Oh come on now.
That's an irrational thing to say.
People change their musical tastes. It happens.
I think I can say my musical taste has changed over the years. Does my experience, or that of others, mean that everyone's can?
Oh come on now.
That's an irrational thing to say.
People change their musical tastes. It happens.
That compelling reason, by the way, could be their own religious beliefs, no?
As Fulton Sheen said, "If you don't behave as you believe, you will end up believing as you behave."
I think I can say my musical taste has changed over the years. Does my experience, or that of others, mean that everyone's can?
Is buying love comparable to taste in music? :idunno:No you couldn't. A person could *pretend* to like it, but that's not the same as genuinely liking her music. Remember the time that ego-driven billionaire J. Howard Marshall believed he could buy the love of the much younger Anna Nicole Smith? That worked out so well for him.
Nope ... any marriage that begins with a third party stating "I want you to marry this person for" is off to a disaster in the making.
Is buying love comparable to taste in music? :idunno:
Thanks for posting those links. I'm not sure I'm following though. Who is passing down the genes?That is unclear at the moment from what I understand. One of the more prominent theories is the so called kin selection hypothesis or "nest helper" hypothesis.
http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(06)00069-9/abstract
Then there is the overdominance and sexual antagonism theory:
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...scover-evolutionary-advantage-homosexual-sex/
Of course these might not be mutually exclusive theories either. The second theory is based on Drosophila studies. Homosexuality may have been appropriated in more advanced animals for other behaviors such as that suggested by the first theory. Then the latter theory would suggest a theory of origin, while the former theory is an example of appropriation of something to make the existence of homosexual individuals more advantageous while also maintaining the advantage of the raison d'etre of homosexuality.
It would be an equally, if not bigger, big puzzle if a behavior that has emerged in such a wide variety of species (observed in over 1500 species) did not serve a biological function whatsoever.
Thanks for posting those links. I'm not sure I'm following though. Who is passing down the genes?
In the overdominance theory, is it that genes are carried that don't always express so the carriers do reproduce and pass it on and then certain offspring do exhibit SSB?
The experiment with flies...
That's what science has to say about it; here's what the Church (the pope) says instead:"Bisexuality" might be, but homosexuality cannot be, and is not naturally selected.
Let's be fair. You can believe the scientific consensus concerning evolution without embracing sodomy.
It is wildly harmful to the gene pool of any populaton of sexual species?
Now it is your turn, give an argument for the immorality of homosexuality that doesn't rely on the unjusified logical jump from is to ought. What harm does it really cause?
Two points.
First: most pedophiles are in an ongoing relationship with an adult female.
Second: We know that pedophilia is caused by brain damage. The damage is lesions in the white matter in specific brain sections of the amygdala. The greater the brain damage the younger the preferred victim of the pedophile.
My stance is consistent with what you've written. Contraception is immoral for the same reason homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, and incest are immoral.
Believing something is morally wrong is a phobia? Come on.
So you're pro-homosexuality.
You're pro-incest.
Let's keep going.
Are you pro-necrophilia?
I did read, that is what prompted my rhetorical question.Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
More importantly I showed testimony from hundreds and hundreds of people showing that environmental factors (molestation during childhood, growing up in a dysfunctional family: a distant or abusive father, a overbearing mother, etc.) created those same sex desires.
I'd ask you to read the links found in the index on page 1 of WHMBR! Part 4, but trolls really aren't interested in the truth.
Homosexuality starts as a child, maybe starting around 10 to 12 years old, maybe earlier - Nobody was ever born gay nor will be
Wishful thinking, but lets say you right, that would mean all outside of normal sexual relations and attractions are brain damage which would include homosexuality.
But then again, its God who gives us a sound mind.
Homophobia - an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It includes antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and hatred of homosexuals
Congratulations, you are a homophobe. Now the question remains is homophobia a disorder?
If babies were "born gay," I wonder if liberals would support a mother's right to abort a baby for being gay.
Homophobia - an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It includes antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and hatred of homosexuals
Congratulations, you are a homophobe. Now the question remains is homophobia a disorder?