unless you keep some dirt on them, theyre coming after you, you just cant clean break.Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi
Anyways, back to the topic. Why should gay people be allowed to redefine the christian marriage tradition to accept their beliefs when the origins of the tradition itself specifically rejects their beliefs? I dont have a problem with gay people. They have the right to be together and do everything a married couple can do. They have the right to seek marital benefits and have a public union ceremony. Just dont call it marriage, because marriage is a christian union ceremony that specifically excludes homosexuals. If you dont like that marriage excludes homosexuals, then dont participate. It would be like saying jews are discriminating against your BBQ joint for not letting you cater their bar mitzvah. Get in where you fit in. If gay people want to have weddings, call it something else and come up with your own tradition. Christian marriage specifically says "man and a woman"
Opinion of an atheist who supports gays.
Sinfix: well said.
Bodhi: I would love to see the proof that one is born gay...
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmhhhhhhhhhhhhh
https://p.twimg.com/Azk0O3JCAAA23Wo.jpg
geoff: "gwinnette" is usually spelled without an "e" at the end.
I like to use the "e" for extra emphasis lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
i nom'd those on the day of appreciation...w/ polynesian sauce..that is all
No. Marriage isn't a Christian ceremony at all. Marriage was around WAY before Christianity. Marriage is a contractual agreement that christians happen to participate in as well. It was religion that defined it as a bond between a man and a woman. Just thought I'd clear that up for youQuote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
Starting from the date the united states was founded, would it be safe to say that Marriage was a Christian tradition? If we're going to accept all laws from all countries and all time periods.... then lets allow 8 year old girls to marry 40 year old men.....Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Are you suggesting we should redefine marriage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
What does this have to do with anything?Quote:
If we're going to accept all laws from all countries and all time periods.... then lets allow 8 year old girls to marry 40 year old men.....
After all this time, I still do not have FB. I did make an account when it first started up, but I never saw the use in it for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catnip
I'd love to see proof that one isn't born gay.Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff
WHOOPS!! Just as there is no proof one can be born gay, there isn't any proof that one can NOT be born that way, either. Later, QD.
i want to see proof of how real lesbians do it
Quote:
Originally Posted by quickdodgeŽ
I'd love to see proof that one IS born gay.
WHOOPS!! There isn't any.
Since when did the lack of evidence PROVE anything? If Christians say that there is a God, then atheists say there is no proof, so it can't be. But now, it's different? No proof of of gay genes, but we are supposed to assume that is true, even when groups like the APA and AMA state there is no proof of any genetic link to gay behavior?
I support this position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammich
No need to redefine. The origin of the word marriage originally came from Latin, and meant to provide with a husband or wife. it was used for a man-woman relationship only back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Do you have any record of any ancient society having legal same-sex marriages? The Romans had a form of civil union, complete with a ceremony, but specifically it was not legal in their society. The Chinese had bindings, but they were not legal procedings either. The first church sanction recorded gay ceremony was after 1000AD as far as I know.
You're reading into my statement to create a debate that simply isn't there. I never said there was or wasn't a genetic link. I simply said there is no proof to either side so no one can lay claim to either side. I personally think that both exist. I personally think one can be born that way or that one can choose to be that way. My statements contain only what is meant. Not what may be implied by others thoughts. Later, QD.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
No, im suggesting that starting with the founding of the United States, marriage has always been defined by the christian interpretation of it and has always been the union of a man and a woman. I see no reason to change this.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
QD: you want proof, watch the documentary, "science of sex appeal". They didn't set out to find anything, rather they wanted to see what is found as "attractive" and what areas of the brain are active when someone is attracted to another person.
Blank: show us evidence that "marriage" is not a religious institution. Then, show me a religion that's holy writings support it.
I find it ironic that this is a "progressive" issue yet homosexuality does not contribute to progress of reproduction and the continuance of the human race. Also, why is all the research done on gay men? What about lesbians, bis, and transsexuals?
Sounds like you're delving into a little genetics there to me, sir. Again, there is no telling. Until it is concrete, I'll believe both to be factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff
Because gay men aren't attractive at all to look at. Easier to concentrate when you're not looking at two women making out, probably. Later, QD.Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff
I cant tell if that is a joke or not, but if it is.... your wit is stone cold.Quote:
Originally Posted by quickdodgeŽ
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA fukin tr00fQuote:
Originally Posted by quickdodgeŽ
Its all over the place. Find it. The institution of marriage pre-dates modern religion. Fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff
Because you dont think it contributes to the progress of the human race doesnt mean it doesnt.Quote:
I find it ironic that this is a "progressive" issue yet homosexuality does not contribute to progress of reproduction and the continuance of the human race. Also, why is all the research done on gay men? What about lesbians, bis, and transsexuals?
Why don't you get into science and find out why they do the research they do?
So all the Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Sikhs and atheists are not marriages because they're not defined by the Christian interpretation of marriage, Is this what you're suggesting? That America should define marriage solely as a Christian institution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
It is a truthful joke, lolol. If there were two hot lesbians going at it in a lab in front of me, you think I'd be trying to find out why? Lolol. Later, QD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
Now my tl;drs aren't good enough for you, man?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catnip
I'm too worked up because I don't like posting simple non-interesting posts?
Evan, the truth is you are an incredibly sad little creature. From the squeaky little bitches voice, down to those pimple covered portly puffy cheeks on that unfathomably small fucking head of yours. But for me to attack you properly, I have to feel malice towards you, and from what you have posted so far in this thread, well to be quite blunt with you, you simply haven't got the required skills nor the ability to sufficiently energize me to bother with you in any meaningful sense.
Heh, everything that I have said to you in this thread has been true it's up to you whether you accept it as reality. Yes, reality, a tough place to wake up and find your jaw shattered in multiple places from a good old fashioned jackboot barndance by an ignorant Mexican nobody.
Now get the fuck out of my thread.
I actually have a great respond to this, with facts from actual homosexuals and facts about genetic mutation having a factor on your sexual preference, but it will have to wait. Gimme a day or so, okay?Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Oh and geoff, I have ruined your religious threads about god with facts multiple times in the past. What makes you think I can't do it again?
QD: watch the documentary, it doesn't go into sexual orientation, it describes the most basic and primitive human need to reproduce. It's very interesting. If you believe there is not sufficient evidence to say one way or the other, yet it is ok for gays to preach they have NO choice in the matter and are born that way? The study also suggests that "love" is a chemically induced emotion to increase the odds of offspring surviving I.e. having two parents instead of one.
Blank: I looked up for the past 30 minutes "marriage". I do not see where it was defined as between two or more people regardless of gender. In fact, the word itself means between a man and woman. Marriage throughout many cultures in the ancient world was between men and women. In its primitive form, a man "married" a woman through a binding agreement so he might have exclusive sexual rights to her and to ensure his offspring were legitimate. You sir fail, marriage whether religious or not has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and woman. The gay community wishes to force acceptance and redefine a tradition that is both religious in nature/practice and predates reliable recorded history. Let them have all the benefits of married couples but don't give them a marriage lisence. Grant them rights with a civil union.
Now, you keep dodging my questions. With all your infinite wisdom, answer me this. Why are the studies focused on gay men only and not lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals as well? Here is another, one study showed that in identical twins, only 50% of the time are both brothers gay. They share the exact same genetics, therefore how is it that one is gay and one is straight? One would think that if two individuals are genetically identical and sexual orientation involves no choice then both brothers would be gay; yet that is only the case half the time. There was also a study that successive birth of males increases odds of being gay to 30%. There are 4 brothers in my family including me, that means that since homosexuality is not a choice, one of us ought to be gay...again that is not the case. Not I nor my brothers have ever "experimented" nor are we even slightly attracted to men. Science f@cked the pooch with us I guess.
Bodhi: you have never ruined any of my religious threads. You have never contributed any intelligent arguments, you simply post offensive pictures and say my comments and evidence I present are irrelevant. The fact is this, for every study of evidence you present, I can counter it with contrary evidence and reasons why your evidence is biased and not substantial. The fact is this, there is no substantial evidence nor sufficient proof that sexual orientation is genetically influenced. This argument is similar to the evidence of God. You will simply deny any evidence I present on this just as you did my evidence of God. Make a different thread if you wish so we don't cluster this one.
So, the studies of genetic researchers, doctors, and psychologists are less reliable than the "feelings" of actual homosexuals?Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi
Let me enlighten you:
Science has not proven that homosexuality is genetic derived in any manner repeatedly, and has not been accepted as true by the published scientific community, therefore, it cannot be a scientific fact. It is a theory, which is not a scientific fact.
The American Psychological Association's assertion is "most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors." Note that they did not say genetics.
Dr. Joel Gelernter of Yale University ( Joel Gelernter, MD > Psychiatry | Yale School of Medicine ): "Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. Unfortunately, it's hard to come up with many findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. ... All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."
“On July 16, 1993, it was reported in Science (pp. 291, 321) that geneticist Dean Hamer and his team at the National Cancer Institute had reported on a study involving 40 pairs of brothers both of whom were gay that had led them to conclude that they had discovered a factor on the X chromosome through which gayness was genetically transmitted to them from their mothers. This was hailed as proof that homosexuality in men is biological in origin. Two years later, however, Eliot Marshall reported in Science (June 30, 1995, p.268) George Ebers and George Rice of the University of Western Ontario had unsuccessfully attempted to replicate Hamer's findings and had "found no evidence that gayness is passed from mother to son" genetically. He also reported that the Office of Research Integrity in the Department of Health and Human Services was investigating Hamer's work." - Martin A. Silverman, M.D.
Professor Miron Baron, M.D. ( Columbia Psychiatry ), medical researcher and Professor at Columbia University, wrote in 1993 in the British Medical Journal that there is a conflict relative to the theory of evolution and the notion of genetic determinism concerning homosexuality. "...from an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction."
I'll check it out. No problem with that. But what I don't understand is why you are putting words into my posts. Where did I say that gay people were ok to preach they have no choice? Where, amongst my 60,000+ posts did you find that? Please. Indulge me that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff
Why not? What harm does it do you if Jack and John want to get married? Who are you to say what another human being should or should not be able to have? That's that true "Christian" spirit where if you don't conform to your beliefs, then you're wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff
Feel free to hop off the horse at the next stop.
Remember this, though. I don't recall one day way back in my preteen years (or whenever I realized I liked girls) where I woke up and said to my self, I said, "self, I like girls. I think I'm going to like them over boys." I don't remember it happening that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff
Do you?
For how many years has children growing up couldn't stand members of the opposite sex? Back in the days when young boys would say "eeewwwww" when asked about liking a girl or when a girl would say "gross" when asked about a boy. Then the day comes when they come to realize that they do (or do not in some cases) like the members of the opposite sex. I don't see them waking up thinking to themselves that boys or girls aren't really ewww or gross after all. Later, QD.
Good for you. Stop looking for YOUR answer and start looking for THE answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff
Not dodging at all, trying to get you to understand it on your own. Look it up. The answer is plain as day.Quote:
Now, you keep dodging my questions. With all your infinite wisdom, answer me this. Why are the studies focused on gay men only and not lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals as well?
Not only do you not have the ability to grasp the scientific understanding of the issue, your understanding of mathematics and statistics is elementary at best. This right here proves it.Quote:
There was also a study that successive birth of males increases odds of being gay to 30%. There are 4 brothers in my family including me, that means that since homosexuality is not a choice, one of us ought to be gay...again that is not the case. Not I nor my brothers have ever "experimented" nor are we even slightly attracted to men. Science f@cked the pooch with us I guess.
Typical ignorant Christian apologetic. Still doesn't know the meaning of the words "scientific theory". LOL. Let me enlighten you a little, evolution is a scientific fact AND a scientific theory, if that gives you any hint to what the word means....Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
You didn't answer me before. What, in your opinion, do you think a "biological factor" is?Quote:
The American Psychological Association's assertion is "most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors." Note that they did not say genetics.
Why do you keep picking articles from 20 years ago when there have been studies since then? Is it because only those articles validate your beliefs? You are incredibly apt at twisting scientific information to fit your regressive world view. And for that I applaud you.Quote:
Dr. Joel Gelernter of Yale University ( Joel Gelernter, MD > Psychiatry | Yale School of Medicine ): "Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. Unfortunately, it's hard to come up with many findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. ... All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."
“On July 16, 1993, it was reported in Science (pp. 291, 321) that geneticist Dean Hamer and his team at the National Cancer Institute had reported on a study involving 40 pairs of brothers both of whom were gay that had led them to conclude that they had discovered a factor on the X chromosome through which gayness was genetically transmitted to them from their mothers. This was hailed as proof that homosexuality in men is biological in origin. Two years later, however, Eliot Marshall reported in Science (June 30, 1995, p.268) George Ebers and George Rice of the University of Western Ontario had unsuccessfully attempted to replicate Hamer's findings and had "found no evidence that gayness is passed from mother to son" genetically. He also reported that the Office of Research Integrity in the Department of Health and Human Services was investigating Hamer's work." - Martin A. Silverman, M.D.
Professor Miron Baron, M.D. ( Columbia Psychiatry ), medical researcher and Professor at Columbia University, wrote in 1993 in the British Medical Journal that there is a conflict relative to the theory of evolution and the notion of genetic determinism concerning homosexuality. "...from an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction."
QD: I was referring to the advocates of "gay is not a choice", not you specifically. Like Bodhi and Blank. There is no sufficient evidence nor substantial proof that sexual orientation is genetically determined. So why then can these two "preach" that it's genetic and make me and David seem like idiots because we disagree? On the typical "Christian" note...why are gays forcing their beliefs on society? Why are they trying to change the definition of marriage? Why is it that if one doesn't agree with them, they are bigots and discriminate? Wanna talk about Christians forcing their beliefs on people, what's good for the gander my friend. As far as being attracted to girls, I remember it being in 3rd grade. Chloe Ivy was my first crush, my first kiss, and she touched my pee pee. You could say I was " turned" on by her. I knew when I saw her that I "liked" girls. I also measured the size of my pecker against that of my friends when we used to pee outside in the field at recess...never once thought " oooh, put that in my mouth".
Blank: it's fact man. I'm not looking for my answer. Look up "marriage" on Wikipedia. Ask 10 random people what the definition of marriage is... Not dodging my questions eh? Come on smart @ss, enlighten me. I know that they compare gay mans brain to a woman's and think that's supposed to mean something. Why no studies on lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders? Why is there only a 50% chance that twins will both be gay even though they are genetically identical and choice is not involved? 50%.....really? There is a 50% chance any one will be gay, it's as simple as saying, " yes I want that penis in my mouth" or " no I don't". My math and statistics comprehension is fine. The study showed 30% of a succeeding line of brothers will be gay. That's roughly 1/3... I am one of four continuous births of males in my family yet none are gay....fail.
The fact is this. Those that support homosexuality are searching and hoping to find some evidence that they have no choice in being gay. If they can find it, then society has no choice but to accept them as they can't help it. Any time a researcher claims to have an answer, the GLBT community jumps all over it, even though results aren't replicated and the study is biased. The truth is, there is no substantial evidence and the scientific community simply doesn't know for sure what determines sexual orientation. So, to take a page from your atheist book, no scientific proof=no genetic influence on sexual orientation. For you to accept otherwise makes you just as much a hypocrit as televangelists exploiting people for money to recieve "miricales/salvation".
I would like to point out that a study showed lesbians to show signs of stimulation while watching all sorts of sexual activity, gay/straight/and even monkey sex. The fact remains this, we are programmed to reproduce with the best possible mate to insure our traits/genes get passed on. As a proponent of evolution, do you argue this? I have my own beliefs as to why people are gay, and it is biblical and simple, it is a choice and sinful lust, but God allows them to think it is the "right" choice.
First Wikipedia isnt a valid source of info, now it is. Which is it? When is Wikipedia a valid source of information? When it agrees with you? LOL. Type marriage into Wikipedia and I want you to copy and paste the very first sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff
Monozygotic twins are not 100% genetically identical.Quote:
Not dodging my questions eh? Come on smart @ss, enlighten me. I know that they compare gay mans brain to a woman's and think that's supposed to mean something. Why no studies on lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders? Why is there only a 50% chance that twins will both be gay even though they are genetically identical and choice is not involved?
You look stupider and stupider every time you post. Go take a remedial stats class. You fail miserablyQuote:
My math and statistics comprehension is fine. The study showed 30% of a succeeding line of brothers will be gay. That's roughly 1/3... I am one of four continuous births of males in my family yet none are gay....fail.
But you said there were no studies done on lesbians, didnt you?Quote:
I would like to point out that a study showed lesbians to show signs of stimulation while watching all sorts of sexual activity, gay/straight/and even monkey sex.
I'll argue that you have a rudimentary understanding of evolutionary biology.Quote:
The fact remains this, we are programmed to reproduce with the best possible mate to insure our traits/genes get passed on. As a proponent of evolution, do you argue this?
Again, though, why does them getting married harm you? What "feel good" feeling do you get knowing they can't get married? In a way, I wish I was more like you and didn't have any other problems in this world that actually had to do with me so I could devote my problems to issues that have nothing to do with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff
That's what I don't get. I don't pay attention to what other people want to do where other people seem to have to have their nose into everything.
Aside from that (which I did forget about almost everyone having a little crush like that in their wee years), you didn't opt to go for the female sex. You didn't think to yourself, "hmmmm, boy or girl?" Did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff
You should be more specific when making blanket statements. I support homosexuality and I'm not searching or hoping for anything. I simply don't care enough to. Whether it's genetic (which we don't know) or it's a choice (which I do agree with), let them do what they want. It's not your life. Later, QD.Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff
Blank: the first sentence describes what is politically correct. Read the entirety of it buddy. We are arguing what has been historically and traditionally the definition of marriage. You can not show me anywhere where marriage was traditionally defined as between two men and two women. My math is just fine buddy. Show me how the study says 30% is not anything other than 1 in 3. I will wait. They haven't studied the genetics of lesbians as far as I know. The study showed that lesbian women are also turned on by hetero sex as well as simple monkeys getting it on. Therefore, it would seem them sticking to women is...choice. Arguing with you is plain stupid. Whatever the topic may be, you seem to think your interpretation and logic is superior to everyone else's.
No, you're worked up because with every post I make, your posts become more antagonistic. See, my posts are consistent. Meaning my feelings and emotions are stable, whereas you seem grow flustered. It's cool, Alex (ha, I forgot that was your name before you said it). I understand that when you can't prove someone wrong or use facts to show intellectual superiority, you resort to fabricated personal attacks and stale drama that you really don't know the details of.Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi
Started with turning my username into something else, intended to be degrading (lol, I remember that shit being cool in 2007), and then trying to provoke me with the old, irrelevant relationship mishaps.
Speaking of boring.
Oh wait. I'm boring, yet you can't help but to type out a book everytime I post.
What is it, Alex... am I boring or are you flustered?
lol. Right on queue.Quote:
Evan, the truth is you are an incredibly sad little creature. From the squeaky little bitches voice, down to those pimple covered portly puffy cheeks on that unfathomably small fucking head of yours. But for me to attack you properly, I have to feel malice towards you, and from what you have posted so far in this thread, well to be quite blunt with you, you simply haven't got the required skills nor the ability to sufficiently energize me to bother with you in any meaningful sense.
I lol'ed @ ignorant mexican nobody.Quote:
Heh, everything that I have said to you in this thread has been true it's up to you whether you accept it as reality. Yes, reality, a tough place to wake up and find your jaw shattered in multiple places from a good old fashioned jackboot barndance by an ignorant Mexican nobody.
Now get the fuck out of my thread.
Quite the imagination you have, there, Tic Tac. Unfortunately, you've barely said anything true and I completely expect that to continue.