Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

Well, gay people can still make babies. When a gay man puts his penis into a lesbian's vagina... well, I'm sure you know how babies are made. Sexual attraction sure feels biological to me. I mean, when my girlfriend gets naked in front of me, I just start getting an erection. I don't think about it. I don't choose it. It just happens. No, not necessarily. Why? Or like, say, your religion? And if its a result of your environment, then it isn't necessarily a choice. If you get hit by a car and you're disabled, then that wasn't a choice. But will still make sure businesses have an entrance ramp so you can wheel yourself in there, despite the fact that you were a product of your environment. Society is going the route of it legally being a protected class, like race or gender. What evidence for homosexuality being a choice and being an environmental condition does that link have? I'll need to see evidence, as opposed to a bare link, to figure out what kind of counter-evidence you'll need.

There is no context that can make this statement be anything but incredibly stupid and completely wrong:

quote:

---

The problem with your theory is that homosexuals don't reproduce, period.

---

There are countless gay people who have had children by having sex with members of the opposite sex.Nobody has implied that gay sex can produce children.You said something boneheaded, own up to it. Don't dig your heels in and shout.

Yes, I have. Here it is again:

quote:

---

lokiare writes:

​

So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all?

Homosexuality sure does fit into the theory of evolution. It's very basic. All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled eukaryotic species. That species reproduced both sexually and asexually, depending on the conditions being favourable for asexual reproduction and other conditions being favourable for sexual reproduction.

​

Easy.

---

But in what way? He certainly didn't imply that homosexual intercourse could produce children. Oh, so you've dropped the "period", and you admit that homosexuals can reproduce.So now what was so bad about the comparison? Gay people can reproduce. Wow, you're a real cunt.

But refusing to bake someone a cake because they are gay is, in fact, bigotry.

Do you really think that Pressie was trying to imply that homosexual intercourse can lead to pregnancy?No matter what the context is, this reply can never be accurate:

quote:

---

The problem with your theory is that homosexuals don't reproduce, period.

---

Homosexuals can, in fact, reproduce.

Have you gained that understanding by being gay?I'm never seen gays describing themselves by what they weren't getting aroused by. Hey-oh! False dichotomy. Its not either genetic or environmental. And even if it is genetic, that doesn't necessitate that it should have evolved out. Look at altruism. Which could have a genetic basis. Why wouldn't that stem from your genetics? We are not going to force treatment for a disability onto a person before we recognize them as having basic rights. One of the basic rights that we don't discriminate from the disabled, is free and open access to all businesses that serve the public. If you want to open a new business, you will put in a wheelchair ramp or you won't be allowed to open. What costly products and services?And really, why would a business refuse to make money doing what they do? Its a legal comparison. The law says I can't discriminate against you because of your religion, which is entirely your choice. Yeah, society can get kinda odd.Even queer, some might say Your supposed to describe the facts in your own words, and then link to them as support.Its in the Rules.So quoting the whole page didn't really help much either. It'd take me a long time to go through each one of those and dismantal it. What kind of evidence did they use to determine it? Is your interpretation accurate?The first two are from the same guy who says: "Welp, we couldn't find the gay gene"That's not evidence that its not there.The next few are the same tone, that they couldn't find the genetic factors. Didn't find it in the brain.There's no scientific evidence of homosexuality being genetic, 18 years ago in 1996.Honestly, that's not very convincing. When we figure it out, its just going to be more complex than we've been looking so far.Regarding behaviors and brain chemistry, I think its all in the genetics. A bare link is just a link by itself, without any description of them from you.We don't just go: "Here's the evidence. theevidence.com"'Cause then people just go: "No, here's the evidence Forbidden"And nobody discusses anything. This is discussion site. The rules say no bare links. Check my post in the rules thread you started.

Have you heard of eunuchs? People usually think that just means a castrated man, but that's not wholly correct. It also included uncastrated men, or people who just don't get married, including priests.The eunuchs played certain social roles, many which were helped by them being nonsexual.I think the homosexuals were included in the grouping. And practically, if the guy likes cutting hair and won't bang your mistress then it wouldn't really matter if he was gay instead of castrated.Anyways, I bring it up because you mention the new testament. Take a look at Matthew 19:

quote:

---

12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by othersand there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

---

Jesus mentions three types of eunuchs, going backwards:-for the sake of heaven, these are the priests
-made that way by others, these are the castrated
-born that way, ?Sounds like he's talking about the gays there. It can't be men who are born without testicles, that so rare and negligible that it isn't worth mentioning. But as you said, in roman times there were plenty of gay men skipping around. So it makes sense that they are mentioned.What do you think about Jesus saying they were born that way, as opposed to it being a choice?

Actually, that just might work. The real problem, is in the refusal to sell them a cake."Hey, we sell cakes!"
"We'd like to but one."
"Oh, we don't serve your kind"That's when it becomes a problem. And honestly, you could just lie."I'm sorry, just found out that we ran out of flour."Nobody's gonna force you to work.But they're gonna have a problem with you telling people that you won't serve them because they're gay. That's discrimination.

Whaaat? You've said lots of stuff based on broad assumptions and speculations.You know, like that being gay is a choice and that homosexuals can be cured.You based gay being a choice on some old studies that failed to find a gay gene. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.And you base there being a cure for gayness on the anecdotes of people who say they were cured, while ignoring those who say they cannot be.You also completely mis-speculate the meanings of our laws when you say that refusing gays is like refusing to serve a vegan-only cake.If you offer your service to the public, then you have to offer that service to everyone. (you can require that everyone wear clothes for health and safety reasons, that's not discriminating against anyone in particular).If you don't offer any vegan services, then that's okay, you don't have to. But if you are selling salads, then you cannot refuse to sell one to someone just because they are a vegan. That's discrimination.And if you didn't want to discuss speculation and assumptions, then why did you put Creo and ID in title, and why did you bring up the New Testament?I do have a question about a contradiction you seem to have made.

quote:

---

Its my understanding that homosexuals don't get aroused (as opposed to bisexuals) when around the opposite sex.

---

So, hetersexuals don't get arroused by the same sex, right?

quote:

---

I've already refuted this and exposure to a visual and auditory media is known to influence individuals. I personally don't want to be subjected to things I don't like and I certainly don't want to be influences subconsciously by them.

---

Wait, couldn't you just choose to not like the gay porn? If you might be influenced by it, then how does it remain a choice? And if you're a heterosexual, then you won't be able to be arroused by gay porn, so why the worry?One more thing: No, that's not what we are looking for. No bare links. No long copy and pastes. Describe the evidence in your own words, and then provide the links to the studies as support.And go for quality over quantity. We don't need a whole bunch of bad studies, we need one really good one. Pick your best one, expound it in your own words, and then provide us a link to it.

Or you could just stop publically selling cakes, or whatever.If you still want to sell cakes, you could open up a private, membership-only, christian bakery that picks and chooses its customers.

Yeah, well, what do you know? You can't even accept basic facts about our world, and you make up your own definitions for words.So pardon me for thinking your considerations are worthless. Oh boo-hoo. Waah, I can't open a public bakery and discriminate against people. Waah, I'm being so punished. Jon Jones and David Koresh, now there were some people who were punished for standing up for their Biblical beliefs.And you're wining because people won't let you discriminate. Tsk tsk.

This is the kind of rampant dishonesty that makes people dislike you. Your "facts" are false and your "objectivity" requires your own invented definitions."I'm being punished"
"No, here's the reasons why you're not"
"Well, I consider it punishment."(╯□）╯︵ ┻━┻You state your own personal considerations as if they were facts and then when you're shown to be wrong you just fall back on them being your opinion anyways.Stop it.

You should try being honest instead. Thank God!Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Did you see my Message 123?It looks like Jesus said that they were born that way.

Would you/they construct a special-ordered wedding cake for my Catholic wedding?If so, you're a hypocrite.If not, then that's unconstitutional and the business should not serve the public.