Homosexuality selected because of societal function

[Angel4Truth]

Actually there are many in the gay community that don't want further research into the genetic aspect of sexual orientation, they fear that if an identifiable set of genes was discovered that some Christian groups would begin a campaign of euthanasia.

Evidence?

 

[glassjester]

Actually there are many in the gay community that don't want further research into the genetic aspect of sexual orientation, they fear that if an identifiable set of genes was discovered that some Christian groups would begin a campaign of euthanasia.

Not I!

I'm pro-life.
Conception to natural death!

This is called "being consistent."

 

[glassjester]

This is called "being consistent."

Speaking of which... are you pro-necrophilia?

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Actually there are many in the gay community that don't want further research into the genetic aspect of sexual orientation, they fear that if an identifiable set of genes was discovered that some Christian groups would begin a campaign of euthanasia.

As to diseased minds, this is known as a paranoid delusion. Maybe everybody should stop posting the Lord's perspective, just let you run with it, turn the argument against homosexuality over to you.

 

[MrDante]

yes, to hide their inclinations, and/or to get at those womens children.

are you speaking from personal experience?

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.

Why would anyone say something so dishonest and so stupid?

 

[glassjester]

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.

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.

Why would anyone say something so dishonest and so stupid?

It's called "being consistent."

 

[MrDante]

No. It's a natural aversion. :juggle:
And rightfully so.

Denial is often part of a mental disorder.

 

[MrDante]

It's called "being consistent."

consistently dishonest or consistently given to making stupid statements?

 

[MrDante]

Evidence?

You don't think this fear exists?

 

[glassjester]

consistently dishonest or consistently given to making stupid statements?

I am very foolish.

Are you pro-necrophilia?

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Why would anyone say something so dishonest and so stupid?

Yes, it does always get down to the last refuge of somebody who's lost the debate, at the point your feet are tripping over each other, attack the messenger. I feel your pain.

 

[glassjester]

Denial is often part of a mental disorder.

Amen.

 

[MrDante]

Not I!

I'm pro-life.
Conception to natural death!

This is called "being consistent."

I didn't say anything about abortion, i said there is a fear of euthanasia.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You don't think this fear exists?

Are you stating you cannot back ANYTHING you claim?

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Are you pro-necrophilia?

Please allow me to answer for him. This should be a foregone conclusion, as all his arguments are dead on arrival.

Matthew 8:22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

 

[glassjester]

I didn't say anything about abortion

Nor did I, Brother.

Being pro-life implies being anti-euthanasia.

 

[MrDante]

I am very foolish.

No, i don't think so.

 

[glassjester]

No, i don't think so.

I appreciate the complement. Sincerely, I do.

However, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that I am very foolish.
I wish to be wise. It will be a lifelong pursuit.

 

[MrDante]

Yes, it does always get down to the last refuge of somebody who's lost the debate, at the point your feet are tripping over each other, attack the messenger. I feel your pain.

:wave2:

Your problem is being an intolerant bigot and not progressive enough, that, despite thinking yourself like a lifetime Craftsman tool of liberalism, as progressive as boinking aliens from behind will be on Star Trek XVI: The Crack Baby Generation, or maybe the message board troll’s meow, your real goal is to keep the serial killer in the closet, separated from a life of domestic tranquility, separated from the trophies and body parts he loves. This is typical white Protestant, fundamentalist bigotry that is not consistent with Chrislam and things sacred that once had to stay in Vegas.

 

[Selaphiel]

Right. I understand.
So homosexual acts, in and of themselves, have no benefit to the species.

Once again, evolution is about populations not individuals. It makes no difference really. The fact remains, homosexuality seems to be an emergent biological trait and it has been preserved by natural selection (whether it is purely genetic is uncertain, as there are research that suggests a more epigenetic explanation from causes in the pre-natal phase). Now it is part of our human species.

Again. The homosexual act itself, has no benefit. Is that right?

Seriously, how difficult is this to understand? You seem to be insisting that the homosexual act between two homosexual individuals itself has to directly perpetuate the species. That is not evolutionary theory works. Obviously the sex act (acts really, there is an one sided focus on male homosexuality on TOL) itself does not directly perpetuate the species, that I really hope you already knew. Their acts are a mere expression of their attraction to the same sex. It makes no difference to evolution whether the evolutionary benefit of a trait is direct or indirect.

I believe that sex outside of marriage is immoral.
I do not believe that two people of the same sex can be validly married.

Which of those do you disagree with?

The second one. The definition of what constitutes marriage is historically and culturally contingent to say the least. So many today think they are engaging with sometimeless institution, but if you look at what people say about marriage today it is mostly a mixture between the ideals of Romanticism and Elizabethan England. There is not even a singular biblical understanding of what a marriage is. I see problems with altering that definition in light of a changed perspective on homosexuality in current human knowledge.

Now please answer the question you have been asked so many times. Provide a moral argument for immorality of homosexuality. The above is not that, those are two statements of belief.