Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?

by Greatest I am Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:17 am

First topic message reminder :

Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H2ED8A8RXeY

The apostle’s creed shows that Christianity is based on having to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that the guilty should be forgiven if a suitable human sacrifice is made to God.

I suggest that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. Immoral regardless of the victim volunteering or not which is not the case with Jesus.

That is one of many moral tenets that have caused secular governments to reject Judeo-Christian culture and values.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

The bible is a compilation of evil acts by a satanic God and no moral man would every push to have Judeo-Christian culture and values implemented as our law. The U.S. is the closes to that ideal and their jail statistics are the most dismal in the free world.

Would you promote Judeo-Christian culture and values?

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:46 pm

"Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?"

Given the disparate and fragmented nature of beliefs of people who are ostensibly of the same religion, and the subjective way theists interpret their religious texts, it's going to be very difficult to define what this person is asking us to embrace, though it will undoubtedly be his own subjective view.

Though I think there is enough egregiously bad dogma and doctrine in the religious texts of the contemporary monotheisms to make me very wary of 'embracing' them. Far better to base our societies laws and morals on universal human rights.

by polyglide Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:18 am

snowyflake, Dr. Sheldon,
I believe in the New Testament.

The Old Testament was relative to a time we do not understand.

The only thing that matters since the birth of Jesus, is that we believe in him and why he came to earth.

At no time did Jesus say anything other than love one another, he did point out the things that would be detrimental and those unpleasing to God.

Reverlations says; all will be judged,the good and the bad based on the truth and not how they portayed themselves.

by snowyflake Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:22 pm

The bible is 2000 years old. There is no new data or knowledge. Humankind has 2000 years of knowledge that is not included in the bible.

Would you take medical advice from a 400 year old medical book? I don't think you would so why would take moral advice from a 2000 year old book?

by Greatest I am Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:03 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:As far as the thread is concerned I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask why we should embrace a religion that has so much nefariously immoral lessons in it's the pages of it's biblical narrative?

I't's also perfectly reasonable to ask why we should embrace a religion that has committed untold atrocities from the crusades to the torture and murder of 'witches' when it held real power and was not offering it's religion as a choice.

I thought it was a valid question as well.

To me, promoting Christian morals is like Jews wishing to live under Hitler's laws.

Jews did not end loving the one who used genocide on them and I cannot fathom why Christians would adore a God who used genocide against mankind.

Hail and praise to our genocidal God is the Christian mantra. I wonder if their faith is led by fear. Seems like.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:10 pm

snowyflake wrote:[

Any decent person would not engage in a religion that professes to 'love' all of god's creations but judges and condemns those people who are condemned in their so called holy texts. That is not a moral person. A person who does this does not think for themselves but uses the bible to support their own prejudices.

There is a semi-famous quote somewhere about someone's God hating everyone the theist does. Seems our God are reflections or our own deeper desires.

Freud and Jung called that the Father Complex.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:12 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:"Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?"

Given the disparate and fragmented nature of beliefs of people who are ostensibly of the same religion, and the subjective way theists interpret their religious texts, it's going to be very difficult to define what this person is asking us to embrace, though it will undoubtedly be his own subjective view.

Though I think there is enough egregiously bad dogma and doctrine in the religious texts of the contemporary monotheisms to make me very wary of 'embracing' them. Far better to base our societies laws and morals on universal human rights.

Indeed.

Humanity is way more important than Gods. Gods are a dime a dozen.

Further. The only God fit to rule men is a man.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:30 pm

Further. The only God fit to rule men is a man.

I'm not so keen on the whole men ruling to be honest. They do a crap job and end up fighting, making weapons and killing each other.

What humans require for a peaceful existence is leadership. Not rulers. Someone who is part of the team, not lording it over the rest but willing to muck in.

We don't see this kind of leadership in the world. You get dictators who rape their countries or you get elected officials who steal you blind to fund their lavish lifestyles. What happened to being in service to your country? Do you see Cameron or Clegg or Milliband as servants to their country. I don't. Can't tell you how disappointed I am and not sure who I'm going to vote for in the upcoming election. They all suck.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:34 am

polyglide wrote:snowyflake, Dr. Sheldon,
I believe in the New Testament. The Old Testament was relative to a time we do not understand. The only thing that matters since the birth of Jesus, is that we believe in him and why he came to earth. At no time did Jesus say anything other than love one another, he did point out the things that would be detrimental and those unpleasing to God. Reverlations says; all will be judged,the good and the bad based on the truth and not how they portayed themselves.

There are heinous claims made in the NT as well, you were shown a quote by Norm where Jesus was quoted as endorsing slavery. Besides it's illogical to suggest you know something by not knowing as you are suggesting for the OT era. It's called argumentum ignorantiam, another logically spurious argument.

I also asked you why a being with both limitless knowledge and power would communicate a message that need to to be disregarded, and further a message that read precisely as if it was conceived and written entirely by humans from that era.

"At no time did Jesus say anything other than love one another"

Jesus commended slaves to obey their masters, that doesn't sound like loving one another to me. Also if this is all that matters why are you so prejudiced against gay people based on OT doctrine which you have quoted on here? Not very consistent are we?

There's only one r in revelations, I pointed this out already. So you'll be judged for not loving gay people then, nut falsely portraying yourself as doing so when you clearly think otherwise?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:38 am

snowyflake wrote:Further. The only God fit to rule men is a man.

I'm not so keen on the whole men ruling to be honest. They do a crap job and end up fighting, making weapons and killing each other.

What humans require for a peaceful existence is leadership. Not rulers. Someone who is part of the team, not lording it over the rest but willing to muck in.

We don't see this kind of leadership in the world. You get dictators who rape their countries or you get elected officials who steal you blind to fund their lavish lifestyles. What happened to being in service to your country? Do you see Cameron or Clegg or Milliband as servants to their country. I don't. Can't tell you how disappointed I am and not sure who I'm going to vote for in the upcoming election. They all suck.

Well put, I'd also add that universal human rights would be an excellent start to ensuring a peaceful co-existence, but I'm not holding my breath.

by Greatest I am Sun Feb 22, 2015 5:28 pm

snowyflake wrote:Further. The only God fit to rule men is a man.

I'm not so keen on the whole men ruling to be honest. They do a crap job and end up fighting, making weapons and killing each other.

What humans require for a peaceful existence is leadership. Not rulers. Someone who is part of the team, not lording it over the rest but willing to muck in.

We don't see this kind of leadership in the world. You get dictators who rape their countries or you get elected officials who steal you blind to fund their lavish lifestyles. What happened to being in service to your country? Do you see Cameron or Clegg or Milliband as servants to their country. I don't. Can't tell you how disappointed I am and not sure who I'm going to vote for in the upcoming election. They all suck.

They are all under oligarchic control and in that sense are not even free men.

But a leader is still forced to enforce the law of the land and even a timocratic leader would have to tyrannically enforce the law of the land. That or the respect for law would disappear. By timocratic leader I mean one who leads from a sense of duty and for the love of honor.

TIMOCRACY
1: government in which a certain amount of property is necessary for office
2: government in which love of honor is the ruling principle

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Feb 22, 2015 5:31 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
snowyflake wrote:Further. The only God fit to rule men is a man.

I'm not so keen on the whole men ruling to be honest. They do a crap job and end up fighting, making weapons and killing each other.

What humans require for a peaceful existence is leadership. Not rulers. Someone who is part of the team, not lording it over the rest but willing to muck in.

We don't see this kind of leadership in the world. You get dictators who rape their countries or you get elected officials who steal you blind to fund their lavish lifestyles. What happened to being in service to your country? Do you see Cameron or Clegg or Milliband as servants to their country. I don't. Can't tell you how disappointed I am and not sure who I'm going to vote for in the upcoming election. They all suck.

Well put, I'd also add that universal human rights would be an excellent start to ensuring a peaceful co-existence, but I'm not holding my breath.

I agree as most signatories to the U.N. charter of rights do not have those right in their countries. Neither did the U.S. till it allowed gays the rights to marry.

Regards
DL

by polyglide Mon Feb 23, 2015 1:35 pm

Dr. Sheldon, snowyflake,
It is all very well saying there should be human rights, to which I agree.

The problem being who decides what is right and what is wrong.

If someone decided they fancied marrying an animal, would that be withing their rights ?; etc;

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:51 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon, snowyflake,
It is all very well saying there should be human rights, to which I agree.

The problem being who decides what is right and what is wrong.

If someone decided they fancied marrying an animal, would that be withing their rights ?; etc;

The simple guiding principle of such rights is that they're universal. So no one may claim a right for themselves that they'd deny someone else. Or claim a right that harmed another or took away any of their rights.

Your example is too silly to be worthy of proper debate.

by Norm Deplume Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:43 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon, snowyflake,
It is all very well saying there should be human rights, to which I agree.
The problem being who decides what is right and what is wrong.
If someone decided they fancied marrying an animal, would that be withing their rights ?; etc;

Only if the animal in question gave informed consent. The only ones we know of who can do that are adult humans.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:41 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:
polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon, snowyflake,
It is all very well saying there should be human rights, to which I agree.
The problem being who decides what is right and what is wrong.
If someone decided they fancied marrying an animal, would that be withing their rights ?; etc;

Only if the animal in question gave informed consent. The only ones we know of who can do that are adult humans.

It's a fairly incoherent argument that when discussing the problems of universal human rights cites marrying another species as the stumbling block. Then again it's truly bizarre for anyone to think that universal human rights would be based on what "someone decided they fancied doing". Almost as bizarre as spelling within with a g in it.

by polyglide Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:40 am

DR. Sheldon,
Not forgeting a few spelling mistakes of your own.

So you think human rights should be based on consent.

So if two people gave their consent to murder someone , that is acceptable,?.

They would have to be adults of course.

Humans have the right to live a life beffiting the reason they were created and repoduced in the manner both by the way intended and the means provided, anything else is abnormal.

I have said very clearly previously, that the proof regarding sexual deviation in respect of lesbians and homosexuals, is the fact that if all males were homosexual and all females lesbian, then the huiman race would die out.

This in it's self proves the fact that both are abnormal or their activities would result in procreation, the reason for sexuality.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 24, 2015 11:04 am

"So you think human rights should be based on consent. So if two people gave their consent to murder someone , that is acceptable,?."

Do you think being murdered might infringe someone's rights? The answer should be an obvious clue as to why this example is as ridiculous as your animal marrying one.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 24, 2015 11:13 am

Polyglide wrote:Humans have the right to live a life beffiting the reason they were created and repoduced in the manner both by the way intended and the means provided, anything else is abnormal.

You've set an arbitrary criteria based solely on your beliefs, that immediately denies rights to others you are claiming for yourself. What if I decided no one gullible enough to believe in superstitions could marry and have children?

As I said right at the start the criteria is UNIVERSAL basic human rights. These are rights designed specifically to protect life liberty and equality for all human beings. So arbitrarily singling out groups you're religion is prejudiced against speaks for itself.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 24, 2015 11:20 am

Polyglide wrote: I have said very clearly previously, that the proof regarding sexual deviation in respect of lesbians and homosexuals, is the fact that if all males were homosexual and all females lesbian, then the huiman race would die out.

This in it's self proves the fact that both are abnormal or their activities would result in procreation, the reason for sexuality.

This proves nothing as it's your own unevidenced opinion. The entire medical and scientific world disagrees with your prejudiced claim. I've linked the evidenced views of those bodies and organisations that utterly refute your claim

Endless repetition of this bigoted and homophobic view won't make it true. A fact you seem keen to ignore, I'm sure we can all see why. Being gay is not the norm, nor is it abnormal, and no amount of repetition or subjective semantics will change that.

You still haven't shown one dictionary definition that shows the definition of homosexuality as perverse either. Only a wriggle using semantics, that's very poor form.

by polyglide Tue Feb 24, 2015 11:42 am

Dr. Sheldon,
I realy do wish you would read with a little understanding.

It matters not if a gene or anything else is responsible for homosexuality, all it would mean, is it is responsible for a abnormality and there is no denying the fact.

To suggest it then makes it normal is like saying if the same could be said about a murderer then that would be normal, ignoble to say the least.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:25 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
I realy do wish you would read with a little understanding. It matters not if a gene or anything else is responsible for homosexuality, all it would mean, is it is responsible for a abnormality and there is no denying the fact.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:That first sentence is hilarious given I haven't made the claim you're assigning to me.

To suggest it then makes it normal is like saying if the same could be said about a murderer then that would be normal, ignoble to say the least.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Another claim I've not come close to making, so you telling me I lack understanding is again hilarious. Murder involves a victim, being gay does not, I really wish I could find a simpler way to say this so that YOU might understand it, and grasp the significance. As watching you chase your tail like this is very tiresome.

Murder is illegal nor do I wish it otherwise.
Being gay is normal natural and legal, nor do I wish it otherwise. Perhaps you do, but in this country that's something you'll have to live with.

by polyglide Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:55 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Not one dictionary I know says homosexuality is normal.

As usual you do not undertsand the written word.

I never said if there was a gene involved that dictated a person would have homosexual tendancies, that it would then be normal, because it cannot ever be normal.

There are numerous genes that result in any manner of abnomalities, in fact they decide almost everything in life.

If a person was born with four legs, due to a gene malfunction, would that make that person a normal human being?

The same goes for homosexuality, it is abnormal.

by **Ivan** Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:15 pm

polyglide wrote:-
The same goes for homosexuality, it is abnormal.

Homophobia is a specific transgression of this forum’s first posting rule:-

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t18-posting-rules

Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious? - Page 2 Thin-ice-shutterstock_25299997-2

Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious? - Page 2 Thin-ice-shutterstock_25299997-2

by boatlady Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:12 pm

May be worth adding - referring to homosexuality as 'abnormal' comes quite close to homophobia - as close as skin to blood

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:37 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
Not one dictionary I know says homosexuality is normal. As usual you do not undertsand the written word.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I never said a dictionary defined it as normal, so actually, and as usual, your grasp of English is execrable, unless your claim is deliberately duplicitous of course. I notice this attempt at obfuscation is again to avoid your justifying your earlier claim that "every dictionary you'd ever read defined homosexuality as abnormal and perverse", yet despite numerous requests you've been unable to cite or quote even one. So on this last claim at least we be pretty sure your duplicity is deliberate. You've also misspelled understand, in the same sentence you yet again try to insult my grasp of English, and again I'm fairly sure the hilarity is not lost on anyone.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:47 pm

polyglide wrote: I never said if there was a gene involved that dictated a person would have homosexual tendancies, that it would then be normal, because it cannot ever be normal.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Good to know, but since no one has made this claim your point is again moot. It's tendencies by the way not tendancies (sic), so insulting my grasp and understanding of English is inadvisable in a post littered with risible spelling mistakes.

There are numerous genes that result in any manner of abnomalities, in fact they decide almost everything in life.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Abnormalities, not abnomalities (sic), dear oh dear, and again a moot point as no one commented on this.

If a person was born with four legs, due to a gene malfunction, would that make that person a normal human being?
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:What's your point now? Are you claiming people with physical disabilities are perverse and abnormal as well?

The same goes for homosexuality, it is abnormal.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Rubbish, and your bigoted claim has been shown to be in direct contradiction of all the medical and scientific evidence, despite your desperate attempts to make ridiculous claims about genetics when you clearly now squat about the topic. However since unlike you I base what I claim on evidence I'll repost it for the umpteenth time to expose your lie.

"Psychology was one of the first disciplines to study homosexuality as a discrete phenomenon. Prior to and throughout most of the 20th century, common standard psychology viewed homosexuality in terms of pathological models as a mental illness. That classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in the research, which consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality. As a result of such accumulated research, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioural and social sciences, opposing the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, claimed the conclusion that it was inaccurate, and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions that were based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples which consisted of patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.
Since the 1970's, the consensus of the behavioural and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation, while there remain those who maintain that it is a disorder. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975. Thereafter other major mental health organizations followed and it was finally declassified by the World Health Organization in 1990. Consequently, while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviours are normal and positive variations of human sexuality,"

Please take the time to read it this time, as your tedious repetition of your bigoted lie is just making you look ridiculous. Just because something is not the norm does not make it abnormal, it's odd you're unable to grasp such a simple premise.

by Greatest I am Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:48 am

boatlady wrote:May be worth adding - referring to homophobia as 'abnormal' comes quite close to homophobia - as close as skin to blood

I agree that language on this issue should be used in a respectful way.

To a species that survives through sex with one of another gender, to have our genes thrown into a direction that negates that survival trait, === has to be seen as abnormal.

That does not mean we should discriminate against gays any more than we would against anyone else with DNA or gene damage.

That discrimination without just cause is what Christianity is doing and that is what is immoral within their creed. It goes with their deep misogyny.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:53 am

http://www.medicaldaily.com/gay-gene-survived-evolution-it-carried-mothers-who-have-more-children-study-240813

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 28, 2015 7:17 am

Greatest I am wrote:
boatlady wrote:May be worth adding - referring to homophobia as 'abnormal' comes quite close to homophobia - as close as skin to blood

To a species that survives through sex with one of another gender, to have our genes thrown into a direction that negates that survival trait, === has to be seen as abnormal.
DL

What exactly does this..." to have our genes thrown into a direction that negates that survival trait" mean? I was not aware of any genetic reason for homosexuality had been evidenced. Indeed all the scientific research shows it to be a perfectly normal variation of adult heterosexual desires.

by snowyflake Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:45 am

Greatest I am wrote:To a species that survives through sex with one of another gender, to have our genes thrown into a direction that negates that survival trait, === has to be seen as abnormal.

There is an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality. Homosexuality tends to be seen in later born sons and is attributed to the environment of the womb which retains hormones from previous pregnancies that may affect the developing fetus. In terms of population control where the first born sons are given reproductive advantage without having to compete with all other males in the group, homosexuality has a purpose. It is therefore not abnormal in any sense since it serves an evolutionary purpose.

by boatlady Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:35 am

What a good explanation - could you give me a reference for any research that demonstrates this (in layperson's terms)?

One of my interests is the development of gender and gender roles, and I have never come across this - it so obviously makes sense

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:06 am

boatlady wrote:What a good explanation - could you give me a reference for any research that demonstrates this (in layperson's terms)?

One of my interests is the development of gender and gender roles, and I have never come across this - it so obviously makes sense

When this premise was offered on the other forum someone cited the research into homosexuality in animals, and the conclusions from the research seemed to indicate that it was related to gender population in any given environment. Too many males in particular might result in increased aggression and conflict for mates. It was premised from there that this often resulted in a small gay population to maintain stability and balance.

It's at least plausible that human reproduction might use similar mechanisms. I'm sure someone cited research that indicated younger offspring in large families were statistically more likely to be gay and that this increased with the size of the family. That's probably a good starting point for you to research.

by snowyflake Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:47 am

boatlady wrote:What a good explanation - could you give me a reference for any research that demonstrates this (in layperson's terms)?

One of my interests is the development of gender and gender roles, and I have never come across this - it so obviously makes sense

Hi boatlady, thanks for your comments. There is a lot of scientific information on the internet about the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality in the population. Here is a link to a recent study.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-09384-0_10

If you google 'human homosexuality evolutionary benefit' you will get many recent studies on the subject. It is clear to me that homosexuality has always been at low levels in the population and no amount of religion or shame is going to stop that. Religion has demonised, shamed, humiliated, harassed and ostracised a proportion of the population because an old book said it was a sin. I could cry for the millions of homosexuals over the centuries who were tortured, killed or shamed by what is a completely natural and normal variation of human sexuality.

It is the religious that cling on to this one biblical sin with all their might while letting go of stoning adulterers to death, stoning your lippy teenagers to death, stoning those who wear blended fabrics to death, stoning people who farm 2 different types of grain to death. Indeed, what is the excuse of letting go of those capital sins but not giving homosexuals the same courtesy?

by **Ivan** Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:31 pm

snowyflake wrote:There is an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality. Homosexuality tends to be seen in later born sons and is attributed to the environment of the womb which retains hormones from previous pregnancies that may affect the developing fetus. In terms of population control where the first born sons are given reproductive advantage without having to compete with all other males in the group, homosexuality has a purpose. It is therefore not abnormal in any sense since it serves an evolutionary purpose.

That's very interesting, I've learned something today, thank you! thumbsup

Can you now go and explain that to people in Margate, where a vile leaflet claiming LGBT people are recruiting “fresh blood” is being handed out at the UKIP spring conference? It says:-

“The state is allowing the sexual grooming of our primary school children for same sex attraction. What the LGBT are achieving, of course, is a recruitment drive. As such people cannot reproduce their own kind, they must recruit fresh blood and this is best done among children in schools, the younger the better.

The government, through Gove and Morgan, has given them carte blanche. The facilitated by government, CHIPS (Challenging Homophobia in Primary Schools), is being rolled out this year. Using the bizarre excuse that young primary school children are constantly taunting each other about ‘homosexuality’, CHIPS is indoctrinating children to confuse their gender identity and encouraging them to read stories about, to think about and to sing songs about same-sex attraction and then to act them out in class.”

The leaflet also includes a verse from the Bible: “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.” (Matthew 18:6)

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/02/27/homophobic-leaflets-handed-out-at-ukip-conference-2/

by snowyflake Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:47 pm

That's disgraceful, Ivan. It beggars belief. Educating stupid people with dogmatic ideas is hard work. There is an LGBT in UKIP facebook page. Makes you wonder what UKIP has to offer them if they aren't even supporting their own members.

by boatlady Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:22 pm

Thanks for the reference, snowyflake - looks a good book - one for the wish list

by Greatest I am Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:27 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:What exactly does this..." to have our genes thrown into a direction that negates that survival trait" mean? I was not aware of any genetic reason for homosexuality had been evidenced. Indeed all the scientific research shows it to be a perfectly normal variation of adult heterosexual desires.

What I am saying is that if there is only one man and one woman left, they had better not be gay or unable to get past their preference and reproduce or mankind would go extinct.

If it is not our genes that decide which sexuality we have, then what does? It is all metal for sure but that mental is decided by our genes.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:30 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:To a species that survives through sex with one of another gender, to have our genes thrown into a direction that negates that survival trait, === has to be seen as abnormal.

There is an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality. Homosexuality tends to be seen in later born sons and is attributed to the environment of the womb which retains hormones from previous pregnancies that may affect the developing fetus. In terms of population control where the first born sons are given reproductive advantage without having to compete with all other males in the group, homosexuality has a purpose. It is therefore not abnormal in any sense since it serves an evolutionary purpose.

I do not agree on logical reasons.

When born, a body cannot know what the reproduction opportunities will be available.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:55 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:To a species that survives through sex with one of another gender, to have our genes thrown into a direction that negates that survival trait, === has to be seen as abnormal.

There is an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality. Homosexuality tends to be seen in later born sons and is attributed to the environment of the womb which retains hormones from previous pregnancies that may affect the developing fetus. In terms of population control where the first born sons are given reproductive advantage without having to compete with all other males in the group, homosexuality has a purpose. It is therefore not abnormal in any sense since it serves an evolutionary purpose.

I do not agree on logical reasons.

When born, a body cannot know what the reproduction opportunities will be available.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:50 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
snowyflake wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:To a species that survives through sex with one of another gender, to have our genes thrown into a direction that negates that survival trait, === has to be seen as abnormal.

There is an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality. Homosexuality tends to be seen in later born sons and is attributed to the environment of the womb which retains hormones from previous pregnancies that may affect the developing fetus. In terms of population control where the first born sons are given reproductive advantage without having to compete with all other males in the group, homosexuality has a purpose. It is therefore not abnormal in any sense since it serves an evolutionary purpose.

I do not agree on logical reasons.

When born, a body cannot know what the reproduction opportunities will be available.

Regards
DL

I can't agree with your disagreement on scientific reasons which includes epigenetics, biology, genetics, biochemistry, neurology, psychology and evolutionary theory. Trying to simplify a complex situation down to its 'logical' assumptions seems a bit arrogant to my mind. Instead of naming something as abnormal because you don't 'agree' with it discounts many possible natural explanations for it.

It also surprises me coming from you, Greatest who I thought would have been more than willing to explore the possibilities but your post doesn't quite sound so tolerant. Why is that?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:16 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:What exactly does this..." to have our genes thrown into a direction that negates that survival trait" mean? I was not aware of any genetic reason for homosexuality had been evidenced. Indeed all the scientific research shows it to be a perfectly normal variation of adult heterosexual desires.

What I am saying is that if there is only one man and one woman left, they had better not be gay or unable to get past their preference and reproduce or mankind would go extinct.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:A bit of a straw man premise since we're not down to one "breeding" pair, and even if we were we'd have larger concerns genetically speaking. Of course gay couples can still procreate and all the evidence shows they have the desire to raise children, so again your claim seems erroneous even as a hypothetical example.

If it is not our genes that decide which sexuality we have, then what does?
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I don't know if either they do or do not. However this question strikes me as argumentum ignorantiam.

It is all metal for sure but that mental is decided by our genes.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I'm not sure this is true, but since you've offered no evidence then it's all moot anyway.

Regards
DL

The link claimed certain conclusions might be valid if genetic evidence were available, and from a test group of less than a 100 people. I'm not a scientist but even I can see this is not much more than speculative at the moment.

by Sponsored content