so I had chick-fil-a this morning

[.blank cd]

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.

Just change the definition, and you'll win every time.

My math is just fine buddy. Show me how the study says 30% is not anything other than 1 in 3. I will wait.

No, its really not. I cant even fathom on what planet this is correct. I dont know what study youre referring to, but a 30% increase in chance does not mean 1 in 3. You somehow are mixing or confusing "chance" with "odds". If you did take a remedial statistics class, even an algebra class, you would know this. The variables you've presented are not mutually exclusive. Youre trying to tell me if you bought 4 tickets to a lottery that has 30 billion:1 odds that you'll win on the 4th ticket.

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.

Arguing with me is stupid, so why do it? My knowledge is vastly superior to yours, as Ive shown time and time again, and you seem to be off base about EVERYTHING. Listen to what I say, then look up the answers. And STOP looking for answers to scientific questions in the bible, theyre not there.

[Got Milk?]

Just change the definition, and you'll win every time.

No, its really not. I cant even fathom on what planet this is correct. I dont know what study youre referring to, but a 30% increase in chance does not mean 1 in 3. You somehow are mixing or confusing "chance" with "odds". If you did take a remedial statistics class, even an algebra class, you would know this. The variables you've presented are not mutually exclusive. Youre trying to tell me if you bought 4 tickets to a lottery that has 30 billion:1 odds that you'll win on the 4th ticket.


Arguing with me is stupid, so why do it? My knowledge is vastly superior to yours, as Ive shown time and time again, and you seem to be off base about EVERYTHING. Listen to what I say, then look up the answers. And STOP looking for answers to scientific questions in the bible, theyre not there.

Ohhh no HE DIDN't!!!

[geoff]

Just change the definition? That simple? Might as well change the constitution and the bill of rights to include the privilege of marriage a right for everyone. Stop trying to make yourself out to be some kind of superior wise intellect because you put your foot in your mouth every time you post. What qualifies you as "smarter" than me or anyone here? What credentials do you posses that makes you an expert in theology, genetics, history, sociology, or psychology? Taking a semester of a class makes you no expert sir. The fact is that you use google, read articles, and then relay that information here. No different than anyone else here posting in this thread. So get off that pedestool like your some kind of professor talking down to ignorant college students. You have nothing to teach me sir. It is fact that there is not conclusive evidence to support sexual orientation is genetic. There are theories and speculations...nothing more. Otherwise this topic would not be debatable and the scientific community would be in agreement. Personally I think you are just itching to jump out the closet and announce your homosexuality on IA, but that is neither here nor there. In reality, this is not a debate, as neither of us is willing to accept the others position. Rather, this is an argument between two guys that know no more about genetics than what we have read online. So, back to the topic. This is a simple fact, marriage is not a civil right under the constitution, therefore there is no discrimination nor injustice being done to the gay community.

QD: it does indeed effect me when a Christian is told to keep their beliefs and practices out of government while gays are able to force their agenda on the American people. They cry bigotry and injustice when none of the sort is taking place.

[Sinfix_15]

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?

As an atheist, one day i will chose to participate in the marriage ceremony without changing any of the guidelines of it. It'll look like any other marriage, be in a church, be done by a preacher, cake and tuxedos the whole 9. I wont offend anyone by doing this because im not seeking to change anything about it. I love christmas too.... i like christmas trees, christmas songs, christmas cookies, christmas lights and gifts and all of that too. I chose to participate in these things AS THEY ARE. Gay people shouldnt be allowed to change something that other's hold sacred. Nobody would deny gays the right to unite themselves under whatever label they chose or to have marital benefits. Nobody wants to stop gay people from being together. Gay people are the ones on the offensive here, seeking to alter anything that doesnt support their lifestyle. If you like marriage, then participate......... find you a nice person of opposing gender and enjoy everything marriage has to offer. If not, then dont participate. Your choice.

[S4saken]

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.

I think what .blank cd is getting at is you can flip a coin 10 times and get heads 10 times even though it's a 50/50 chance. I agree that being gay is a choice and not genetic though. You hear of women going gay after being burned or getting tired of men all the time.

Crazy how they say they hate men but use sex toys that replicate a man's penis...

[.blank cd]

As an atheist, one day i will chose to participate in the marriage ceremony without changing any of the guidelines of it. It'll look like any other marriage, be in a church, be done by a preacher, cake and tuxedos the whole 9. I wont offend anyone by doing this because im not seeking to change anything about it. I love christmas too.... i like christmas trees, christmas songs, christmas cookies, christmas lights and gifts and all of that too. I chose to participate in these things AS THEY ARE. Gay people shouldnt be allowed to change something that other's hold sacred. Nobody would deny gays the right to unite themselves under whatever label they chose or to have marital benefits. Nobody wants to stop gay people from being together. Gay people are the ones on the offensive here, seeking to alter anything that doesnt support their lifestyle. If you like marriage, then participate......... find you a nice person of opposing gender and enjoy everything marriage has to offer. If not, then dont participate. Your choice.

You're still taking about a Christian marriage ceremony. Are you suggesting that EVERYONE, all Muslims, all Jews, all Sikhs, and all non-religious people MUST participate in a Christian marriage ceremony, or it's not really a marriage?

[.blank cd]

I agree that being gay is a choice and not genetic though. You hear of women going gay after being burned or getting tired of men all the time.

So because you see a woman in a relationship with another woman because she's given up on men, does that necessarily mean it was a choice for ALL homosexual people? Do you think maybe it wasn't a choice for her to begin with? Do you still think its only a choice for everyone despite scientists and psychologists telling us that there are more factors, including biological ones, that are involved, rather than just a conscious decision?

[David88vert]

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....

You didn't answer me before. What, in your opinion, do you think a "biological factor" is?

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.

I know the difference between theory and fact. You obviously do not.
In the most basic explanation, so that you can understand, a theory can be falsified, but a fact must be confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true.

No gay gene has ever been confirmed repeatedly, and it is definitely not accepted as true. It is not scientific fact. Period.

The statement on biological factor was from the APA, and they clearly stated that it was not genetic. How about you ask them what their meaning was in their statement?

I'm not twisting anything. Our current information does not show any credible results of genetics playing a part in homosexuality. If they ever found a gay gene, or series of genes that clearly impact homosexuality, then I will state that it is confirmed. Until then, I will rely on the fact that it is not proven.

I have no problem with it being a choice for people. If anything, that is better than it being forced by genetics. If you want to be gay, more power to you. If you want to change the definition of marriage used in your state, then go to your state senators and representatives and petition them. Don't sit there and claim something that is not proven true though and expect the majority of bend a knee to your special interest group.

As to the research, I have given you the statements of leading researchers, that has stood the test of time, and has been vetted by their peers. You have not done the same. The APA statement was actually a specific reversal of their original statement, when they thought that it was genetic. They spent years reviewing and find that it was not genetic, and specifically issued the complete reversal after extensive, exhaustive research, and it is the current statement on their site and in their publications. Do you have a specific statement from any credible, non-biased organization, such as the APA, to support your statements that genetics is proven to impact homosexuality? And, the two researchers most claimed by "born this way" believers, such as your self, are Hamer and LeVay, and their reports are early 90's as well. The difference is that they have been found to be incorrect.

[David88vert]

You're still taking about a Christian marriage ceremony. Are you suggesting that EVERYONE, all Muslims, all Jews, all Sikhs, and all non-religious people MUST participate in a Christian marriage ceremony, or it's not really a marriage?

No, the Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, etc, all have their own religious ceremonies. Marriage licenses are issued by the state, and are non-religious. You can get a license without having a ceremony, and you are still married. You can have a ceremony, but without a license, you are not legally married. Gays can have a ceremony or not, it doesn't matter.

You really don't have a grasp of how the world works.

[David88vert]

So because you see a woman in a relationship with another woman because she's given up on men, does that necessarily mean it was a choice for ALL homosexual people? Do you think maybe it wasn't a choice for her to begin with? Do you still think its only a choice for everyone despite scientists and psychologists telling us that there are more factors, including biological ones, that are involved, rather than just a conscious decision?

There is a difference between a biological factor, such as a mother using sunscreen while pregnant, and genetics.

Biological factors, environmental factors, etc. may have influence on a person, such as a person growing up in a religion. People learn behaviors and what is expected of them. These influences do have an impact; however, a person can choose to ignore influences and act as they wish. Just because your mother drank alcohol while pregnant, and everyone you meet as you growup drinks, it does not mean that you have to be an alcoholic, or even drink. While people tend to copy what they have learned by experience, it is not forced on them, and they can choose what they want to do. And there is nothing wrong with having a choice. Telling gays that they don't have a choice because they were born that way seems to be a negative, rather than telling they that they have a choice, and we accept you as you choose to be.

[.blank cd]

There is a difference between a biological factor, such as a mother using sunscreen while pregnant, and genetics.

LMAO. You think a biological factor is a mother using sunscreen while she's pregnant? Try again. This time try harder.

[David88vert]

LMAO. You think a biological factor is a mother using sunscreen while she's pregnant? Try again. This time try harder.

Technically it is, and has been used by the gay gene promoters. Where do you think I got it from? :-p

In utero - look it up. Once again, you show that you comprehend your own agenda.

[.blank cd]

I know the difference between theory and fact. You obviously do not.
In the most basic explanation, so that you can understand, a theory can be falsified, but a fact must be confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true.

This is the dumbest explanation of scientific fact and theory I've ever seen. Hands down.

The statement on biological factor was from the APA, and they clearly stated that it was not genetic. How about you ask them what their meaning was in their statement?

No. YOU clearly stated it was not genetic when you said "note that they did not say genetitcs" The problem is, you don't know what a biological factor is. I agree with the APAs statement 100%

As to the research, I have given you the statements of leading researchers, that has stood the test of time, and has been vetted by their peers. You have not done the same.

No. No you haven't. I've shown you research from as recently as less than 5 years ago, and you chose to dismiss it all because 1) it didn't agree with your belief, and 2) because someone you believe wasn't qualified enough co-authored one paper, and then in another post, present information from a source with the EXACT SAME QUALIFICATIONS.

[.blank cd]

Technically it is, and has been used by the gay gene promoters. Where do you think I got it from? :-p

In utero - look it up. Once again, you show that you comprehend your own agenda.

Sunscreen is not a biological factor. Technically bullshit. Sunscreen contains a topical form of vitamin A, retinol hexadecanoate, that gets converted in the body into retinoids. The sunscreen is chemical factor

Try again.

[David88vert]

This is the dumbest explanation of scientific fact and theory I've ever seen. Hands down.

According to Princeton University's dictionary:
Scientific Theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable
Scientific Fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).

Where do you teach at? You think that you are smarter than all of the professors ar Princeton?

No. YOU clearly stated it was not genetic when you said "note that they did not say genetitcs" The problem is, you don't know what a biological factor is. I agree with the APAs statement 100%

Actually, you stated that there was a consensus among scientist that homosexuality was genetic. I specifically gave you the APA's statement which showed you were 100% incorrect. Now, you say that you agree with their statement 100%. Looks like you changed your mind.

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." - APA

No. No you haven't. I've shown you research from as recently as less than 5 years ago, and you chose to dismiss it all because 1) it didn't agree with your belief, and 2) because someone you believe wasn't qualified enough co-authored one paper, and then in another post, present information from a source with the EXACT SAME QUALIFICATIONS.

I have not dismissed it all. I have not had a chance to fully review all of the information that you posted in the other thread,a nd see if it has been vetted properly. If any of it is based on Hamer's discredited research, then you have only wasted time. BTW - incase you were not aware, research takes time to complete. It's not usually a less than 5 year project. Life is not like the movies, problems are not solved in 2 hours.

[David88vert]

Sunscreen is not a biological factor. Technically bullshit. Sunscreen contains a topical form of vitamin A, retinol hexadecanoate, that gets converted in the body into retinoids. The sunscreen is chemical factor

Try again.

You really are clueless.

Look up titanium dioxide and aluminum - both in sunscreens. Read "Exposing the Hazards of Sunscreen" by Elizabeth Plourde, CLS, NCMP, PhD. You can find it published on pages 18-21 of Vol. 36, No. 1 of Price-Pottenger Journal. She has a book also, "Sunscreens - Biohazard: Treat as Hazardous Waste", and has been a researcher on it for over 25 years, and is a professor at San Diego University.

She is a professor and research, and has been published. What have you done?

Another biological factor in utero - look up "fetal alcohol spectrum disorders"
Heavy Drinking in Pregnancy Linked to Host of Problems in Children

Another biological factor in utero - Eczema from butylbenzyl phthalate (BBzP)
Exposure to household chemical in utero increases risk of childhood eczema | Fox News

[.blank cd]

Look up titanium dioxide and aluminum - both in sunscreens. Read "Exposing the Hazards of Sunscreen" by Elizabeth Plourde, CLS, NCMP, PhD. You can find it published on pages 18-21 of Vol. 36, No. 1 of Price-Pottenger Journal. She has a book also, "Sunscreens - Biohazard: Treat as Hazardous Waste", and has been a researcher on it for over 25 years, and is a professor at San Diego University.

She is a professor and research, and has been published. What have you done?

Another biological factor in utero - look up "fetal alcohol spectrum disorders"
Heavy Drinking in Pregnancy Linked to Host of Problems in Children

Another biological factor in utero - Eczema from butylbenzyl phthalate (BBzP)
Exposure to household chemical in utero increases risk of childhood eczema | Fox News

Congratulations on making yourself look like a dumbass by posting conditions totally unrelated to the topic at hand. All of what you posted are biological disorders that are CHEMICALLY INDUCED. Homosexuality is not CHEMICALLY INDUCED.

Try again

What is a biological factor?

[.blank cd]

Where do you teach at? You think that you are smarter than all of the professors ar Princeton?

Dont worry about where I teach at. That's irrelevant. Just worry about the fact that you are scientifically inept.

Actually, you stated that there was a consensus among scientist that homosexuality was genetic.

Twisting my words again. I said exactly what the APA has stated. There are environmental, societal, and biological factors. You still have yet to come up with the definition of a biological factor. Probably cause when you recognize the correct definition, your entire argument will crumble on itself. Not that it already isn't.

I specifically gave you the APA's statement which showed you were 100% incorrect. Now, you say that you agree with their statement 100%. Looks like you changed your mind.

Havent changed my mind one bit. The difference between me and you is I understand what this means. You don't.

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." - APA

I have not dismissed it all. I have not had a chance to fully review all of the information that you posted in the other thread,a nd see if it has been vetted properly.

Exactly what I thought. Dismissed.

BTW - incase you were not aware, research takes time to complete. It's not usually a less than 5 year project. Life is not like the movies, problems are not solved in 2 hours.

Ohhhh is that how it works?

[Sinfix_15]

You're still taking about a Christian marriage ceremony. Are you suggesting that EVERYONE, all Muslims, all Jews, all Sikhs, and all non-religious people MUST participate in a Christian marriage ceremony, or it's not really a marriage?

They call it Kiddushin and Nisuin and follow their own set of religious guidelines. I would welcome gay people to do the same. Create their own tradition vs interfering with the existing tradition. There's about 4 million gay people in america. About 80% of americans are christians. I dont think it's fair to allow those 4 million to change a tradition as old as america itself. If it goes to vote in my state and passes, more power to them. I'm just expressing my opinion.

Do you honestly support this cause or are you just sticking with your far left stance? I dont see a benefit of trying to ingrain homosexuality into our society. I accept them, but i dont want to promote them.

[bodhi]

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."

This is the only part that caught my attention, really. Cases of homosexuality date back to biblical times so Professor Miron's perspective about it becoming extinct really makes no sense. Gayness is not an adaptation so it wasn't formed through our evolutionary journey - it's a condition or abnormality.

Children that are born gay are created by two heterosexual people. Not a gay man and a straight woman, but again by TWO straight people. Their mother had an attraction to their father, who is male and who had an attraction to their mother. Why would you even bother posting an article by mainstream professors who aren't truely going to reveal the true report of their research? It's not something the public wants to hear, it's not something the people is ready to accept.

Homosexuality is a genetic mutation that occurs right before you either stay female or become male. Because I'm sure you know that every fetus is female then develops into male or female. In the males you obviously have the X/Y chormosomes. So many things can occur during this process. You could become male, female or even a third gender or like I've said a hijra (middle-eastern's version of a transgender). This type of condition goes back to Mesopotamia mythology. When a boy is born he is subconsciously attracted to his mother, and the father tends to get jealous over his son when the mother gives the boy too much attention. As a boy gets older he starts looking up to his father and wants to be like him, but wants a wife that's like his mother. In the girl's case is just the opposite, she looks up to her father as an object and wants a husband like him. (in both cases not EXACTLY like their parents that would be just too damn fucked up). I'm sure you know all this though right, David88vert?

Slowly men are becoming more senstive and emotional because of the BPA, a common chemical found in plastic water bottles and plastic food containers, that mimics estrogen in the body.

Estrogen, a sex hormone, causes men to become more emotional and effeminate, and it causes women to become more rational and masculine. When you look at a shemale you see the physical manifestation of the same sexual confusion you see in yourselves. There is no reason for BPA to be used in the manufacture of plastic. It serves no industrial purpose, it's just a chemical capable of simulating a human sex hormone in the body. But yet almost all plastic bottles and containers have very high amounts of BPA in them.

Then of course there's all the bottles and containers coming out now that say, "BPA FREE!" All of these bottles and containers happen to contain, not BPA, but another chemical which is also capable of simulating estrogen. Another estrogen-like chemical that has no reason, no purpose, and no business being used in plastic. But yet it's not only prevalent, it's damn near universal.

David88vert, when did you "choose" to be straight? I don't remember "choosing" to be straight, I just am. So what makes you think someone "chooses" to be homosexual? Wouldn't it work the same way? They just are? It's not a single gene that makes things what they are or who they are - it's an entire genetic sequence and billions of different combinations. In fooling around with genetic sequences, we could accidently create a "catnip" or "geoff" strand and end up with a bunch of completely dumbfuckin' tools.

[bodhi]

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.

Please stop trying to think. You're only going to give yourself a nose bleed.

You know why it's so easy for me to pwn you into another dimension? Because unlike you I have read books, articles, done research on certain topics and am openminded. I was forced to go to church for the first 12 years of my life, and NEVER believed a word of that shit. Me, a 12 year old couldn't understand the concept of a god who created existence. YES, at that age I was already thinking of that stuff... and astronmy, planets, I was sort of a geek.

However, I did read the bible because I wasn't paying attention to the pastors, and could not sneak my Sonic comic books into church. After so many years I have actually gone back to re-read that extremely long book that was probably written by some dude who was down with hallucinogens.

During my current readings, I started to notice some things...

1) Jesus is noticeably absent for most of the scriptures
2) There is a LOT of reference to a "cloud"
3) Stories like revelations seemed to be descriptions of hallucinations, but they are often described as coming after "being taken into the cloud by angels, and shown the future"
4) Many of the stories were repeated with different names
5) There were a lot things that contradict modern christian ideology


See, I do this all the time. I provide you with information to work with yet you come back at me with nothing but your faith. On Importatlanta you're basically driving on the wrong side of the hwy falling asleep half the time and your co-pilot, Jesus Christ, is too busy magically fingering your asshole. You're too blind to see the truth in reality. Your form of consciousness is non-existing so you rely on your stupid ideologies to fuel your sense of living.

Can you explain these verses for me, brah?

Ezekiel 23:19-22

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt.
20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled. [1]
22 "Therefore, Oholibah, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will stir up your lovers against you, those you turned away from in disgust, and I will bring them against you from every side

Or what about these?


Genesis 38:9 "But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother."

Genesis 38:15-16 "When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, 'Come now, let me sleep with you.'"

You are a dipshit, I swear to the Holy Universe!

Let me ask you.

You do know homosexuality is genetic because no one would willingly want to be subjected to such hatred, cruelty and bias? Right? Are you going to tell me that it's the result of being molested by your catholic priest or your drunken father? Yeah, I bet you think that. Actually the answer is no. Like I told David88vert, it is genetic, but it's not one gene. It's a sequence and a combination of genes with likely billions of variations of combinations. Like, a certain genetic sequence makes brown hair, blue eyes, tall and feminine. Another sequence could be Brown hair, blue eyes tall and masculine. A third sequence may be brown hair, blue eyes, tall with feminie features but masculine with an attraction to the masculine sex. Then Brown hair, blue eyes, tall with masculine features but femenine with an attraction to the femenine sex.

The potential combinations are endless. So it's genetic, but it's an invariable number of combinations that make us who we each are and differnetiate us from one another.

You don't believe any of that, though. I don't expect you to so it's okay.

[bodhi]

Hey, geoff.

X-Rated Bible verses

GENESIS
17:9-14 Circumcision mandated
19:1-8 Rape virgins instead of male angels
19:30-38 Righteous man impregnates his 2 daughters while drunk
24:2-3, 9 Place your hand "under the thigh" (sexual organs) of someone swearing sacred oaths
25:1-6 Keeping mistresses is not adultery
32:25 God grabs Jacob's testicles
34:1-31 Brothers are riled when sister is defiled
35:2 Reuben sleeps with father's concubine
38:1-10 Onan's method of birth control not approved
38:12-30 Tamar plays the harlot to seduce father-in-law
39:1-20 Women tries to rape man
47:29 Joseph ordered to place his hand under father's thigh
EXODUS
20:26 God specifies building of altar to prevent exposure of nakedness
22:19 Death decreed for bestiality
33:17-23 God moons Moses
NUMBERS
31:1-18; 28-47 God commands genocide of Midianites, Moses orders that virgins be kept, other captives slain
5:11-31 God's fidelity test for women only
LEVITICUS
12:1-8 Bible calls childbirth a sin and bearing females a greater sin than bearing males
15:16-18 Sperm and intercourse are unclean
15:19-33 Menstruation unclean; elaborate rules
15:29-30 Women must make sin offering for menstrual periods
18:22 Homosexuality declared an abomination
18:23 More bestiality
19:1,20-22 Man gets forgiven, slave girl gets flogging
20:10 Adulterers shall be put to death
20:13 Death decreed for homosexuals
20:15-16 Death decreed for bestiality (& beast)
26:29 Curse: Eat your sons and daughters
DEUTERONOMY
3:1-7 Kill men, women, & children
21:10-14 God okays captured maidens as trial wives
22:5 Men's clothing not to be worn by women, & vice versa
22:13-21 A bride not a virgin must die
22:23-26 Virgin raped in city given no pity
23:12-14 Defecation: Carry paddle, dig hole, & cover up
25:5-10 Woman has cause to spit in man's face
25:11-12 A woman shall have her hand cut off for touching a penis
22:28-29 Paying father to have sex with daughter
23:1 Man "wounded in the stones" can't enter congregation
23:2 Children born out of wedlock condemned as bastards to 10th generation
23:10-11 Cleanliness called for in nocturnal emissions
24:1 Man can divorce wife through eviction
28:27 Hemorrhoids ("emerods") punishment for sin
28:30 Lord's curse: Another man shall lie with groom's bride first
28:53-57 Curse: Eat your own body & children
JUDGES
3:20-22 Dagger in fat king's gut gets "dirt" out
4:4-22 Hammer & nail murder by woman
8:30 Gideon had many wives, concubines
11:29-40 Jephtha's daughter: human sacrifice
19:1-30 Woman raped and ruined by homosexuals
21:6-25 Amidst carnage virgins captured for wives
RUTH
3:6-9 To "hook" him as husband, Ruth sleeps with Boaz
4:9-10 Boaz buys Ruth
I SAMUEL
5:9-12 Philistines "smitten with emerods" as punishment for stealing ark
6:1-5 To placate God, make golden emerods
15:3 God orders Saul to kill suckling babes
18:23-27 200 foreskins gain David a king's daughter
25:22,34 Any that pisseth against the wall
II SAMUEL
3:7 More concubine hanky-panky
11:1-27 Uriah sent to lose his life so David can get his wife
12:7-12 Obscene performance to be viewed by all Israel
5:13 David had many wives, concubines
Chapter 13 Amnon rapes his sister
16:20-23 Absalom copulates with father's concubines on rooftop
20:3 David imprisons concubines for above
I KINGS
1:1-4 Virgin as therapy for sick old man unsuccessful
11:1-10 Wise Solomon has wives and concubines galore
14:10 Him that pisseth against the wall
16:11 One that pisseth against a wall
21:21 Him that pisseth against the wall
II KINGS
6:24-33 "So we boiled my son, and did eat him"
9:8 Subject not mentioned in sermons
23:7 Male houses of prostitution destroyed
I CHRONICLES
1:32-33 Abraham's concubines have children
II CHRONICLES
11:21 King Rehoboam had 18 wives & 60 concubines
ESTHER
Chapters 1-2 Sexual contest to decide new queen
SONG OF SOLOMON (the whole thing!)
ISAIAH
3:16 "...and the Lord will discover their secret parts"
9:20 Every man shall eat the flesh of his own arm
14:21-22 Slaughter children for fathers' iniquity
16:11 Biblical boast: "My bowels shall sound like an harp"
36:12 Eating dung and drinking piss
JEREMIAH
16:4 Grievous, obscene deaths
LAMENTATIONS
2:19 Something to lament
4:10 Women boil children for food
EZEKIEL
4:12-15 God says: Eat bread defiled with dung
5:8-10 What's for dinner?
8:2 Lord's loins make guest appearance
16:15 Fornications pour out
16:36-37 Their "filthiness poured out..."
23:1-40 Sex organs and ejaculate of harlots' lovers compared to asses & horses
29:7-8 God performs bloody castration via a sword
HOSEA
1:2-11 God tells Hosea to take whore to wife
2:1-15 Complications ensue (lewdly described)
NAHUM
3:4-6 Lord: "I will discover thy skirts upon thy face"
MALACHI
2:1-4 An angry god will spread feces on your faces
MATTHEW
5:27-30 A man may lust but it's not considered just
5:31-32 Man can divorce wife for fornication only
19:3-9 Man who divorces and remarries is adulterer
19:12 Castrate yourself for Jesus
22:24 Law of Onan (you have to marry your dead brother's wife)
LUKE
2:21 Eight day old Jesus is circumcised
ACTS
5:38 Eunuch baptized
15:24 Circumcision is not commandment
16:3 Paul circumcises adult
ROMANS
1:26-32 Gay men and lesbians "worthy of death"
I CORINTHIANS
6:18-20 Abstain from sex
7:1-40 To be more holy, refrain from sex wholly
7:18-19 If you're not circumcised, stay that way
GALATIANS
5:1-4 Paul speaks against circumcision
REVELATION
17:1-6 A whore is stripped, eaten and burned

Heh.

[bodhi]

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.

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.



I lol'ed @ ignorant mexican nobody.

Quite the imagination you have, there, Tic Tac. Unfortunately, you've barely said anything true and I completely expect that to continue.

LOL

[bodhi]

btw,

wassup QD!?

[.blank cd]

They call it Kiddushin and Nisuin and follow their own set of religious guidelines. I would welcome gay people to do the same. Create their own tradition vs interfering with the existing tradition. There's about 4 million gay people in america. About 80% of americans are christians. I dont think it's fair to allow those 4 million to change a tradition as old as america itself. If it goes to vote in my state and passes, more power to them. I'm just expressing my opinion.

Im still trying to figure out what your opinion is. What about non religious people, should they be made to participate in a Christian ceremony in order to be recognized as a couple? It seems like you want to keep the religious connotation to it, despite the fact that marriage has been around longer than modern religion. Let's take the religious meaning out of it. Can two atheists get married outside of the church?

Do you honestly support this cause or are you just sticking with your far left stance? I dont see a benefit of trying to ingrain homosexuality into our society. I accept them, but i dont want to promote them.

Far left? Really? More than 50% of Americans agree with me. I support societal progression. I guess some would also marijuana legalization is a far left stance too, even though 70% of the country supports it. Theres more benefit from tolerating homosexuality than there is opposing it.

[Got Milk?]

As an atheist, one day i will chose to participate in the marriage ceremony without changing any of the guidelines of it. It'll look like any other marriage, be in a church, be done by a preacher, cake and tuxedos the whole 9. I wont offend anyone by doing this because im not seeking to change anything about it. I love christmas too.... i like christmas trees, christmas songs, christmas cookies, christmas lights and gifts and all of that too. I chose to participate in these things AS THEY ARE. Gay people shouldnt be allowed to change something that other's hold sacred. Nobody would deny gays the right to unite themselves under whatever label they chose or to have marital benefits. Nobody wants to stop gay people from being together. Gay people are the ones on the offensive here, seeking to alter anything that doesnt support their lifestyle. If you like marriage, then participate......... find you a nice person of opposing gender and enjoy everything marriage has to offer. If not, then dont participate. Your choice.

I've always thought about it this way, my brother. About the only logical thing posted in this entire thread.

[quickdodge®]

QD: it does indeed effect me when a Christian is told to keep their beliefs and practices out of government while gays are able to force their agenda on the American people. They cry bigotry and injustice when none of the sort is taking place.

Again, I ask. How is this affecting your life? Will you lose your job or get a pay cut because of their actions. Is your job in jeopardy if gays are allowed to get married? Is your marriage (if you're married) or relationship (if you're not) in peril? How will your quality of life decrease if the gay community is allowed to get legally married. None of the above will affect me. That's why it's no big to me what they do one way or the other.

By the way, I don't see them "forcing their agenda" on anyone. I see them trying to get rights to get married. How is that forcing something on you?

I agree that being gay is a choice and not genetic though. You hear of women going gay after being burned or getting tired of men all the time.

Holy shit I guess all theories and studies can be put to rest now that this has been chimed in. Debate over.

THREAD LOCKED!

btw,

wassup QD!?

Oh, before the lock, what it is, Alex! How are you and yours? Later, QD.

[C230K]

ImportAtlanta should change its name to DebateAtlanta.

Its interesting to read other peoples views on a certain topic

[C230K]

Something I found

[.blank cd]

I get the sentiment, but no. That's not how gasoline works. Lol

[Matt300ZXT]

How is that not the exact same way the Chick Fil A thing works? You don't like that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, so in protest you don't buy his chicken. You NEED food to live, but you have the choice to get Burger King, or cook for yourself, or whatever. However, the oil families in Saudi Arabia are moooooost likely muslim, and they believe homosexuality is punishable by death, but you still buy their gas? That is the exact same thing. You don't NEED gas to live but to support your way of getting to work and your car hobby, you have to buy it.

This reminds me of a story my friend told me once. He had this gf at one time, who was (probably still is) big into PETA. He thinks PETA is retarded but went because it was a free trip to Vegas in a nice hotel and lots of free drinks. He goes to one of the PETA rallies out on the street and they're looking at a video screen of a montage of PETA activists throwing red paint and stuff on little old ladies wearing their new fur coats or furs around their necks, etc. Everyone is cheering the video on because they're picking on little old ladies who can't really do anything about it. My friend, who was drunk off his ass, speaks up and says hey, you guys applaud these people throwing paint on these lady's coats? They say yes, to which he replies how come there are no pictures or video of you guys throwing paint on the bikers who wear leather? There was a deafening silence for a few moments. Simply put, the bikers would have beaten these limp wristed PETA pantywastes to a bloody pulp and they know that...so they just pick and choose their battles.

So it's easy for you to boycott Chick Fil A because you think he's some anti fag hate monger, yet you have no problem going to buy gas from documented fag hating fag murderers?

[Sinfix_15]

Im still trying to figure out what your opinion is. What about non religious people, should they be made to participate in a Christian ceremony in order to be recognized as a couple? It seems like you want to keep the religious connotation to it, despite the fact that marriage has been around longer than modern religion. Let's take the religious meaning out of it. Can two atheists get married outside of the church?

Far left? Really? More than 50% of Americans agree with me. I support societal progression. I guess some would also marijuana legalization is a far left stance too, even though 70% of the country supports it. Theres more benefit from tolerating homosexuality than there is opposing it.

Even though i do not believe in religion, im not on a quest to rid the world of religion. I want to co-exist with christians. I dont want them to effect my life, i dont want to effect their life. My message to the world would be that people have the right to make a choice and that there is actually a choice to be made. As an atheist, i can chose to participate in christian events or chose not to. Even though i'm an atheist, i can walk into any church i want and sit down and listen to them. I'm welcome to participate in these things as long as i follow the rules. If i walked into a church and started yelling to people that god wasnt real, im sure they would ask me to leave. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It always has been. If gay people do not agree with the rules, then dont participate. Nobody is denying them benefits, nobody is telling them they cant hug, kiss or hold hands in public. They can even adopt and raise children. They can do anything they want to do..... why do they have to change something that a very large group of people hold sacred. There are compromises to be made.

[Sinfix_15]

Again, I ask. How is this affecting your life? Will you lose your job or get a pay cut because of their actions. Is your job in jeopardy if gays are allowed to get married? Is your marriage (if you're married) or relationship (if you're not) in peril? How will your quality of life decrease if the gay community is allowed to get legally married. None of the above will affect me. That's why it's no big to me what they do one way or the other.

By the way, I don't see them "forcing their agenda" on anyone. I see them trying to get rights to get married. How is that forcing something on you?



Holy shit I guess all theories and studies can be put to rest now that this has been chimed in. Debate over.

THREAD LOCKED!



Oh, before the lock, what it is, Alex! How are you and yours? Later, QD.

It tarnishes the meaning of a tradition. I personally dont believe in burial rituals, but maybe you do. would it effect your life in any way if i purchased the local mortuary, dug up all of your deceased relatives and used them to fertilize my garden? would you lose your job if i did that? would your quality of life decrease if i did that?

To me, burial is a silly thing. I dont believe in it, i think its a waste of space, but i respect that you and/or other people believe in it and i show it respect. Gay people do not care about respecting the current institution of marriage or care about who they offend. So it's hard to care about offending them. So you cant get married? dont give a shit.

[David88vert]

This is the only part that caught my attention, really. Cases of homosexuality date back to biblical times so Professor Miron's perspective about it becoming extinct really makes no sense. Gayness is not an adaptation so it wasn't formed through our evolutionary journey - it's a condition or abnormality.

Children that are born gay are created by two heterosexual people. Not a gay man and a straight woman, but again by TWO straight people. Their mother had an attraction to their father, who is male and who had an attraction to their mother. Why would you even bother posting an article by mainstream professors who aren't truely going to reveal the true report of their research? It's not something the public wants to hear, it's not something the people is ready to accept.

Homosexuality is a genetic mutation that occurs right before you either stay female or become male. Because I'm sure you know that every fetus is female then develops into male or female. In the males you obviously have the X/Y chormosomes. So many things can occur during this process. You could become male, female or even a third gender or like I've said a hijra (middle-eastern's version of a transgender). This type of condition goes back to Mesopotamia mythology. When a boy is born he is subconsciously attracted to his mother, and the father tends to get jealous over his son when the mother gives the boy too much attention. As a boy gets older he starts looking up to his father and wants to be like him, but wants a wife that's like his mother. In the girl's case is just the opposite, she looks up to her father as an object and wants a husband like him. (in both cases not EXACTLY like their parents that would be just too damn fucked up). I'm sure you know all this though right, David88vert?

Slowly men are becoming more senstive and emotional because of the BPA, a common chemical found in plastic water bottles and plastic food containers, that mimics estrogen in the body.

Estrogen, a sex hormone, causes men to become more emotional and effeminate, and it causes women to become more rational and masculine. When you look at a shemale you see the physical manifestation of the same sexual confusion you see in yourselves. There is no reason for BPA to be used in the manufacture of plastic. It serves no industrial purpose, it's just a chemical capable of simulating a human sex hormone in the body. But yet almost all plastic bottles and containers have very high amounts of BPA in them.

Then of course there's all the bottles and containers coming out now that say, "BPA FREE!" All of these bottles and containers happen to contain, not BPA, but another chemical which is also capable of simulating estrogen. Another estrogen-like chemical that has no reason, no purpose, and no business being used in plastic. But yet it's not only prevalent, it's damn near universal.

David88vert, when did you "choose" to be straight? I don't remember "choosing" to be straight, I just am. So what makes you think someone "chooses" to be homosexual? Wouldn't it work the same way? They just are? It's not a single gene that makes things what they are or who they are - it's an entire genetic sequence and billions of different combinations. In fooling around with genetic sequences, we could accidently create a "catnip" or "geoff" strand and end up with a bunch of completely dumbfuckin' tools.

Most gay people would not consider themselves a genetic mistake. With no scientific proof of genetics impacting homosexuality, is it wise to tell them that they are a genetic abnormality? I don't believe that is wise personally. We do know that a person can choose to be gay, straight, or not to be involved with anyone/thing. Sexual attraction is not somthing that cannot be controlled, like eye color or hair color. You cannot consciously decide that you want your eye or hair color to change, and then it change with just mental power. You can choose to involve or not involve yourself with either gender. Having masculine or feminine tendencies does not mean that a person is gay or has to involve themselves in homosexuality.

I personally agree that if there was any genetic impact on homosexuality, it would be a collection of genes, not an individual one, and if they are found, I am open to that if ti is found in the future; however, I am unwilling to take it on faith, when it is supposed to be science, not religion.

As for your other question - I choose to be straight everytime that I am with someone. I could just as easily choose to not have any relationships or be gay if that is what I chose to do. We are not robots or animals - we think, we make choices, and we live with the consequences. In our current time, a person has the freedom to choose to be gay, but they have to live with the consequence that they cannot be legally married. Every choice has consequences, and to claim that "my genes made me do it" is just a lack of personal responsibility.

[David88vert]

Dont worry about where I teach at. That's irrelevant. Just worry about the fact that you are scientifically inept.

Twisting my words again. I said exactly what the APA has stated. There are environmental, societal, and biological factors. You still have yet to come up with the definition of a biological factor. Probably cause when you recognize the correct definition, your entire argument will crumble on itself. Not that it already isn't.

Havent changed my mind one bit. The difference between me and you is I understand what this means. You don't.

Exactly what I thought. Dismissed.

Ohhhh is that how it works?

Chemicals have an effect on biology and are categorized by real scientists as biological factors. You can use Google to check everything, since you don't understand. If you think that the scientists are incorrect, then you can explain it to them. Same with Princeton, why don't you call them up and tell them that they are scientifically inept? The fact is, you don't know anything about genetics, or even scientific definitions.

The APA was very clear, and stated there was no consensus. You stated that there was a consensus of a majority of scientists. You still can't admit you were wrong. That's ok, everyone else knows the truth.

You can live in denial, and believe what you want, and it doesn't matter if it is right or wrong. You are taking it blindly on faith, not in founded scientific fact. It is your religion, and that's ok. It's funny how you criticize Christians for their faith, but you are no different.

[David88vert]

Hey, geoff.

X-Rated Bible verses



Heh.

Who determined that the Bible and Christians were only supposed to be PG? Life isn't PG...

[David88vert]

Im still trying to figure out what your opinion is. What about non religious people, should they be made to participate in a Christian ceremony in order to be recognized as a couple? It seems like you want to keep the religious connotation to it, despite the fact that marriage has been around longer than modern religion. Let's take the religious meaning out of it. Can two atheists get married outside of the church?

Far left? Really? More than 50% of Americans agree with me. I support societal progression. I guess some would also marijuana legalization is a far left stance too, even though 70% of the country supports it. Theres more benefit from tolerating homosexuality than there is opposing it.

Again, no one has to have any ceremony to be married legally. You just don't get it. You have obviously never been married.
A marriage license is not the same as a marriage ceremony.

Yes, two atheists can get married outside a church. They simply go to the courthouse, pay for the marriage license, and the judge marries them in the courtroom. It happens every day across the country. Christians do that also all the time. It is non-religious.

[David88vert]

Again, I ask. How is this affecting your life? Will you lose your job or get a pay cut because of their actions. Is your job in jeopardy if gays are allowed to get married? Is your marriage (if you're married) or relationship (if you're not) in peril? How will your quality of life decrease if the gay community is allowed to get legally married. None of the above will affect me. That's why it's no big to me what they do one way or the other.

By the way, I don't see them "forcing their agenda" on anyone. I see them trying to get rights to get married. How is that forcing something on you?



Holy shit I guess all theories and studies can be put to rest now that this has been chimed in. Debate over.

THREAD LOCKED!



Oh, before the lock, what it is, Alex! How are you and yours? Later, QD.

Unfortunately, the "gay rights" groups are not pursuing the proper methods to change the laws. I do not see state congressmen submitting propositions for voting on it. I see that the "gay rights" groups are attempting to circumvent the state laws by looking for a federal mandate to override state laws. That is "forcing the issue".

[Elbow]

How is that not the exact same way the Chick Fil A thing works? You don't like that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, so in protest you don't buy his chicken. You NEED food to live, but you have the choice to get Burger King, or cook for yourself, or whatever. However, the oil families in Saudi Arabia are moooooost likely muslim, and they believe homosexuality is punishable by death, but you still buy their gas? That is the exact same thing. You don't NEED gas to live but to support your way of getting to work and your car hobby, you have to buy it.

This reminds me of a story my friend told me once. He had this gf at one time, who was (probably still is) big into PETA. He thinks PETA is retarded but went because it was a free trip to Vegas in a nice hotel and lots of free drinks. He goes to one of the PETA rallies out on the street and they're looking at a video screen of a montage of PETA activists throwing red paint and stuff on little old ladies wearing their new fur coats or furs around their necks, etc. Everyone is cheering the video on because they're picking on little old ladies who can't really do anything about it. My friend, who was drunk off his ass, speaks up and says hey, you guys applaud these people throwing paint on these lady's coats? They say yes, to which he replies how come there are no pictures or video of you guys throwing paint on the bikers who wear leather? There was a deafening silence for a few moments. Simply put, the bikers would have beaten these limp wristed PETA pantywastes to a bloody pulp and they know that...so they just pick and choose their battles.

So it's easy for you to boycott Chick Fil A because you think he's some anti fag hate monger, yet you have no problem going to buy gas from documented fag hating fag murderers?

News flash: YOU NEED GAS.

Don't buy gas, don't go to work.
Don't buy gas, don't get food.
Don't buy gas, don't go to the doctor.
Don't buy gas, don't bring your kid to school.

But wait, Simon, you twit, they can ride the bus, carpool, or something else.

Hey, moron, EVERYTHING goes back to putting at least something in their pocket.

I personally think it's stupid people won't eat Chicken-fil-a because of the owners comment, if he banned gays, or said he didn't welcome homosexuals, than people should be mad. Personally I've never been a fan so it doesn't matter to me, the only reason I'd be hesitant to go is I don't know what day it is there now. Is it I'm Gay Day, I Hate Homos Day, or what?

To the rest of the thread though:

I support gay marriage and I believe in God. Anyone that doesn't support gay marriage has no real argument, it messes up tradition, it's dirty, blah blah blah. Anyone that brings in religion should remember that God is supposedly a forgiving and understanding man, times have changed, it's not like people decide to just go out and be gay because they have weird sexual desires, well some may, but the ones that we're speaking of don't fall in that group.

IT WILL NOT HURT ANYONE AT ALL IF JOE AND TONY GET MARRIED.

[David88vert]

News flash: YOU NEED GAS.

Don't buy gas, don't go to work.
Don't buy gas, don't get food.
Don't buy gas, don't go to the doctor.
Don't buy gas, don't bring your kid to school.

But wait, Simon, you twit, they can ride the bus, carpool, or something else.

Hey, moron, EVERYTHING goes back to putting at least something in their pocket.

I personally think it's stupid people won't eat Chicken-fil-a because of the owners comment, if he banned gays, or said he didn't welcome homosexuals, than people should be mad. Personally I've never been a fan so it doesn't matter to me, the only reason I'd be hesitant to go is I don't know what day it is there now. Is it I'm Gay Day, I Hate Homos Day, or what?

To the rest of the thread though:

I support gay marriage and I believe in God. Anyone that doesn't support gay marriage has no real argument, it messes up tradition, it's dirty, blah blah blah. Anyone that brings in religion should remember that God is supposedly a forgiving and understanding man, times have changed, it's not like people decide to just go out and be gay because they have weird sexual desires, well some may, but the ones that we're speaking of don't fall in that group.

IT WILL NOT HURT ANYONE AT ALL IF JOE AND TONY GET MARRIED.

Get a job in the city, live downtown, walk to work. Or - Create your own bio-fuel.
Get an electric car, get a bicycle, etc. If you really wanted to stay away from foreign oil, you could.

It's more convienent to use regular gas though.