ADVERTISEMENT

Isn't it just a chicken sandwich...a really good chicken sandwich?

Good Lord man. You are really something else. I've made several counterpoints to things you have said and you didn't agree with. I do not care. Get outside and go for a walk, throw a frisbee, do something. it is hysterical how much you need to be right. I can't figure what you have contributed to this discussion, but then again, I haven't spent the last 24 hours on this site, so maybe you hit a home run.

No, you see, I am not going to just sit back and let you dismiss opinions based on your ignorance and/or lack of desire or ability to engage in a real debate. And I'll try to shame you into doing so or get you to acknowledge that you were wrong if I have to. (I normally don't, but then shit like this just keeps happening, so lets try a different approach).

You have made no counterpoints. Unless you consider things like this one: "No, you did not draw a worthwhile philosophical distinction." That is not a "counter-point." Why? You offered no reasons in defense of your claim that the distinction was no good. You merely stipulated that it is no good. Yet another example of your dismissing your competition.

Another example, you criticizing me for being on the board too much. I'm sorry, that has no effect one way or the other on the validity of my stance.
 
One thing I love about our country is it's ability to preserve the spirit of the Constitution while still making important societal advances. We're slow to change, to be sure. Over the life of the USA we've managed women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, ended child labor within our borders, advanced civil rights and so much more. Now, the stigma of homosexuality within our culture is passing. Sure, there will be continued opposition, but the times have changed. Religions in the first world can either accept the cultural shift, or risk irrelevance. Humanity continues to spiritually evolve. Be glad.
 
So you really don't have an argument to present other then to make fun of people who are Christian?
Not making fun, I'm born, raised, and confirmed Christian but as I've gotten older, my views have changed. I've actually spent a lot time thinking about it and I don't even know what classification I fit into. Its not that I don't believe in a God, I believe something does happen after we die, other than the end of the Sopranos. I've read a lot on NDE's and am fascinated by the similarities between people's stories.
 
One thing I love about our country is it's ability to preserve the spirit of the Constitution while still making important societal advances. We're slow to change, to be sure. Over the life of the USA we've managed women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, ended child labor within our borders, advanced civil rights and so much more. Now, the stigma of homosexuality within our culture is passing. Sure, there will be continued opposition, but the times have changed. Religions in the first world can either accept the cultural shift, or risk irrelevance. Humanity continues to spiritually evolve. Be glad.
Excellent post!
 
What is a "religious person?" Religion is mans attempt to reach God. Christianity is God reaching down to man. I cant imagine the faith it takes to believe there is no creator and it is all by chance.

Religion is mans attempt to explain the unknown. Christianity is the belief in one out of about 2800 deities. We are actually very similar, you disbelieve every god but one, I just don't believe in that one either. I may not believe in any gods but there could be a creator. I just have not found any evidence to support one. Again I am all for faith if that works for you, I just get my jimmies rustled when people tell others how to live based on faith.
 
Not making fun, I'm born, raised, and confirmed Christian but as I've gotten older, my views have changed. I've actually spent a lot time thinking about it and I don't even know what classification I fit into. Its not that I don't believe in a God, I believe something does happen after we die, other than the end of the Sopranos. I've read a lot on NDE's and am fascinated by the similarities between people's stories.
Thanks for sharing this... In all seriousness I didn't know how to take what you were saying, other than in an attacking way. Maybe that was intended due to some experiences growing up, I don't know.

Certainly the idiot comment on my part was uncalled for... Was trying to be a little funny, but was also a little put off by your approach. My apologies.
 
Thanks for sharing this... In all seriousness I didn't know how to take what you were saying, other than in an attacking way. Maybe that was intended due to some experiences growing up, I don't know.

Certainly the idiot comment on my part was uncalled for... Was trying to be a little funny, but was also a little put off by your approach. My apologies.
Yeah, that's one thing that is lost on a forum, the tone. My apologies too, if my comments offended you.
 
Imo, it's pretty simple. If you think gay people aren't born that way and they're making a choice, you're as lost as the people who stone woman for smiling in public. If you do believe gay people are born that way, its pretty cruel to not allow them the same rights as the rest of us.
Thanks for sharing this... In all seriousness I didn't know how to take what you were saying, other than in an attacking way. Maybe that was intended due to some experiences growing up, I don't know.

Certainly the idiot comment on my part was uncalled for... Was trying to be a little funny, but was also a little put off by your approach. My apologies.

"You're a good egg, Noonan. She needs you. Now pick up that blood."

No really...I can tell you are a good dude...because regardless of your faith or not, you keep an open mind.
 
One thing I love about our country is it's ability to preserve the spirit of the Constitution while still making important societal advances. We're slow to change, to be sure. Over the life of the USA we've managed women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, ended child labor within our borders, advanced civil rights and so much more. Now, the stigma of homosexuality within our culture is passing. Sure, there will be continued opposition, but the times have changed. Religions in the first world can either accept the cultural shift, or risk irrelevance. Humanity continues to spiritually evolve. Be glad.

Beautifully said.

timnsun and Jimmy I'm glad you guys could come together. I read it as an attack too though not on me. Your clarification later was important.
 
Chick fil-A doesn't have any bad policies that I know of. The CEO brought this on his own company. The protest is a statement of people who want to express opposition to his discrimination-advocating public statements.

Make no mistake, wanting to deny to others something you are able to enjoy without prejudice is hateful. No 'equivocating' there. It is just as hateful as somebody telling you that they do not believe you should be able to marry the wife you love.

Nike dropped Manny Pacquaio this week for similar reasons. It's a better world where people take each other to task for promoting discrimination rather than allow it. I'm glad that so many people feel strongly. It is a change from even a decade ago. No, the days where the important issues of others went largely ignored were not the good old days, for anybody.

I understand this is not easy for some people to see, but we'll get there. It's not an impossible concept, accepting one another as fellow human beings in every way and capable of the same love. I'm really sorry if in this day and age that expression still causes a thread to be locked.

So tired of SJWs
 
Religion is mans attempt to explain the unknown. Christianity is the belief in one out of about 2800 deities. We are actually very similar, you disbelieve every god but one, I just don't believe in that one either. I may not believe in any gods but there could be a creator. I just have not found any evidence to support one. Again I am all for faith if that works for you, I just get my jimmies rustled when people tell others how to live based on faith.
~~~~~~~~
What? No Lao Tzu followers? "The way to be is to do." Circa 500 BC.

Now, shut up and pass me that damn yardbird! :)
I'll need that jar of Sparkey's also.
Lao_Tzu_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_15250.jpg

File:Lao_Tzu_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_15250.jpg
 
No, you see, I am not going to just sit back and let you dismiss opinions based on your ignorance and/or lack of desire or ability to engage in a real debate. And I'll try to shame you into doing so or get you to acknowledge that you were wrong if I have to. (I normally don't, but then shit like this just keeps happening, so lets try a different approach).

You have made no counterpoints. Unless you consider things like this one: "No, you did not draw a worthwhile philosophical distinction." That is not a "counter-point." Why? You offered no reasons in defense of your claim that the distinction was no good. You merely stipulated that it is no good. Yet another example of your dismissing your competition.

Another example, you criticizing me for being on the board too much. I'm sorry, that has no effect one way or the other on the validity of my stance.

I have no desire to spend my entire day on this site to go back and forth with you. You will try to shame me? You are a funny guy. In order for you to shame me, wouldn't I have to give a rip about what you are saying? You lost credibility a long time ago professor. I have disagreed with you on several occasions. Take another gander at the thread if you like, it doesn't sound like you've got anything else to do. What was I wrong about and what is your stance? Try to answer in less than 1000 words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: huskerfan1414
I've read enough of your blather to know you are really in the dark about a lot of things. You really believe the Old Testament is all about Jesus, and that in and of itself just astounds me.

There were 44 (I believe) Messianic prophecies that the Old Testament provided us. Each came to pass during the life of Jesus, which would indicate Him being the Savior. But CC is correct. There is a reason why the Old Testament is studied by Jews as we Christians study the New Testament.

Just to add:

Before Adam and Eve left Eden, God said to the serpent, "and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heal."

God promised an offspring of the woman would crush the head of Satan and this introduces God's redemptive plan. This Promised One was Jesus the Messiah, God's Son. Jesus is the central focus of God's revelation and his redemptive plan (as announced by the prophets). Jesus IS the central theme of the Bible. Revelation 19:10 says "For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus". Peace
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyLvr
I have no desire to spend my entire day on this site to go back and forth with you. You will try to shame me? You are a funny guy. In order for you to shame me, wouldn't I have to give a rip about what you are saying? You lost credibility a long time ago professor. I have disagreed with you on several occasions. Take another gander at the thread if you like, it doesn't sound like you've got anything else to do. What was I wrong about and what is your stance? Try to answer in less than 1000 words.

I don't desire to either, but what I really desire is that you quit offering replies that are truly bad.

I take it you do give a rip about what I am saying or else you wouldn't keep replying when I call you out. How else do you expect me to interpret this except for you attempting to save face? You're right - you've disagreed plenty, I've yet to find an argument anywhere. I'd be happy for you to disagree if you ever actually offered a defensible stance.

With whom did I lose credibility? You? I don't think you're in any position to decide. I've been trying to get you to see that. As I've stated, and as I challenged you, you've yet to provide anything of value whatsoever to this discussion. Your contributions have been entirely one handed against the political left or ad hominem attacks against me. I'm not impressed. It must be really frustrating for someone to call you out on your truly sophomoric attempts to avoid providing reasons and justification for your stance.

If you were willing to admit that your disagreement with me has been entirely personal in nature and not in any way based on what I've said, I'd let the whole thing drop. I also said I'd eat crow if you could provide one thing you offered of value to the discussion which I summarily dismissed (after all, you accused me of being dismissive, if you recall). You've yet to do either.

"Try to answer in less than 1000 words." Yet another attempt to dismiss what I say because I actually think before typing and try to take a position that is defensible and nuanced.
 
I agree with a lot of what you posted, but I'm not real sure I agree on the Bible being the Word of God. It's the inspired word of God, but was still written by humans, and the Old Testament shows a number of inconsistencies. The Bible offers many great lessons, but the Old Testament is comical at times.

The Old Testament's greatest gift is the prophecies that were later fulfilled by Jesus. That is pretty compelling data to support Him truly being the Savior.

In terms of the Bible being the Word of God:

Yes, it is the inspired Word of God. Not only did God inspire, but He also guided human writers to record His story. Also, His divine oversight has preserved the integrity of the Scriptures through the ages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyLvr
Lemming, I tend to be middle-left on this issue. (It's my own category...don't try and figure it out.) However, you keep saying no arguments have been posited. One question that has been mentioned here is the lack of clear genetic evidence for homosexuality. With the genetic advances we have seen, we still have yet to find the genes responsible for sexual orientation. If something is innate we should have the biological components.

When I was teaching in 1991 it seemed like that info was right around the next corner. 25 years later with huge advances in gene mapping and still nothing conclusive. Maybe that is still to come. In many ways I hope so.
 
One final thought on this topic:

As a Christian my ultimate standard of authority is the Word of God. If a Christian simply believes marriage is between one man and one woman---that does NOT make that person homophobic.

Here is the definition of homophobic from Merriam-Webster:

"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals or homosexuality"

My belief is based on the authority of the Word of God--- it is not irrational
My belief is not based on fear.
My belief is not based on how I feel (aversion to)
I do NOT discriminate against homosexuals, especially in the context of a phobia (a phobia is an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation).

I have employees, friends, and family members that are gay. I do not love them differently than anybody else (one of Christ's lessons to us all). I can love a person without loving their actions.

Yes, I am sure there are Christians that are homophobic, just like there are atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, or whomever, that are also homophobic.

Thank God for America where all of us can generally voice our opinions without being killed, tortured, or imprisoned.

Oh yeah, GBR!
 
My question on this is really my curiosity about why the passionate stance about gays marrying. From my understanding, a majority of people who oppose it, do so because of religious beliefs. Yet the Catholic Church and Bible is pretty clear about divorce and second marriages being a sin. Where is chick-fil-a funding groups to change the law to no longer accept second marriages? Non-existent. That's the hypocrisy in all of this to me. There are so many places where our law differs from the Bible, yet gay marriage gets everyone up in arms. I say either go all in and demand our law be 100% driven by the Bible or stop using it as a political book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosker Du
Lemming, I tend to be middle-left on this issue. (It's my own category...don't try and figure it out.) However, you keep saying no arguments have been posited. One question that has been mentioned here is the lack of clear genetic evidence for homosexuality. With the genetic advances we have seen, we still have yet to find the genes responsible for sexual orientation. If something is innate we should have the biological components.

When I was teaching in 1991 it seemed like that info was right around the next corner. 25 years later with huge advances in gene mapping and still nothing conclusive. Maybe that is still to come. In many ways I hope so.

So I take it the idea is that:

1) If clear genetic evidence for homosexuality existed, then that would show that being so is not a matter of choice.
2) No such evidence exists (yet).
So, C), for all we know now being gay is a matter of choice.

I am inclined to accept the above argument in an attenuated sense (see * below). But what does it show? I can imagine that this might be significant for people with religious convictions, because it would then seem to support the idea that i) God is not responsible for people being gay and ii) homosexuals deliberately sin and disobey God.

But when what is at stake is whether or not gay marriage should be legal, I'm not sure how the above argument would figure into an argument against it being legal. Could you clarify that for me? (Also feel free to clarify the above reasoning if it's not what you intended.)

*Even if it turns out being homosexual is not genetically determined, that would not mean it is not determined. The way psychologists speak about sexual orientation now they place it on a continuum (in fact, it seems you have to if you want to make sense of bisexuality). What this means is that some gay people are in some sense "more gay" than others, and some heterosexuals are more "hetero" than others. There is no doubt in my mind that our upbringing plays some role in where we sit on this continuum, i.e., I think one would have to be really gay to come out if he/she lived in a very conservative household in the Bible Belt, but one could be fairly gay to come out in a very different setting. But we do not have control over where we grow up, who our parents are, or how we are disposed to be attracted to other people - all of that is out of our control. So even if it turns out a "gay gene" is never discovered, that would not seem to demonstrate that being gay is a matter of free choice.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosker Du
One question I have for Christians is that do you really believe your dead loved ones are watching down on you at all times? Like does Grandma get to see the pure joy on your face when your wife finally lets you do anal?
Where in the Bible does it say this? I'll wait while you look.
 
You would think with all the 'experts' on the Bible, that more would know more about the Old Testament. I get it. As Christians, we look at things from the perspective of Jesus. But Jews do not. You'll notice the word "Jew" showing up a lot more than Jesus or the Messiah, as well as Jewish terminology in general. Now go in peace, those of so little wisdom... Winking

The Old Testament (Themes)

GENESIS

Describes the creation; gives the history of the old world, and of the steps taken by God toward the formation of theocracy.

EXODUS

The history of Israel's departure from Egypt; the giving of the law; the tabernacle.

LEVITICUS

The ceremonial law.

NUMBERS

The census of the people; the story of the wanderings in the wilderness.

DEUTERONOMY

The law rehearsed; the death of Moses.

JOSHUA

The story of the conquest and partition of Canaan.

JUDGES

The history of the nation from Joshua to Samson.

RUTH

The story of the ancestors of the royal family of Judah.

1 SAMUEL

The story of the nation during the judgeship of Samuel and the reign of Saul.

2 SAMUEL

Story of the reign of David.

1 AND 2 KINGS

The books of Kings form only one book in the Hebrew MSS. They contain the history of the nation from David's death and Solomon's accession to the destruction of the kingdom of Judah and the desolation of Jerusalem, with a supplemental notice of the liberation of Jehoiachin from his prison at Babylon, twenty-six years later; they comprehend the whole time of the Israelitish monarchy, exclusive of the reigns of Saul and David.

THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES

are so called as being the record made by the appointed historiographers of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel; they are the official histories of those kingdoms.

EZRA

The story of the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, and of the rebuilding of the temple.

NEHEMIAH

A further account of the rebuilding of the temple and city, and of the obstacles encountered and overcome.

ESTHER

The story of a Jewess who becomes queen of Persia and saves the Jewish people from destruction.

JOB

The story of the trials and patience of a holy man of Edom.

PSALMS

A collection of sacred poems intended for use in the worship of Jehovah. Chiefly the productions of David.

PROVERBS

The wise sayings of Solomon.

ECCLESIASTES

A poem respecting the vanity of earthly things.

SOLOMON'S SONG

An allegory relating to the church.

ISAIAH

Prophecies respecting Christ and his kingdom.

JEREMIAH

Prophecies announcing the captivity of Judah, its sufferings, and the final overthrow of its enemies.

LAMENTATIONS

The utterance of Jeremiah's sorrow upon the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.

EZEKIEL

Messages of warning and comfort to the Jews in their captivity.

DANIEL

A narrative of some of the occurrences of the captivity, and a series of prophecies concerning Christ.

HOSEA

Prophecies relating to Christ and the latter days.

JOEL

Prediction of woes upon Judah, and of the favor with which God will receive the penitent people.

AMOS

Prediction that Israel and other neighboring nations will be punished by conquerors from the north, and of the fulfillment of the Messiah's kingdom.

OBADIAH

Prediction of the desolation of Edom.

JONAH

Prophecies relating to Nineveh.

MICAH

Predictions relating to the invasions of Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, the Babylonish captivity, the establishment of a theocratic kingdom in Jerusalem, and the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem.

NAHUM

Prediction of the downfall of Assyria.

HABAKKUK

A prediction of the doom of the Chaldeans.

ZEPHANIAH

A prediction of the overthrow of Judah for its idolatry and wickedness.

HAGGAI

Prophecies concerning the rebuilding of the temple.

ZECHARIAH

Prophecies relating to the rebuilding of the temple and the Messiah.

MALACHI

Prophecies relating to the calling of the Gentiles and the coming of Christ.
 
So I take it the idea is that:

1) If clear genetic evidence for homosexuality existed, then that would show that being so is not a matter of choice.
2) No such evidence exists (yet).
So, C), for all we know now being gay is a matter of choice.

I am inclined to accept the above argument in an attenuated sense (see * below). But what does it show? I can imagine that this might be significant for people with religious convictions, because it would then seem to support the idea that i) God is not responsible for people being gay and ii) homosexuals deliberately sin and disobey God.

But when what is at stake is whether or not gay marriage should be legal, I'm not sure how the above argument would figure into an argument against it being legal. Could you clarify that for me? (Also feel free to clarify the above reasoning if it's not what you intended.)

*Even if it turns out being homosexual is not genetically determined, that would not mean it is not determined. The way psychologists speak about sexual orientation now they place it on a continuum (in fact, it seems you have to if you want to make sense of bisexuality). What this means is that some gay people are in some sense "more gay" than others, and some heterosexuals are more "hetero" than others. There is no doubt in my mind that our upbringing plays some role in where we sit on this continuum, i.e., I think one would have to be really gay to come out if he/she lived in a very conservative household in the Bible Belt, but one could be fairly gay to come out in a very different setting. But we do not have control over where we grow up, who our parents are, or how we are disposed to be attracted to other people - all of that is out of our control. So even if it turns out a "gay gene" is never discovered, that would not seem to demonstrate that being gay is a matter of free choice.

This is the initial study...that got the ball rolling, as well as the abstract..

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321.short

RESEARCH ARTICLES

A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation

DH Hamer, S Hu, VL Magnuson, N Hu, AM Pattatucci

+ Author Affiliations

Science 16 Jul 1993:
Vol. 261, Issue 5119, pp. 321-327
DOI: 10.1126/science.8332896

Article Info & Metrics eLetters PDF

Abstract

The role of genetics in male sexual orientation was investigated by pedigree and linkage analyses on 114 families of homosexual men. Increased rates of same-sex orientation were found in the maternal uncles and male cousins of these subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives, suggesting the possibility of sex-linked transmission in a portion of the population. DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested. The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.
 
I'm going to post to answer some questions that have been asked and to respond to a couple other posts directed to me, than I'm going to bow out of this discussion. As I said, trying to debate someone on this topic is usually an exercise in futility. That being said, this thread has probably been one of the more constructive and cordial ones I've seen on the topic.

Lemming: Thanks for the offer to have a respectful dialogue on this. I think I would really enjoy that conversation and based on your responses to me, at least, I think we could probably have a great back and forth. But, it seems to me that we are both way too busy to participate in that right now. I know I am. So, thanks for the offer, but I'm going to have to pass for now for the benefit of my work and family time. Maybe in the future we can take this up and learn from one another.

Lincoln100 & Lemming (if you ever have the inclination): The book I was referencing is "What is Marriage: Man and Woman: A Defense" by three Ivy League educated PHds Sherif Girgis (philosophy), Robert George (law), and Ryan Anderson (political philosophy).

Hoosker: You can't provide a link to a study that has identified the gay gene because that study doesn't exist. At best, there are studies that may show a link between a person's DNA and homosexuality, but even those study authors admit that it is not a definitive link and at best shows that those people who have that gene may only be more prone to homosexuality if exposed to the right environmental stimuli. So please stop saying that there is a study that has conclusively isolated and identified a "gay gene." There is not. On the contrary, the most comprehensive behavioral study that has been conducted indicates the opposite. The study looked at a large pool of identical twins where one of the twins identified as homosexual. There was only an 11% occurence where both twins were homosexual. Being that identical twins have identical DNA, whenever there is one gay twin, the other should be as well if there is a gay gene. That is not the case.

Lemming: a point about the quote below:

So I take it the idea is that:

1) If clear genetic evidence for homosexuality existed, then that would show that being so is not a matter of choice.
2) No such evidence exists (yet).
So, C), for all we know now being gay is a matter of choice.

I'm sure you don't believe this to be true being that you teach philosophy, but since you said "No such evidence exists (yet)" I just think that it is interesting how some will argue that gay people are that way because of some gene, but when confronted with the fact that no study has been conducted that proves that, they simply say that science hasn't discovered it yet, but will someday so they again dismiss the other side. Another example of how those who are "enlightened" sidestep the science (or lack thereof) when it doesn't support their viewpoint on this issue. Totally different topic, but that seems to be a pretty common tactic of those who want to require scientific proof of everything (ie. the existence of God) before they will believe it. Again, not accusing you of ascribing to this because I know that as a philosopher, you know that not all things can be proven by science nor will they ever be able to be proven by science, as there are any number of different intellectual approaches that can be applied to answering life's questions (philosophy being one).

Anyway, amazed this thread was not locked long ago, but happy that it wasn't given some of the good and respectful dialogue.

God Bless! (and that goes to you atheists in the thread, too. You may not believe in God, but He believes in you!)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyLvr
I'm fully aware the Old Testament discusses Jesus. And please...for someone to not know that Jews believe the Savior has yet to arrive...a person would have to live in a cave for their entire existence.

I remember Isaiah discussing the Messianic prophecies, but I know there are other books that do as well. I've said at least twice in these threads the most important part of the Old Testament for Christians are the prophecies that foretold the coming of Jesus. Do you read any of these posts???




Honestly, how difficult is it to Google "chromosomal differences of gay people?" On second thought, you're right...when it comes to something even remotely scientific, you're lost. You'll have pages and pages to do all the reading you would like.

While you're at it, Google "differences in brain structure" and "gay."

Learn..

"Discusses Jesus"? For Christians the entire word of God is important, not just select pieces. Yes I have read your posts and all of misconceptions that go with them. Christ is clearly seen in the book of Genesis for just a start, long before Isiah. But everyone knows that right? Try using the word of God to learn more about Him and His character rather than using it with an agenda and lack of understanding.

You stuck your neck out with your claims of research on the gay and genetics issues. Since you refuse to supply any credible link that further hurts your case. I did my own search and in the first group of articles I did not find a single one who had any scientific proof. There are lots of theories but nothing definitive. In fact most said environmental was a factor. Of course if wish you can spin this any way you want until you supply something of substance. I am busy but I will wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyLvr
My question on this is really my curiosity about why the passionate stance about gays marrying. From my understanding, a majority of people who oppose it, do so because of religious beliefs. Yet the Catholic Church and Bible is pretty clear about divorce and second marriages being a sin. Where is chick-fil-a funding groups to change the law to no longer accept second marriages? Non-existent. That's the hypocrisy in all of this to me. There are so many places where our law differs from the Bible, yet gay marriage gets everyone up in arms. I say either go all in and demand our law be 100% driven by the Bible or stop using it as a political book.
I actually agree with most of this. I have long said that I wish Bible believing Christians would hold 1000 rallies against adultery, pornography, divorce, drunkenness, and lying for every one rally we hold against homosexuality and gay marriage. That being said, Christians are also not currently being forced to openly support adultery, pornography, divorce, drunkenness, and lying like we are homosexuality and gay marriage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyLvr
Hoosker: You can't provide a link to a study that has identified the gay gene because that study doesn't exist. At best, there are studies that may show a link between a person's DNA and homosexuality, but even those study authors admit that it is not a definitive link and at best shows that those people who have that gene may only be more prone to homosexuality if exposed to the right environmental stimuli. So please stop saying that there is a study that has conclusively isolated and identified a "gay gene." There is not. On the contrary, the most comprehensive behavioral study that has been conducted indicates the opposite. The study looked at a large pool of identical twins where one of the twins identified as homosexual. There was only an 11% occurence where both twins were homosexual. Being that identical twins have identical DNA, whenever there is one gay twin, the other should be as well if there is a gay gene. That is not the case.


Ya see, this is what you get for being closed-minded, folks. 11%, eh? You're a dope...
---------------------------------------------------------

RESEARCH ARTICLES

A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation

DH Hamer, S Hu, VL Magnuson, N Hu, AM Pattatucci

+ Author Affiliations

Science 16 Jul 1993:
Vol. 261, Issue 5119, pp. 321-327
DOI: 10.1126/science.8332896

Article Info & Metrics eLetters PDF

Abstract

The role of genetics in male sexual orientation was investigated by pedigree and linkage analyses on 114 families of homosexual men. Increased rates of same-sex orientation were found in the maternal uncles and male cousins of these subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives, suggesting the possibility of sex-linked transmission in a portion of the population. DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested. The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.

-------------------------------------------------------

Sexuality and the Human brain (Please see Reference studies after article for additional literature)

From an evolutionary point of view, homosexuality is rather difficult to explain. Any genetic trait that reduces the chances of producing the offspring usually gets eliminated very quickly in populations. Nonetheless, homosexuality appears to persist in humans throughout the history of our species. There are multiple hypotheses attempting to explain this phenomenon but no hard proofs confirming any of them.

Many scientists believe that sexual orientation is determined by peculiarities in the structure of the brain. Although at present time we cannot say what makes people gay, we can study their brain to see how their sexual orientation is reflected in the way it functions.

The Masculine and the Feminine Brain

Gender identity, which is the feeling of being like a man or a woman, influences various aspects of human behavior. These include choice of toys as a child and gender-specific cognitive, motor, and personality characteristics. Gender identity also has a role to play in determining sexuality. And all these developments are triggered by testosterone. Male and female fetuses vary in the level of this sex hormone.

According to one study, the human brain can show “masculine” or “feminine” traits, irrespective of physical sexual characteristics. When the fetus develops, gender identity and the sexual differentiation of the genitals may develop independently of one another. The former takes place during the second half of pregnancy while the latter starts much earlier, within the first 8 weeks of gestation. Incidentally, incongruent development in these two regions usually leads to transsexuality.

Sexual Orientation is in the Brain

Several other studies indicate that sexual orientation — heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality — is determined by peculiarities of the brain structure and differences in brain chemistry. Cultural or societal factors, upbringing, moral leanings, and educational attainments do not determine sexual orientation as greatly as neural mechanisms do. In fact, scientists have identified several areas of the brain that they believe determine sexuality in an individual. These areas include the hypothalamus and the amygdala. Inter-hemispheric neural connectivity has also been found to contribute significantly to sexual orientation.

A landmark study by Savic and Lindström indicates that there are cerebral differences in homosexual and heterosexual individuals. There are differences in brain anatomy, activities, and neurological connections. Brain scan images of the subjects who participated in this study show that the brains of homosexual individuals exhibit similar structure and functionality as that of heterosexual individuals of the opposite gender.

According to the study, lesbians and straight men have similar brain structures and functionalities while gay men and straight women share neural characteristics. For instance, MRI findings prove that the right hemispheres of the brains of the lesbians and heterosexual men have slightly greater volumes than their left hemispheres. But the left and right hemispheres of gay men and heterosexual women are symmetrical.

Another study on the brains of male-to-female (MTF) transsexual individuals, men, and women found that the volumes of gray matter across the different regions of the brains of MTF transsexuals are more or less similar to that in the brains of the men. However, the MTF transsexuals exhibited slightly greater volume of gray matter in the right putamen region of their brains compared to the men in the study. MTF transsexual individuals may have the same physical sexual characteristics as men, but they report feeling like women. This study bolsters the claims of the Savic-Lindström study that brain structure and functionality play a significant role in determining gender identity.

According to the findings of the Savic-Lindström study, the number of neural connections also varied between hetero- and homosexual subjects. For instance, gay men and straight women showed greaterneural connectivity in the cingulate cortex and contralateral amygdala regions than straight men and lesbians respectively. On the other hand, straight men and lesbian women exhibited significantly more neural connections in the frontal lobe cortex and the parietal cortex regions compared to gay men and straight women respectively.

Incidentally, the Savic-Lindström study is the first to establish that differences in neural connections can influence sexual orientation. The objective of the study was also to establish that sexual orientation is largely determined by factors that are congenital.

Neurological Underpinnings of Sexual Attraction

Neurological differences determine human behavior to a large extent. So it is likely that the neural differences in hetero- and homosexual individuals influence their sexual preferences as well. Hetero- and homosexual women have different responses to specific odors, particularly those emitted by 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND), which is a testosterone-derivative that is found primarily in male sweat, and estra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST), which is an estrogen-like substance that is found in the urine of women. These substances are believed to be similar in nature and function to pheromones that are emitted by individual members of a species to elicit specific responses, sexual in many cases, from members of the same species.

The above study was conducted on straight men, gay men, and straight women. It was found that homosexual men and heterosexual women displayed similar brain activation patterns when they inhaled the AND chemical. The hypothalamic area of their brains were activated when they inhaled AND. In contrast, the straight women exhibited activity only in the olfactory region of their brains when they were exposed to the EST chemical. The hypothalamus is known to be active in processing sexual signals while the olfactory region only processes smells. During the same study, the subjects were exposed to commonly-occurring smells, and it was found that their brains had similar responses.

So, are people born gay or lesbian? Scientists hesitate to provide a conclusive answer.

A slew of studies indicate that neurological factors greatly influence sexual orientation. The functionalities of regions in the brain like the amygdala and the hypothalamus have been proven to be determined genetically and are influenced by hormones. Developments in these regions kick in even before an individual learns cognitive skills or is exposed to environmental and educational settings. But scientists still do not negate the role of environmental factors.

References

Bao, A., & Swaab, D. (2011). Sexual differentiation of the human brain: Relation to gender identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32 (2), 214-226 DOI:10.1016/j.yfrne.2011.02.007

Hines, M. (2010). Sex-related variation in human behavior and the brain Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14 (10), 448-456 DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.005

Luders, E., Sánchez, F., Gaser, C., Toga, A., Narr, K., Hamilton, L., & Vilain, E. (2009). Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism NeuroImage, 46 (4), 904-907 DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.03.048

Nugent, B., Wright, C., Shetty, A., Hodes, G., Lenz, K., Mahurkar, A., Russo, S., Devine, S., & McCarthy, M. (2015). Brain feminization requires active repression of masculinization via DNA methylation Nature Neuroscience, 18 (5), 690-697 DOI:10.1038/nn.3988

Savic, I., Berglund, H., & Lindstrom, P. (2005). Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual menProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102 (20), 7356-7361 DOI:10.1073/pnas.0407998102

Savic I, & Lindström P (2008). PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105 (27), 9403-8 PMID: 18559854

Swaab, D. (2007). Sexual differentiation of the brain and behavior Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 21 (3), 431-444 DOI:10.1016/j.beem.2007.04.003

Swaab, D. (2008). Sexual orientation and its basis in brain structure and functionProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105 (30), 10273-10274 DOI:
------------------------------------------------------

A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men

S LeVay

+ Author Affiliations

Science 30 Aug 1991:
Vol. 253, Issue 5023, pp. 1034-1037
DOI: 10.1126/science.1887219

Article Info & Metrics eLetters PDF

Abstract

The anterior hypothalamus of the brain participates in the regulation of male-typical sexual behavior. The volumes of four cell groups in this region [interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH) 1, 2, 3, and 4] were measured in postmortem tissue from three subject groups: women, men who were presumed to be heterosexual, and homosexual men. No differences were found between the groups in the volumes of INAH 1, 2, or 4. As has been reported previously, INAH 3 was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women. It was also, however, more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men. This finding indicates that INAH is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.

-----------------------------------------------------

Are 3 different clinicals/discussions on the genetic and neurological differences of straight vs gay people enough to illustrate my point....or should I continue on? Because as you can see in the References section, there are endless studies out there for me to provide. No need to thank me, but I would hope next time before you you make yourself look like a fool, you would do a little reading. It's good for the mind.
 
Last edited:
Ya see, this is what you get for being closed-minded, folks. 11%, eh? You're a dope...
---------------------------------------------------------

So, are people born gay or lesbian? Scientists hesitate to provide a conclusive answer.

A slew of studies indicate that neurological factors greatly influence sexual orientation. The functionalities of regions in the brain like the amygdala and the hypothalamus have been proven to be determined genetically and are influenced by hormones. Developments in these regions kick in even before an individual learns cognitive skills or is exposed to environmental and educational settings. But scientists still do not negate the role of environmental factors.

Might want to read the "proof" that you post. Says exactly what I just said is says.

And thanks for proving my point about those who can't back up their blather with facts just resorting to name calling. Oh, and for reminding me what a waste of time it is getting into discussion with people like you on this topic.
 
Might want to read the "proof" that you post. Says exactly what I just said is says.

And thanks for proving my point about those who can't back up their blather with facts just resorting to name calling. Oh, and for reminding me what a waste of time it is getting into discussion with people like you on this topic.


99% confidence level doesn't do it for you? LOL! I can't do much about you not understanding science. You'll have to do that on your own.

But..But..But...what happened to the 11% that you so confidently referenced??? Your credibility is shot. You're done. Stop humiliating yourself.

Scientists always use terms like you quoted, because even though there is a landslide of literature to support their stance, they couch their studies for future work in the field.

It makes me laugh. Of all the great reading I provided to you...You immediately thought..."OH MY GOODNESS, I GOTTA FIND SOMETHING...ANYTHING TO SHOOT HIM DOWN!! You choose the first sentence of a clinical paper that later provided a 99% confidence level in its data. Just so you're aware, first lines are to capture your attention. It doesn't indicate that the researchers believe that they haven't given proof...at all.
 
Last edited:
Bullying, insults, and attempted intimidation! I see you have all the tools of the liberal who can't provide the evidence that he so desperately wants to believe exists!

Bravo for you, internet tough guy!

Are you so thick as to not understand that not one of those studies definitively proves there is a gay gene and say exactly what I said they say?

I'm done on this thread. Again, thanks for reminding me what an unbelievable waste of my time it is trying to have a logical discussion with someone of your maturity level.
 
Might want to read the "proof" that you post. Says exactly what I just said is says.

And thanks for proving my point about those who can't back up their blather with facts just resorting to name calling. Oh, and for reminding me what a waste of time it is getting into discussion with people like you on this topic.


And you might want to use your highlighter a little more judiciously. You'll notice just under your first highlight it says...

"A slew of studies indicate that neurological factors greatly influence sexual orientation. The functionalities of regions in the brain like the amygdala and the hypothalamus have been Proven to be determined genetically and are influenced by hormones. Developments in these regions kick in even before an individual learns cognitive skills or is exposed to environmental and educational settings."

Go sell your horseshit elsewhere! No one is buying it. Your 11% claim sunk you long ago.
 
Bullying, insults, and attempted intimidation! I see you have all the tools of the liberal who can't provide the evidence that he so desperately wants to believe exists!

Bravo for you, internet tough guy!

Are you so thick as to not understand that not one of those studies definitively proves there is a gay gene and say exactly what I said they say?

I'm done on this thread. Again, thanks for reminding me what an unbelievable waste of my time it is trying to have a logical discussion with someone of your maturity level.

Yep, now that you've been torn to shreds, I would wave the white flag and walk off with my tail between my legs too. Good choice on your part.

And BTW, I'm not a liberal. I'm a moderate. I'm a Christian that believes that Science was created by God. All of it. Evolution exists, but God equipped organisms with a built in ability to adapt to their environment. It's called "Crossing Over," and it occurs during both mitosis and meiosis. It is the exchange of genetic information between chromosomes to give us variances (phenotype) in our offspring, so all of our kids don't have the exact same looks and traits as the parents.
 
Last edited:
I'm not into trying to embarrass you, but you really need to do some reading. It's only been 20+ years since they found an X chromosome link to being gay, but scientific news travels slow in church circles, so I'll give you a break. More recently (10+ years ago) there were studies on both the male and female chromosomes showing a genetic link to being gay.

Listen, if you think I am discounting God's place in all of this, you are sadly mistaken. You couldn't have come across someone that believes more firmly that the human body has God's fingerprints all over it. As opposed to scientists, my basis for being a Christian is both faith based...and scientific based. The most simple of God's creations, a simple blade of grass, is thousands of times more complex than the most complex of man's creations. God is so far beyond our scope of reason, that we'll never fully understand the human cell, let alone understand the creation of the universe.

Despite their efforts underground over in Switzerland, the Large Hadron Collider has only identified the "God" particle, which gives us better understanding of the glue that keeps matter together, but this is only scratching the surface of the creation of the universe. I say creation because even though there is randomness to the universe, there is so much more organization to it than is possible for it to be all by chance. Down to the microscopic level. As I argued with an atheist about a year ago, "Protein synthesis doesn't just occur because it occurs. It occurs because there is infinite complexity and organization to the process."

The miracle of birth is called that for a reason. What causes the human heart to start beating within 3 weeks of conception? God is so far ahead of us, it's comical. The LHC will never be able to give us more than a small part of the equation. The rest will always be God's secret. At any rate, not only am I convinced there is a God, but if He can create the universe, he certainly had the capability of creating himself incarnate, to give us all a second opportunity at His grace.

Now, all of that being said, was it us and original sin that led to the genetic mistakes that cause disease, or potentially people being gay? I don't know, nor do any of us. It's a crazy story, but I'm not saying that it isn't the case. But as much as people want to separate Science and God, they can very comfortably coexist. After all, in my mind at least, God is responsible for Science.

Now...are my gay friends the result of a genetic mistake? I don't know and I don't care. All I know is that I'm going to love them like I love others, because all of us are riddled with imperfections.

"The more I study Science, the more I believe in God."

-Albert Einstein
 
I'm not into trying to embarrass you, but you really need to do some reading. It's only been 20+ years since they found an X chromosome link to being gay, but scientific news travels slow in church circles, so I'll give you a break. More recently (10+ years ago) there were studies on both the male and female chromosomes showing a genetic link to being gay.

Listen, if you think I am discounting God's place in all of this, you are sadly mistaken. You couldn't have come across someone that believes more firmly that the human body has God's fingerprints all over it. As opposed to scientists, my basis for being a Christian is both faith based...and scientific based. The most simple of God's creations, a simple blade of grass, is thousands of times more complex than the most complex of man's creations. God is so far beyond our scope of reason, that we'll never fully understand the human cell, let alone understand the creation of the universe.

Despite their efforts underground over in Switzerland, the Large Hadron Collider has only identified the "God" particle, which gives us better understanding of the glue that keeps matter together, but this is only scratching the surface of the creation of the universe. I say creation because even though there is randomness to the universe, there is so much more organization to it than is possible for it to be all by chance. Down to the microscopic level. As I argued with an atheist about a year ago, "Protein synthesis doesn't just occur because it occurs. It occurs because there is infinite complexity and organization to the process."

The miracle of birth is called that for a reason. What causes the human heart to start beating within 3 weeks of conception? God is so far ahead of us, it's comical. The LHC will never be able to give us more than a small part of the equation. The rest will always be God's secret. At any rate, not only am I convinced there is a God, but if He can create the universe, he certainly had the capability of creating himself incarnate, to give us all a second opportunity at His grace.

Now, all of that being said, was it us and original sin that led to the genetic mistakes that cause disease, or potentially people being gay? I don't know, nor do any of us. It's a crazy story, but I'm not saying that it isn't the case. But as much as people want to separate Science and God, they can very comfortably coexist. After all, in my mind at least, God is responsible for Science.

Now...are my gay friends the result of a genetic mistake? I don't know and I don't care. All I know is that I'm going to love them like I love others, because all of us are riddled with imperfections.

"The more I study Science, the more I believe in God."

-Albert Einstein
Du, been on here for years. Having little to say, I lurk a lot but don't write much, and sometimes I think you're a little quick to judge what music sounds good in other people's heads, but this is the best post I've ever read on here.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT