Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4175 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 208 of 317 (235392)
08-22-2005 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by randman
08-21-2005 12:18 AM


Re: stench of hypocrisy
randman writes:
It's meant to be a free country, and you better have a darn good reason for taking away people's freedoms to do what they want...
Well, I for one applaud your rethinking of the situation and now are agreeing that gays should be allowed to marry. That is what you are saying...correct? I mean, otherwise, you might appear to be a bit of a hypocrite
randman writes:
within thier own organizations.
Oh wait, so now it appears that maybe you feel that organizations have rights, but individuals do not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by randman, posted 08-21-2005 12:18 AM randman has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4175 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 261 of 317 (235612)
08-22-2005 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Tal
08-22-2005 3:18 PM


Re: RTFM
Tal writes:
It's a choice.
And exactly what evidence do you have to support this claim Tal? You do realize that if a gay person chooses to live a lie and have sex with members of the opposite sex, that they're still gay right...you do understand this...correct? They're not magically un-gay. So provide evidence that homosexuality is a choice made by the individual or stop claiming victory.
Tal writes:
Until you get some genetic science to back you, you will lose this argument as many times as you'd like to post about it.
So you are saying that because science has not yet figured out why some people are gay and some other are not, that you win the argument? How pathetic.
ABE:
In an earlier thread, I posted this
FliesOnly writes:
Homosexuality, birth order, and evolution: Toward an equilibrium reproductive economics of homosexuality
Miller EM
ARCHIVES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
29 (1): 1-34 FEB 2000
Abstract:
The survival of a human predisposition for homosexuality can be explained by sexual orientation being a polygenetic trait that is influenced by a number of genes. During development these shift male brain development in the female direction. Inheritance of several such alleles produces homosexuality. Single alleles make for greater sensitivity, empathy, tendermindedness, and kindness. These traits make heterosexual carriers of the genes better fathers and more attractive mates. There is a balanced polymorphism in which the feminizing effect of these alleles in heterosexuals offsets the adverse effects (on reproductive success) of these alleles' contribution to homosexuality. A similar effect probably occurs for genes that can produce lesbianism in females. The whole system survives because it serves to provide a high degree of variability among the personalities of offspring, providing the genotype with diversification and reducing competition among offspring for the same niches. An allele with a large effect can survive in these circumstances in males, but it is less likely to survive in females. The birth order effect on homosexuality is probably a by-product of a biological mechanism that shifts personalities more in the feminine direction in the later born sons, reducing the probability of these sons engaging in unproductive competition with each other.
which does seem to suggest a genetic compnent to homosexuality Tal.
This message has been edited by FliesOnly, 08-22-2005 03:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Tal, posted 08-22-2005 3:18 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Tal, posted 08-22-2005 3:45 PM FliesOnly has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4175 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 270 of 317 (235626)
08-22-2005 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Tal
08-22-2005 3:45 PM


Re: RTFM
Tal writes:
Wrong. I've seen many former homosexuals in the church that are now married and have families. There are plenty of ex-gays out there.
They're still gay Tal...sorry.
By the way, Did you read the edit to my post?
Tal writes:
That's like saying science hasn't figure out how dogs came from rocks 4.6 billion years ago.
Look, we both know that evolution doesn't make this claim, so save your smart-ass remarks for people that might believe it.
Tal writes:
...you can't prove a negative.
So why do you keep insisting that it's a choice then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Tal, posted 08-22-2005 3:45 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Tal, posted 08-22-2005 4:11 PM FliesOnly has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4175 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 296 of 317 (235863)
08-23-2005 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Tal
08-22-2005 4:11 PM


Why are you so afraid of homosexuals?
Tal writes:
Why couldn't they still be straight when they were engaging in their homosexual activity? It seems to me that would work both ways?
I guess you could be correct here, but then, of course, they were never gay to start with so what's your point? Or are you suggesting that nobody is really gay...that instead they are just experimenting with their sexuality and can stop at any time?
In response to me pointing out that the ToE does not claim that a dog came from a rock, Tal responded ever so brilliantly with a link and then this from that link:
Tal writes:
A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
In addition, abiogenesis the generation of life from non-living matter has never been observed, indicating that the origin of life from non-life is either extremely rare or only happens under conditions very unlike those of modern Earth. The 1953 Miller-Urey experiment suggests that conditions on the ancient earth may have permitted abiogenesis.
Since abiogenesis is rare or impossible under modern conditions and the evolutionary process is exceedingly slow, the diversity and complexity of modern life requires that the Earth be very old, on the order of billions of years. This is compatible with geological evidence that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old
I read quite a bit of your supplied link Tal, and cannot find the rock/dog information. I realize that this is way off topic so I would like to suggest to you, Tal, that you actually open a new thread in a science forum dedicated to your utterly brilliant idea that the ToE claims that dogs came from rocks. I can't wait.
Tal writes:
Because scientist say so.
Are you ever going to support this (and not by simply supplying yet another link that you have either not read or that you cannot understand)? Rather, supply us with information that states that homosexuality is a choice made by individuals, and that genetics or their environment have no bearing.
Because you see Tal, even if it's solely based on upbringing and environment, it's still NOT a choice.
Let me ask you this. Why are you so opposed to gay marriage? What is it about gay marriage that upsets you so much that you want to change our Constitution to specifically prohibit homosexuals from marrying (and please, so more BS about how they can marry anytime they want. You know what I am asking, so stop playing stupid).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Tal, posted 08-22-2005 4:11 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Tal, posted 08-23-2005 9:31 AM FliesOnly has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024