Re: Religion, gay artists and homophobia

by Papaumau Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:55 pm

First topic message reminder :

I have found that the stance against homosexuality - and in many other "biblical sins" - in almost all of the religions of the world is based on writings in their holy books.

As the word that is accepted as the word of their Gods is either said to be spoken directly to the humans that report it, ( and in many of these cases these "conduits" from the Gods are found to simply be schizophrenic ), then the word that is written by the fallible human scribes of old into these holy books is at risk of being seen as the flawed interpretation of what these scribes and prophets said they know and found to be true.

The faithful - as in all of the details surrounding faith - believe in their faith because faith requires no proof and when they act on what they find in their holy books, ( although none of the contents of these books has ever been proven to be right or accurate in fact ), their behaviour, as a result, is based on myth rather than even on secular laws. In other words, because their faith dictates that everything that is in these holy books must be true, what they find there that connects to "sin" must also be true.

I have always felt that as far as the laws of the land that I live in should never be based on religious faith, I can only take the stance that if these laws ARE in any way influenced by religion then they are not laws that can apply to everybody or that can be applied to any kind of secular rules or regulations.

Regards.....

Papaumau.

by Norm Deplume Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:44 pm

I checked on the meaning of 'pervert'.

pervert, n.

1. One who has been perverted; one who has forsaken a doctrine or system regarded as true for one esteemed false; an apostate.

2. Psychol. One who suffers from a perversion of the sexual instinct.

pervert, v.

1. trans. To turn upside down; to upset, overthrow; to subvert, ruin. Obs.
2. To turn aside from its right course, aim, etc.
2.a To turn aside from justice, right order, etc.
2.b To turn from the proper use, purpose, or meaning; to misapply, misconstrue, wrest the purport of.
2.c To turn, divert. Obs. rare—1.
2.d intr. for refl. To become perverted. rare.
3. trans. To turn (a person, the mind, etc.) away from right opinion or action; to lead astray; to corrupt.
3.b spec. To turn (any one) aside from a right to a false or erroneous religious belief or system (i.e. to what the speaker or writer holds to be such).
3.c intr. To turn aside from the right course; to become a pervert.
4. Geom. trans. To reverse the right and left directions of; to form the perverse of (see perverse n.).

There are a few things to note here.

First, the noun is not identical in use to the verb.
Second, meaning 2 of the noun is marked as specialist usage.

The various citations are too long to quote here but most refer to religious beliefs. The phrase "perverting the course of justice" appears under meaning 2a.

======
Using one sense (2a) of the verb and attaching to it a separate sense (2.) of the noun is an error. It is coining, without explanation, a new sense.

======
Under the original sense of the noun, someone who, for instance, decided that the Old Testament was irrelevant could legitimately be accounted a pervert.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:27 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:I checked on the meaning of 'pervert'.

pervert, n.

1. One who has been perverted; one who has forsaken a doctrine or system regarded as true for one esteemed false; an apostate.

2. Psychol. One who suffers from a perversion of the sexual instinct.

pervert, v.

1. trans. To turn upside down; to upset, overthrow; to subvert, ruin. Obs.
2. To turn aside from its right course, aim, etc.
2.a To turn aside from justice, right order, etc.
2.b To turn from the proper use, purpose, or meaning; to misapply, misconstrue, wrest the purport of.
2.c To turn, divert. Obs. rare—1.
2.d intr. for refl. To become perverted. rare.
3. trans. To turn (a person, the mind, etc.) away from right opinion or action; to lead astray; to corrupt.
3.b spec. To turn (any one) aside from a right to a false or erroneous religious belief or system (i.e. to what the speaker or writer holds to be such).
3.c intr. To turn aside from the right course; to become a pervert.
4. Geom. trans. To reverse the right and left directions of; to form the perverse of (see perverse n.).

There are a few things to note here.

First, the noun is not identical in use to the verb.
Second, meaning 2 of the noun is marked as specialist usage.

The various citations are too long to quote here but most refer to religious beliefs. The phrase "perverting the course of justice" appears under meaning 2a.

======
Using one sense (2a) of the verb and attaching to it a separate sense (2.) of the noun is an error. It is coining, without explanation, a new sense.

======
Under the original sense of the noun, someone who, for instance, decided that the Old Testament was irrelevant could legitimately be accounted a pervert.

Thank you for that Norm, a very thorough piece of research. I await Polyglide's inevitable drogation of your ability to read and grasp write English. Razz

It is indeed very thorough, but those of us who wanted to read it did so the first time. If you are answering the most recent message on a thread, there really is no need to re-post it. Thanks.
Ivan

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:32 pm

"Thank you for that Norm, a very thorough piece of research. I await Polyglide's inevitable drogation of your ability to read and grasp write English. "

Touch screen phones are an excellent bit of kit, as is predictive text, unfortunately they are not ideal for posting here, especially in a hurry during break.

I meant derogation, and written, obviously.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:35 pm

Still haven't seen you attempt to answer this Polyglide, if you wish to proselytise your beliefs on here then surely answering this would be a good start?

polyglide wrote:
Greatest I am, Then you have never read the Old Testament. There are numerous references to events that have been proven to have taken place.

Dr Sheldon Cooper I know I'll regret this but you could quote 3 for us please?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:53 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake, How many times must I point out, I have no interest in the Old Testament

Post by polyglide on Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:16 pm
Greatest I am, Then you have never read the Old Testament. There are numerous references to events that have been proven to have taken place.

Post by polyglide on Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:28 pm
Dr. Sheldon, As you may be aware the Bible was written a little while ago and even then homosexuality was a problem, as many efforts to deal with it took place. As for the Bibles information regarding this matte, read:-

Leviticus. 18.22
22.13
Romans. 1. 26.27
Corinthians. 6.9
Timothy 1. 8.11.

I do agree with what it says,

As consistent and coherent as ever. I am starting to think you are either a pathological liar or have some sort of short term dementia. No wonder you never answer any questions anyone asks you.

by snowyflake Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:32 pm

Homosexuality is only a problem for bigots. As you have shown yourself to be a bigot polyglide, it comes as no surprise that homosexuality is a problem for you.

Get over it. A) It's none of your business B) Jesus was a homosexual

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:53 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon, I at no time have I ever tried to compare homosexuality with anything else. NOW get someone to expalin that to you.

Post by polyglide on Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:20 pm
If you leave religion out of the matter all together and just consentrate on the facts regarding homosexuality you can come to a better and more realistic conclusion. Firstly, if a homosexual is born as such then so are rapists, child abusers and any other deviant. If you make an excuse for one why not the others?

In this very thread - link: https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t408p40-religion-gay-artists-and-homophobia

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:18 pm

polyglide wrote:I am truly sorry if Awful Truth thinks I hate or dislike homosexuals, There are thousands of people I dislike far more, rapists, child abusers, murderers, wife beaters, etc; homosexuals are way down the list. I do not hate anyone, life on earth is far too short to waste time doing so and we should be spending time making matters better for all.

Except homosexuals unlike all the other categories you have on your "list" are the only ones who are not committing any crime, or doing any harm, and are not making a choice as they have no choice about who they are any more than heterosexuals do. Oh, and your many homophobic posts show quite clearly that you do hate them, to deny that is palpably ridiculous no matter how much you deny it.

by polyglide Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:14 am

DR, Sheldon,
As well as all your other shortcommings you are also a very poor mind reader.

It matters not if a crime is involved,.

I think you protest too much based on a all accepted facts, nothing I have said is either wrong or intended to be anti homosexual and can only be misconstrude by those with an obscure accessment of the facts of their own, who are not willing to accept the facts.

I am beginning to think it may be you who have an issue with homosexuality.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:53 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon, I am beginning to think it may be you who have an issue with homosexuality.

Think what you like, your homophobic bigotry is posted throughout the forum for everyone to read. Many have commented on it.

Your denial of all evidence speaks for itself. You compared homosexuality to heinous crimes, so of course it matters that being gay is not a crime and harms no one as this clearly differentiates it from the other things in your List.

1. Being gay is not a crime
2. Being gay harms no one.
3. Being gay doesn't require your approval.
4. Religious beliefs don't entitle anyone to discriminate.

You STILL haven't said if you have told your gay " friends " that you think they are abnormal unnatural perverted deviants?

We're still waiting....

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:34 pm

snowyflake wrote:If you think that everything is in the genes and we have no control over our genes or their configuration, why is homosexuality a sin? And surely god would have known it was in the genes and made an allowance for it. Why didn't he?

Exactly why it is not a sin.

Sins have victims. In a normal gays relationship, there is no victim.

When there is discourse, gays divorce just as heterosexuals do. At least in the more civilized countries.

Then again, to some religions, any sex is ugly sex.

The second century St. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."

The Church father Tertullian explained why women deserve their status as despised and inferior human beings:

"And do you not know that you are an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert that is, death even the Son of God had to die."

The sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy, "Woman is a temple built upon a sewer."

In the tenth century Odo of Cluny declared, "To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure..."

St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that God had made a mistake in creating woman: "nothing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then."

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:27 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon, nothing I have said is either wrong or intended to be anti homosexual

Wrong on both counts.

1. You claimed that every dictionary you'd ever read defined homosexuality as unnatural and abnormal, yet couldn't produce even one to substantiate this obvious lie.
2. You have repeatedly made bigoted homophobic remarks in your posts.
3. You have claimed to have gay friends, yet keep claiming gay people are abnormal unnatural perverted deviants. Despite the fact that all the current scientific and medical research refutes these bigoted claims.

Best you face up to your issues honestly, as this level of dishonesty and delusion is not healthy.

by snowyflake Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:11 pm

Greatest I am wrote:Exactly why it is not a sin.

Sins have victims. In a normal gays relationship, there is no victim.

When there is discourse, gays divorce just as heterosexuals do. At least in the more civilized countries.

Then again, to some religions, any sex is ugly sex.

The second century St. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."

The Church father Tertullian explained why women deserve their status as despised and inferior human beings:

"And do you not know that you are an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert that is, death even the Son of God had to die."

The sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy, "Woman is a temple built upon a sewer."

In the tenth century Odo of Cluny declared, "To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure..."

St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that God had made a mistake in creating woman: "nothing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then."

Regards
DL

So what exactly does the last part of your post have to do with the first part of your post?

by snowyflake Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:17 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
As well as all your other shortcommings you are also a very poor mind reader.

It matters not if a crime is involved,.

I think you protest too much based on a all accepted facts, nothing I have said is either wrong or intended to be anti homosexual and can only be misconstrude by those with an obscure accessment of the facts of their own, who are not willing to accept the facts.

I am beginning to think it may be you who have an issue with homosexuality.

Doc doesn't have a problem with homosexuality. He has a problem with bigots. If you weren't a bigot he wouldn't have a problem with you. Since you are bigot and you don't even deny that you are a bigot, then Doc has taken it upon himself to try to educate you. That he still does this, in spite of your unwillingness or inability to learn anything is a testament to Doc's persistence or your stupidity, I haven't figured out which is which yet.

No one can read minds. To expect others to read yours is just laziness.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:58 pm

snowyflake wrote: Doc doesn't have a problem with homosexuality. He has a problem with bigots. If you weren't a bigot he wouldn't have a problem with you.

It's just an attempt at obfuscation Mrs S, how he can think anyone will fall for such an obvious lie though is astonishing. I really think he projects the bizarre incoherence of how he reads and writes posts onto everyone else. Have you noticed how every time someone disagrees with him he accuses them of not being able to understand what's been written? The Dunning Kruger effect perhaps?

by polyglide Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:45 am

snowyflake,
Like yourself Dr, Sheldon does not like the truth.

It is you that is not willing to accept just what homosexuality is and what it entails for mankind as a whole.

So I will explain for the last time as I have no desire to attempt to the impossible, make you see the light.

Homosexuality is self gratification and nothing more, it offers nothing to societyu as a whole.

It has caused problems on several counts.

Broken families up, the parents being unwilling to accept the fact that their child is homosexual.

Wives infected by several venerial deseases because the person concerned has been dishonest with his wife.

This also applies to children who have been born with venerial deseases etc;

So to say that homosexuality causes no problems is ludicrous.

Then we have Dr. Sheldon saying genes prove that homosexuality is normal

When I point out that the same could be said for a murderer or rapist etc; he claims this is saying homosexuality is being classed as such as murder.

In fact it is pointing out that if homosexuality is determined by genes, then the same could be said about anything else, it does not compare any one with another.

Under those circumstances everything could be classed as normal.

My attitude towards homosexuality is as I have stated many times.

I think it is abnormal as are many other things, there are far more hetrosexuals doing their best to ruin everything than anyone else.

I have two main homosexual friends one I call Mike, because that is his name and the other David because that is his name.

I know you are unable to understand the facts, however, I feel you have a very unhealthy attitude towards the subject and I will not enter this subject again.

by Norm Deplume Sat Mar 14, 2015 11:27 am

polyglide wrote:
Homosexuality is self gratification and nothing more, it offers nothing to societyu as a whole.

And that would be a bad thing because...? Is the pursuit of happiness something that you do not agree with?

polyglide wrote:
It has caused problems on several counts.
Broken families up, the parents being unwilling to accept the fact that their child is homosexual.

That is not a problem caused by homosexuality. It is a problem caused by bigotry, ignorance and prejudice.

polyglide wrote:
Wives infected by several venerial deseases because the person concerned has been dishonest with his wife.

Homosexuality is not confined to the male sex. Most venereal diseases are spread by heterosexual contact. This is something that is brought about by infidelity/promiscuity not by sexual preference.

polyglide wrote:
So to say that homosexuality causes no problems is ludicrous.

To ascribe exclusively to homosexuality things that are common to humanity regardless of sexual orientation is ludicrous and blinkered.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:12 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
Like yourself Dr, Sheldon does not like the truth.

It is you that is not willing to accept just what homosexuality is and what it entails for mankind as a whole.

So I will explain for the last time as I have no desire to attempt to the impossible, make you see the light.

Homosexuality is self gratification and nothing more, it offers nothing to societyu as a whole.

It has caused problems on several counts.

Broken families up, the parents being unwilling to accept the fact that their child is homosexual.

Wives infected by several venerial deseases because the person concerned has been dishonest with his wife.

This also applies to children who have been born with venerial deseases etc;

So to say that homosexuality causes no problems is ludicrous.

Then we have Dr. Sheldon saying genes prove that homosexuality is normal

When I point out that the same could be said for a murderer or rapist etc; he claims this is saying homosexuality is being classed as such as murder.

In fact it is pointing out that if homosexuality is determined by genes, then the same could be said about anything else, it does not compare any one with another.

Under those circumstances everything could be classed as normal.

My attitude towards homosexuality is as I have stated many times.

I think it is abnormal as are many other things, there are far more hetrosexuals doing their best to ruin everything than anyone else.

I have two main homosexual friends one I call Mike, because that is his name and the other David because that is his name.

I know you are unable to understand the facts, however, I feel you have a very unhealthy attitude towards the subject and I will not enter this subject again.

Thank you for concisely pointing out your bigotry. Have you told Mike and David that they are abnormal, deviant, perverts in your view? That they are sinners destined for hellfire? Please let me know what their response was to your 'friendly' view of what and who they are.

If homosexuality has a genetic or epigenetic origin is beside the point. Whether they do or not doesn't matter any more than you having ginger hair or are left handed does. The point in ALL of this discourse is your bigotry towards them. That you hide it from your gay 'friends' doesn't mean that you aren't a bigot.

If you don't wish to continue the discussion then I suggest you don't make bigoted remarks about a proportion of the population that do no harm to anyone any more than anyone else does. As for self gratification, what do you call any sex if it is not for self gratification. That's what it's for, for crying out loud. If you're having sex for any other reason then you're lying to yourself. Heterosexual sex is just as self-gratifying. As for benefiting society, my having sex doesn't benefit society as a whole. Why should anyone having sex be a benefit to society? And what business is it of society to benefit from MY sexual activity??

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:25 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
Like yourself Dr, Sheldon does not like the truth.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Your hilarious subjective opinions are not "truth" any more than the average lunatic asylum inmate's 100% certain belief that they are Napoleon Bonaparte is the truth. The "evidence" they'd produce is of course identical to yours.

polyglide It is you that is not willing to accept just what homosexuality is and what it entails for mankind as a whole.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Your blnd bigoted religious homophobia on this is disproved by hard evidence, and your definitions disproved by the dictionary, and your lies exposed, including of course the risible lies about having gay friends. Which even you can't maintain after this post surely??

polyglide So I will explain for the last time as I have no desire to attempt to the impossible, make you see the light. Homosexuality is self gratification and nothing more, it offers nothing to societyu as a whole.
It has caused problems on several counts. Broken families up, the parents being unwilling to accept the fact that their child is homosexual.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So we see again that you do in fact hate and are prejudiced against gay men and women, your constant lies are exposed, again.

polyglide Wives infected by several venerial deseases because the person concerned has been dishonest with his wife.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote: It's venereal, and diseases.....That aside this has nothing to do with being gay, as heterosexual infidelity produces precisely the same risk, and consequences, unfortunately your posts indicate that you're either too stupid, or too dishonest to admit this. Being gay offers love, since the pompous claims of Christians is that love is the most important thing humans can experience your hypocrisy is again on display.

polyglide This also applies to children who have been born with venerial deseases etc;
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:VENEREAL FFS. Children born to gay couples? So gay people now procreate? Of course heterosexual couples never pass on STD's to children. What a truly imbecilic claim, the level of stupidity of this claim is matched only by the level of mendacity. Though at least we can all now see your homophobia laid bare. For shame...please show this post of yours to your gay "friends" and let us know how they view it.

polyglide So to say that homosexuality causes no problems is ludicrous.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:In the same sense that being black causes a problem with racists you mean? Get help, seriously.

polyglide Then we have Dr. Sheldon saying genes prove that homosexuality is normal
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Another stupid lie, as I never said this, I pointed to the evidence for this FACT, the claim is not mine it is made and evidenced by every major scientific and health organisation in the world, the world health organisation for example, and I have linked these enough now for anyone with any honesty to acknowledge this.

polyglide When I point out that the same could be said for a murderer or rapist etc; he claims this is saying homosexuality is being classed as such as murder.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Another lie, as I never said any such thing, it is in fact your ludicrous inability to read or understand a simple sentence, even one you yourself have written, that is the problem here. You have made an analogous comparison between being gay and several heinous types of criminal acts in many posts and I am happy for others who possess the ability to read a basic sentence to judge how dishonest and stupid your claim is.

polyglide In fact it is pointing out that if homosexuality is determined by genes, then the same could be said about anything else, it does not compare any one with another.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I never claimed being gay was determined by genes, but your claim means that if everything is determined by genes then so is heterosexuality, the sheer stupidity of not seeing this is wasted on only you it seems.

polyglide Under those circumstances everything could be classed as normal.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No it couldn't, and even if it could your "LIST" has victims and criminals who have a choice, only someone who is too stupid to grasp basic word definitions or too blinded by bigotry would not see how this differs from being gay.

polyglide My attitude towards homosexuality is as I have stated many times. I think it is abnormal as are many other things, there are far more hetrosexuals doing their best to ruin everything than anyone else.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You're attitude is bigoted and homophobic and again I'm happy for everyone to read what you've posted here, as elsewhere. It's HETEROSEXUAL ffs, how may times?

polyglideI have two main homosexual friends one I call Mike, because that is his name and the other David because that is his name.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No you don't as you've simply lied to them. Have you told them you think they are abnormal unnatural perverted deviants? You don't seem able to answer this, or accept that we all know that you haven't, and why you haven't.

polyglide I know you are unable to understand the facts, however, I feel you have a very unhealthy attitude towards the subject and I will not enter this subject again.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Don't be stupid, of course you will, your bigotry homophobia and prejudice are blinding you to the truth, but your hatred is on display for everyone to see. It's very sad, but is I'm sure a sad but fascinating insight into the level of denial religious bigotry can produce.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Mar 15, 2015 10:40 am

polyglide wrote:snowyflake, Homosexuality is self gratification and nothing more, it offers nothing to societyu as a whole. It has caused problems on several counts. Broken families up, the parents being unwilling to accept the fact that their child is homosexual. Wives infected by several venerial deseases because the person concerned has been dishonest with his wife.This also applies to children who have been born with venerial deseases etc; So to say that homosexuality causes no problems is ludicrous.

All of which happens to heterosexual people and relationships as well, so a particularly stupid claim, again.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Mar 15, 2015 2:50 pm

What is it with religious bigots and the lies they pedal about genetic science? I have never claimed genes determine sexuality, but how stupid would a person have to be not see that IF genes determine homosexuality then they would also determine heterosexuality. Plus IF this were the case in what way would this be unnatural? It appears theism does in fact rot your brain with delusions that become all pervasive to the theistic thought process. I suppose once you start indulging the lunacy of bronze age supernatural superstitions it's a slippery slide into a state of denial where no unevidenced claim is too absurd, and no amount of evidence will dent this superstitious absurdity.

"Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a healthy variation of human sexual orientation,"

"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, including the World Health Organization in 1990."

"the body of current research and clinical literature supports a consensus that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviours are healthy variations of human sexuality, and is reflected in the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association."

"Some early psychiatrists such as Sigmund Freud and Havelock Ellis adopted more accepting stances on homosexuality. Freud and Ellis believed that homosexuality was a normal outcome of development for some people. Alfred Kinsey's research and publications about homosexuality began the social and cultural shift away from viewing homosexuality as an abnormal condition."

These are what we call evidenced facts, unlike the kokum superstition underpinning your homophobic prejudice.

by Greatest I am Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:23 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Exactly why it is not a sin.

Sins have victims. In a normal gays relationship, there is no victim.

When there is discourse, gays divorce just as heterosexuals do. At least in the more civilized countries.

Then again, to some religions, any sex is ugly sex.

The second century St. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."

The Church father Tertullian explained why women deserve their status as despised and inferior human beings:

"And do you not know that you are an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert that is, death even the Son of God had to die."

The sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy, "Woman is a temple built upon a sewer."

In the tenth century Odo of Cluny declared, "To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure..."

St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that God had made a mistake in creating woman: "nothing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then."

Regards
DL

So what exactly does the last part of your post have to do with the first part of your post?

Those go with this.

"Then again, to some religions, any sex is ugly sex."

If Christians of that day saw normal male female sex as ugly, they will not think highly of gay sex.

If so little value is given to those who actually reproduce the species women, it is no wonder that Christians would have even less value for those who do not add to the community reproduction wise.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:30 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:What is it with religious bigots and the lies they pedal about genetic science? I have never claimed genes determine sexuality, but how stupid would a person have to be not see that IF genes determine homosexuality then they would also determine heterosexuality. Plus IF this were the case in what way would this be unnatural?.

Exactly. That condition should be seen as normal as any other condition.

If not from your genes, tell us where your heterosexuality comes from.

Did you have to learn that you preferred the other gender? Did you have to make an actual decision to not be gay?

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:38 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:What is it with religious bigots and the lies they pedal about genetic science? I have never claimed genes determine sexuality, but how stupid would a person have to be not see that IF genes determine homosexuality then they would also determine heterosexuality. Plus IF this were the case in what way would this be unnatural?.

Exactly. That condition should be seen as normal as any other condition.

If not from your genes, tell us where your heterosexuality comes from.

Did you have to learn that you preferred the other gender? Did you have to make an actual decision to not be gay?

Regards
DL

For clarity I never said genes played no part in a person's sexual orientation. Nor did I say that genes determined your sexual orientations. People are overly fone of making assumptions.

I said that I was aware of no evidence that showed sexuality was determined by your genes. I certainly haven't seen anyone present any on here. By phrasing your question the way you have, what else could it be, you are using argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You're repeating this logical fallacy with your last two questions, as they presuppose sexual orientation must be determined by genes or must be a choice. You know that it's not a choice and are simply asking a loaded question that spuriously assumes no third option exists.

by Greatest I am Tue Mar 17, 2015 6:01 pm

Not really.

You denied my view and I was wondering what view you thought correct.

Thanks for showing you have no view yet ignore the obvious source of gayness. Our genes.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 17, 2015 6:42 pm

Greatest I am wrote:Not really.

You denied my view and I was wondering what view you thought correct.

Thanks for showing you have no view yet ignore the obvious source of gayness. Our genes.

Regards
DL

Obvious view? Good grief tell me this is a joke. In what way have I ignored it? I quite specifically did not ignore it, I read that research you linked from start to finish, which judging from your post you had not, as it quite specifically didn't claim any evidence for homosexuality being genetically hereditary. I never said I don't have a view either, so strike three, I just don't care to guess or make assumptions, as I don't really see the point of such random speculation. So even though there is no evidence you're unwilling to even contemplate the possibility of any other explanation then? Wow, maybe you should stop making fun of Polyglide?

by Greatest I am Tue Mar 17, 2015 6:58 pm

No evidence that I am willing to look at?

I am willing and that is why I asked for yours.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:49 pm

Greatest I am wrote:No evidence that I am willing to look at?

I am willing and that is why I asked for yours.

Regards
DL

Not sure I follow what you're saying there to be honest.

It was your claim that homosexuality was determined by genes and therefore hereditary. So the burden of proof is yours obviously since the claim was yours.

1. You have presented no evidence for genetic causation or homosexuality being hereditary.
a) What else could it be? & It's the most obvious cause? Are just assumptions.
2. If homosexuality were hereditary then the fact that most gay people don't procreate causes something of a contradiction as the gay population remains at a reasonably stable percentage.
3. You claimed that homosexuality was "undesirable", as if the gay population reached a high enough percentage it'd be a danger to the human race as they don't procreate, this rather contradicts the idea that it's genetically inherited.
4. If homosexuality were hereditary and their numbers increasing then that would indicate they were procreating, and faster than heterosexuals, else where would they be inheriting this "gay gene" from.

Now all I've done, as last time, is point out the lack of evidence for your primary claim, and the logical contradictions in your other assertions. This doesn't shift the burden of proof to me as the claim was yours, and to be fair I did you the courtesy of reading the link you provided in its entirety. Now I did object to the idea that being gay is undesirable, and still do as it smacks of prejudice to me, though that may not be the way you'd intended it.

by Greatest I am Tue Mar 17, 2015 11:16 pm

I see why you might be confused.

I said nothing of hereditary transmission.

I said it was due to DNA damage.

Knock yourself out.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18768725
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2492513/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19473471
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19446078
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21334362
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19961060
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21053405
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21441904

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Tue Mar 17, 2015 11:25 pm

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

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:50 am

The first article I'm reading is showing evidence that hormonal balances in the womb influence sexuality and gender orientation. Snowyflake has linked research validating this already. No mention of genes or damage DNA, and no mention of homosexuality being hereditary though. I'll read more as have time to do so.

by Greatest I am Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:49 pm

If not hereditary or DNA damage, then nurture must be the cause as that is all that is left. I do not buy that.

Your choice as to what to think as there are no other options. Right?

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Mar 18, 2015 1:24 pm

Selection bias followed by subjective assumption is not evidence. I thought we had covered this? What you "buy" or don't "buy" is entirely moot.

by Greatest I am Wed Mar 18, 2015 4:42 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Selection bias followed by subjective assumption is not evidence. I thought we had covered this? What you "buy" or don't "buy" is entirely moot.

So is not having an opinion while arguing against another one.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Mar 18, 2015 5:46 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Selection bias followed by subjective assumption is not evidence. I thought we had covered this? What you "buy" or don't "buy" is entirely moot.

So is not having an opinion while arguing against another one.

Regards
DL

I haven't argued against your opinion, merely pointed out that it is just an opinion and not evidence based, and of course pointed out some logical contradictions. You've also made quite a few assumptions based on your opinion, but as yet no real evidence that human sexual desires are determined by genes and is hereditary. Though even if one argued against an opinion because it was not properly evidenced that would not represent selection bias or assumption, I'd have thought that was fairly obvious.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Mar 18, 2015 6:20 pm

Greatest I am wrote:I see why you might be confused.

I said nothing of hereditary transmission.

I said it was due to DNA damage.

Knock yourself out.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18768725
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:This link showed no evidence for your claims. It never mentioned genes at all.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2492513/
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Again this link made no mention whatever of genes or DNA influencing sexual or gender orientation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19473471
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Strike three, have you even read any of these articles?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19446078
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Discusses prenatal hormone levels influencing sexual orientation, again no mention of genes or DNA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21334362
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Again this article is about hormones during gestation affecting sexuality, and yet again not one mention of genes or DNA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19961060
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:This article at last mentions research into genetics and it's possible influence on sexual orientation, it starts with this claim "Human sexual orientation is a complex trait, influenced by several genes, experiential and sociocultural factors". Interesting since you earlier claimed that it couldn't be anything other than human genes, and that claims otherwise. Then it ends however with this statement " There is still much to be known about the genetics of human homosexuality." So whilst this article does make some claims about genetics, it certainly qualifies them and is considerably more guarded in it's claim than you have been, I couldn't see whether the article was peer reviewed though.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21053405
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Again the article makes no mention of or claims about genes or DNA affecting human sexual orientation. Why have you linked all these articles when they don't support your claims?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21441904
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:This article mentions genes only in the title, and i have to say most of it went way over my head so I'll leave it to others to read it for themselves, but for what it's worth it stated at the end "These results indicate that 5-HT and serotonergic neurons in the adult brain regulate mammalian sexual preference."

Regards
DL

Did you actually read those articles you linked? Only two of them made any mention of genetics, and all the others showed research and evidence that indicated other factors influence human sexuality, if you'd read those articles then you might not have made your "what else could it be" claim earlier?

by Greatest I am Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:18 pm

"Discusses prenatal hormone levels influencing sexual orientation, again no mention of genes or DNA."

Where, if not in the genes and DNA does that influence show up?

How else do hormones communicate with a body if not through the DNA?

Everything we are, from hair color to our sexuality is an expression of our DNA.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:29 pm

Do you know anything about epigenetics? Genes are switched on or off according to environmental influences. The switching off of a gene may have downstream or upstream affects. We don't know.

All humans have a regulated endocrinology. Our hormones can vary from person to person but we are generally mostly the same. Prenatal hormone levels in utero may affect fetal neurology, testosterone levels, sex characteristics etc. The influence of maternal prenatal hormones on fetal development is not entirely clear but there is some indication that later born sons are more likely to be gay than first or earlier born sons because the uterus retains pregnancy hormones for a very long time.

So you are now saying that homosexuality is genetic?

Can you tell me why it matters if it's genetic or not?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:25 pm

snowyflake wrote:Prenatal hormone levels in utero may affect fetal neurology, testosterone levels, sex characteristics etc.

That was evidenced in the research in more than one of the links he posted, if he'd bothered to read them.

by Greatest I am Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:13 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Do you know anything about epigenetics? Genes are switched on or off according to environmental influences. The switching off of a gene may have downstream or upstream affects. We don't know.

All humans have a regulated endocrinology. Our hormones can vary from person to person but we are generally mostly the same. Prenatal hormone levels in utero may affect fetal neurology, testosterone levels, sex characteristics etc. The influence of maternal prenatal hormones on fetal development is not entirely clear but there is some indication that later born sons are more likely to be gay than first or earlier born sons because the uterus retains pregnancy hormones for a very long time.

So you are now saying that homosexuality is genetic?

I never said otherwise.

Can you tell me why it matters if it's genetic or not?

From a moral standpoint, It does not matter to me. Even if it had another cause, I have nothing to discriminate against what consenting adults do.

At present, as with the kill the gays laws in Africa, knowing that nurture cannot cause gayness could save a lot of immoral executions. Those fools think that one can be turned from heterosexual to homosexual because of their not knowing how gayness is created.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:57 am

The ONLY reason those laws are in place in Africa and growing is because of religion.

by Sponsored content