Originally posted by IorekScience does not prove anything morally wrong or morally right...thats what we have Pat Robertson for.
I know all about alleles and things. Taking a biology course now, so that's nothing new to me. But I am wondering how this ties into the argument? Is sexual orientation proven as an allele?
I like your thoughts. There is also a theory out there that people become homosexual through abuse or neglect by a someone of their same sex. Whether it be beating, mole ...[text shortened]... is really not proven "wrong" or "right" since there is no real scientific evidence for it.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by sasquatch672Because homosexuality is immoral, whether it's two "Broke-back Mountain" cowboys or two carpet-munching diesel-dykes. However, I don't have a problem with their lifestyle, and I won't disrespect them, if that's what THEY choose....I've had gay friends who understood my stance on homosexuality and respected it, as I did theirs; to get the actual answer to your question, you'll have to find it in the Bible, the word of God....not mine....good question though, thanks
Why do you think it's immoral? What if those two people really found love together?
Originally posted by chancremechanicBut isn't the point of morals that each person must define their own? Saying something is immoral because that's what the bible says is a copout.
Because homosexuality is immoral, whether it's two "Broke-back Mountain" cowboys or two carpet-munching diesel-dykes. However, I don't have a problem with their lifestyle, and I won't disrespect them, if that's what THEY choose....I've had gay friends who understood my stance on homosexuality and respected it, as I did theirs; to get the actual answ ...[text shortened]... ave to find it in the Bible, the word of God....not mine....good question though, thanks
Originally posted by XanthosNZNo it's not because I believe the Bible, therefore I believe it to be immoral, and it is "my" own "moral belief", and that's the "point". 😲
But isn't the point of morals that each person must define their own? Saying something is immoral because that's what the bible says is a copout.
Originally posted by chancremechanicLet's compare you and I. I am a moral person (Since I grew up and stopped believing in fairy tales I haven't changed how I act, I would still be acting as a Christian) because it is the right thing to do. I treat people how I want to be treated because it makes sense. I don't lie, I don't steal, I don't covet.
No it's not because I believe the Bible, therefore I believe it to be immoral, and it is "my" own "moral belief", and that's the "point". 😲
You are a moral person because the big man will be angry at you if you aren't. You are afraid of judgement.
Which is more upstanding?
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhat are you smoking down in Kiwi-land? I "treat" people with respect; I don't "lie"; I don't "steal", and I do this because it makes sense.....what's your point?.
Let's compare you and I. I am a moral person (Since I grew up and stopped believing in fairy tales I haven't changed how I act, I would still be acting as a Christian) because it is the right thing to do. I treat people how I want to be treated because it makes sense. I don't lie, I don't steal, I don't covet.
You are a moral person because the big man ...[text shortened]... l be angry at you if you aren't. You are afraid of judgement.
Which is more upstanding?
You don't know me to make a presumption that I am afraid of judgement.......put the "Ganja" away and think rationally....
Originally posted by chancremechanicApart from the paint fumes and burnt plastic I'm clean.
What are you smoking down in Kiwi-land? I "treat" people with respect; I don't "lie"; I don't "steal", and I do this because it makes sense.....what's your point?.
You don't know me to make a presumption that I am afraid of judgement.......put the "Ganja" away and think rationally....
Originally posted by scottishinnzThank God you said because I really didn't want to explain it all to him.
Re; evolution.
Two points. One, look up 'recessive allele'.
Two, it seems likely to me that homosexuality may be a developmental thing, perhaps (this is conjecture) insufficient testosterone is produced (possibly genetic, possibly due to environmental pressures) during development to fully 'masculinise' the brain. I don't know - no-one does.
...[text shortened]... e are 'damaged' or 'inferior'. Merely a plausible explanation for a given phenomena.
1 edit
Originally posted by IorekOh dear...
I know all about alleles and things. Taking a biology course now, so that's nothing new to me. But I am wondering how this ties into the argument? Is sexual orientation proven as an allele?
I like your thoughts. There is also a theory out there that people become homosexual through abuse or neglect by a someone of their same sex. Whether it be beating, mole ...[text shortened]... is really not proven "wrong" or "right" since there is no real scientific evidence for it.
Well son, let me explain the facts of life.
There are theories and then theres "theories". Some are more plausible then others. I liked scottishinnz's suggestion of the recessive allele. However, i suspect that homosexuality is the result of more then one different gene. For example, person A has half the genes necassary to make a gay girl, Person B has the other half. Person A has children with person B. It is unlikely that they will have a homosexual daughter. However they do, albeit, with 16 other sons and daughters (pun intended). The genes necassary for the gay daughter have been continued through the heterosexual 16 sons and daughters. Evolution would not suppress the gay genes (just as it doesn't suppress cystic fibrosis).
The one thing you can be sure of is that homosexuality is not a choice. The action... may be. The attraction is not.
I had a discussion with some who realised that they were gay. They didn't want to be. They didn't choose to be. But they are. Whether they choose to do gay things (pun intended) is a matter of choice.