Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Theism and Atheism

Posted Apr 4, '11 at 9:43am

Moe

Moe

1,783 posts

A "false positive" is a person with inclination to homosexual behavior that identifies self as heterosexual.


Generally people that are homosexual but pretend to be heterosexual were scared into believing so because of people like you.
 

Posted Apr 4, '11 at 10:09am

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,557 posts

You can have pleasure in sending soap bubbles into the sky, while this isn't a sinful action. Masturbation, sodomy and other sexual behavior that's deemed perverted is so because it uses sexuality for something that is not procrastination, for what it is designed. If a sexual act has zero chance to result in a conception, OR it's altered in an intent to not make children (condoms, spermicides, interrupted, maybe more), it's a wrong use of sexuality, and is named sin.


I still don't see the problem in enjoying ourselves. Is it so evil that we don't want to live in a world built on shades of grey? Is it wrong that we, as a species, engage in social behaviour of a sexual kind? Did you know that monogomy is actually against the grain of nature? And that as humans polygamy would be more beneficial for genetic diversity? I'm not listing the risks and all that jazz, because I realize the weakness of my argument as an argument, I'm merely pointing out something of interest.

True preference is heterosexuality, because without heterosexuals humanity cannot survive. And I mean the whole of the humanity - if a single generation will comprise of homosexuals only, humanity will only survive on technology developed, while a heterosexual humanity can survive without any. Claiming genetic malfunction as "true preference" is fallacy.


Stop with the close minded bigotry, I'm disgusted by your views on this matter. You're so wrapped up in your righteous little world you'll accept nothing else aside from what you're trying to convince us of, even though, we of greater education and intelligence know that you sir are so ****ing backward in your thinking it's laughable. So, as your so fond of saying: SOURCE!?

Your senario is ridiculous to consider. It's impossible. A generation lasts roughly 20-23 years on average. That would mean EVERY child on the planet would have to be homosexual durring that time. THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!
 

Posted Apr 4, '11 at 10:16am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,782 posts

Knight

This, immediately following your previous statement, is ridiculously false. If something is genetically based, it's inherited by children, thus if the parents are homosexual, their children are also homosexual. If they are not, then this statement is false.


It has to do with the genes are expressed. It's believed certain hormones are introduced in the womb which causes the defeminization and masculinization of the developing child. This is a process known as epigenetics where certain genes are either activated or deactivated. With homosexuals not all of the genes used are activated or present in order for this process to be complete. This is not the result of a hereditary traits but traits that develop in the womb.


The devil ownED all humanity prior to Christ redeeming us. So, once you're baptized, you were pried away from the devil's clutch by the Jesus Christ's sacrifice.


Then I guess I'm not in the clutches of the devil.

Part of the base is written above.


You really should let go of these idiot traditional rolls of males and females in a family structure.
 

Posted Apr 4, '11 at 10:30am

Xzeno

Xzeno

2,354 posts

This is not an argument, as it's the main reason of why the humanity still lives. Please explain why this dichotomy is false.
You argued that, because an exclusively homosexual population would not reproduce, homosexuality is bad, However, the situation of an exclusively homosexual population does not, did not, and probably never will exist. If you want to talk about the survival of the human race, note that overpopulation causes far more problems.

Fail of the fallacy labelling.
You countered E1337's argument that marriage is no longer a religious institution by pointing out that it was at one time a religious institution. That, while true, is not relevant to E1337's point. If I mislabeled the fallacy, it was an error on my part. I'm kinda new at this.
 

Posted Apr 4, '11 at 10:34am

vesperbot

vesperbot

987 posts

Also, lets compare god vs devil
I've seen this argument. I've said already, devil does not kill bodies, as the person who commits sins delivers both body and soul to his possession. Note also all these "murders" happened in the times of Old Testament, at the time when devil reigned down here, so he didn't need to kill what's already his.
Generally people that are homosexual but pretend to be heterosexual were scared into believing so because of people like you.
*grins* An unsupported statement.
Yes, prove to me being gay is a choice
*grins* Ask Kasic for that, he already stated his homosexuality. I will not overthrow my own sexual identification for a single show-off.
Jesus actually said nothing on homosexuality
He said that not a single iota will pass from the laws, while they say to not do fornication, and it was explained what is fornication.
even though, we of greater education and intelligence know that you sir are so ****ing backward in your thinking it's laughable.
Please calm down your temper. You don't know much about my education but state yours is greater. And an argument ad hominem is known as the last resort, when a person runs out of arguments. You want sources? This statement requires only logic to understand. Impossible? Improbable, but not impossible. It was covered back in the beginning about possibility and probability of a state or an event. Agreed, the scenario is ridiculous, but it can happen in a smaller society, like a single nation living in the mountains without gene exchange with the rest of the world.
well over 1500 species have been documented engaging in homosexual behavior
You compare humans with animals. Humans differ from animals because we humans have the ability to decide, take choices and place our own goals. This means we are responsible for what we do, while animals, being driven with instincts and reflexes, can't decide for themselves therefore are not responsible for their actions.
As for Marriage, what I said still stands, as long as the government is involved in marriage, religion can not and will not play a role in determing what is "valid".
Okay, let civil marriage go its own way. I'll see what it will become, sometime later. However, what's covered in religious sphere, will never accept gay marriages as valid. This discussion ends with my loss.
By having a nonreproducing pair, parenting is shared. It takes a village to raise a child
Umm, there were numerous occurrences of "son of a regiment" (this name might be wrong) during the WWII, because there were so many orphans at that time, some of which had nothing but their finders to survive, so the army's regiments adopted them and took them along for some time. Given that an army is a great example of non-reproducing society, your evidence is basically proved. Those "sons of a regiment" were, however, then sent to orphanages and then raised as either adopts in normal families or in the orphanages themselves, so the soldiers didn't have them for long enough for the problems of "good father" and "good mother" to raise.
 

Posted Apr 4, '11 at 10:44am

Moe

Moe

1,783 posts

*grins* An unsupported statement.


No, its not.

Thats the best I can find, maybe someone who is better at such research could find more.
 

Posted Apr 4, '11 at 11:07am

vesperbot

vesperbot

987 posts

As usual, you are wrong
Planning ahead does not equal to setting up a goal, and an invisible one, like say proving a Fermat's theorem - and I'm not saying about formulating it. Any goal the animal is trying to achieve is readily presented. So all your links miss the statement by a mile.
No, its not.

Thats the best I can find, maybe someone who is better at such research could find more.
Is that a book? This thing requires careful reading.

I start to wonder though, how many of homosexuals are among the entire humanity. That research assumes a 2% value, seeing as several of you constantly starting to expose yourself as gays, I now think there are up to 20% homos around. Yes, soon the traditional family will turn into minority, if not already. (offtopic off)
 

Posted Apr 4, '11 at 11:15am

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,557 posts

Please calm down your temper. You don't know much about my education but state yours is greater. And an argument ad hominem is known as the last resort, when a person runs out of arguments. You want sources? This statement requires only logic to understand. Impossible? Improbable, but not impossible. It was covered back in the beginning about possibility and probability of a state or an event. Agreed, the scenario is ridiculous, but it can happen in a smaller society, like a single nation living in the mountains without gene exchange with the rest of the world.


I'll calm down when you start actually opening your mind to some of what we're telling you. And **** your "logic". I can see I'm of greater intelligence just by reading what you put up here and claiming it as "fact" when it is nothing more than wishful thinking. You haven't given us one source of credibility in the last few pages, hell probably the whole debate, and yet you expect us to do so. I'm aware that difference between impossible and improbable, however your situation is based off of the entire human population. That situation is so improbable we may as well call it impossible. And even in a smaller society it is improbable to the likelihood of impossibility. So, once more, what you call "logic" I call stupidity. Frankly I am out of arguments right now because you and your one way track mind have pissed me right off. The fact that you would demean someone for something beyond their control, and then claim it is in their control offends me greatly. I loathe tyrrany, and you sir are nothing but a tyrrant in small. Dictating the world as you wish it to be. You are ignorant, prejudice and a beyond all hope of seeing common sense. I'm done. Congratulations, I hope you feel proud.
 

Posted Apr 4, '11 at 12:02pm

Highfire

Highfire

3,127 posts

Planning ahead does not equal to setting up a goal

You plan ahead because you anticipate something. The mere action of planning ahead is in itself making a goal.

Yes, soon the traditional family will turn into minority, if not already.

Oh no! It's armeggedon!

Back it up, or I'll believe 2012 before this.

Yes, heaven forbid the woman leave the kitchen!

I lol'd.

I'll calm down when you start actually opening your mind to some of what we're telling you. And **** your "logic". I can see I'm of greater intelligence just by reading what you put up here and claiming it as "fact" when it is nothing more than wishful thinking. You haven't given us one source of credibility in the last few pages, hell probably the whole debate, and yet you expect us to do so. I'm aware that difference between impossible and improbable, however your situation is based off of the entire human population. That situation is so improbable we may as well call it impossible. And even in a smaller society it is improbable to the likelihood of impossibility. So, once more, what you call "logic" I call stupidity. Frankly I am out of arguments right now because you and your one way track mind have pissed me right off. The fact that you would demean someone for something beyond their control, and then claim it is in their control offends me greatly. I loathe tyrrany, and you sir are nothing but a tyrrant in small. Dictating the world as you wish it to be. You are ignorant, prejudice and a beyond all hope of seeing common sense. I'm done. Congratulations, I hope you feel proud.

You're aware he'll just brush this off his shoulder believing you are a devil's advocate?

You just got steamed off by one of the majority of the human population who believe this sort of stuff. Suggest you don't, it makes us look bad and it will still take a while before logic kicks in to people, and they tell religion to stfu and sit down.

I'm saying this because your presentation, whilst entertaining, doesn't help. If there's a small chance I can "convert" someone to "see the light", I don't want it lowered. Yeah, going about it bluntly might help, but not on the internet. The saddest thing is religious people lack scientific knowledge and thus knowledge about themselves. They defend their beliefs so closemindedly it activates a more primitive status as if you were defending yourself in a dangerous situation, calling irrationality and narrow-mindedness. Since I'm aware of this I can attempt to minimalize its effect on me, but they probably don't.

They CANNOT say they are being open-minded. There may be a short few who are, but then I don't think they'd be religious.

- H
 

Posted Apr 4, '11 at 12:07pm

PracticalManiac

PracticalManiac

302 posts

I agree completely with Highfire. Religion really is a sad sad thing. I cant begin to explain it like he has but atleast I can see how blatantly obvious it is. How terrible it must feel to not be able to think for yourself, to be so blinded.

Anyway off topic, I'll just leave this ear (rear, shear fear etc.)

It *could* just be coincidence

I just found this vid this morning and thought I might as well throw it in here.

 
Reply to Theism and Atheism

You must be logged in to post a reply!