Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[TinMan]

I take this to mean that you have no actual rebuttal.

you posted laughably inaccurate claims about genetics for instance you strangely think mutations don't propagate but that is exactly what they do. Blue eyes are the result of a mutation, as is the ability for an adult to digest lactose.
Same for recessive genes or that human survival is based on the collective nurturing on chldren

Didn't you study Darwin in College? Maybe not. I don't affirm Darwinism, but I figured that you do, given your previous responses.

You also don't seem to know that Darwin never talked about genetics...most likely because he died decades before the discovery of DNA

The following summary comes from Bing AI

The phrase "survival of the fittest" originates from Darwin's theory of natural selection, which describes how organisms that are best adapted to their environment are more successful in surviving and reproducing. The concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success, which depends on factors such as genetic variation, environmental challenges, and competition. The survival of the fittest is not a fixed state, but rather a dynamic process that changes over time and in different contexts. It does not imply that only the strongest or most intelligent survive, but rather those who can adapt to changing conditions and challenges are more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation.​

It seems that if orientation is innate, as you suggest, then it must be either divinely determined or biologically determined. However, there is no biblical evidence to support the idea that same-sex orientation is divinely determined, so I would reject that idea outright. Additionally, you have never suggested that God is the source of innate orientation, so let's move on from that topic.

Since it is innate and inborn God must have set it up like that.

The discussion often revolves around the presumed science of orientation, which is why I couched my argument in terms of the scientifically accepted view of attribute transmission. Let us assume that the orientation is determined by biology. For instance, suppose that a female is born with a mutated gene that causes her to be oriented towards another female.

Not how it works again you should educate yourself

In that case, how can she pass on her genes to another female so that female-to-female orientation appears in subsequent generations?

If you had a basic understanding of genetics you would know about something called recessive genes.

The truth is, she cannot. The mutation dies with her, and it will not be seen again. The only orientation able to survive and reproduce is male-female orientation.

Therefore, the concept of innate orientation is not tenable.

She doesn't have to pass on her genes as the genetic mechanism of homosexuality is based on recessive genes.
It's not a mutation.
40 to 50% of lesbians do have biological children.

 

[TinMan]

What "standard" did you have in mind?
Perhaps I was being a bit too literal, but I thought you might understand my point. Why does one shout?
To attract attention, To express strong emotions; To express strong opinions?

I'm sorry that I am forced to explain myself but I thought surely you might realize that sometimes we shout because the other person is nearly deaf. Jesus often punctuated his statements with an implied prayer, "He who has ears, let him hear."

I didn't think I would have to explain that "shout" was a way of poking fun at the people who think being loud is a substitute for facts and logic

 

[TinMan]

But you are obstinantly NOT catching on. You cannot deem action as <not action> by merely calling it "being." Guess what? "ing" is suffix denoting action!

-Ing can be used to denote action but pretty much only when used in the present tense. -ing is more commonly used to change a verb (action) into a noun (being) ((get it...Be-ING ))

 

[TinMan]

As Tina Turner sang, "What's love got to do with it?"

romantic love is a huge part of orientation.


I guess your response says you really only do love your when you are having sex.

Don't miss the point. Not every identity claim is self-authenticating. For this reason, interviewing people is not a reliable scientific method to determine sexual identity. Only sexual activity is a valid means to determine a person's identity.

So the only way to tell if you are a heterosexual is to watch you have sex?

Suppose you wanted to know which baby food is preferred by the majority of babies in the United States. Most likely the scientist would give each baby a sample of the baby foods and watch their reaction. Likewise, if a scientist is seeking which women are attracted to other women, the subject interview is inherently unreliable. Watching to see which sex she chooses to be her lover is a much more reliable course of investigation.

Do you really think babies are interviewed?

 

[Wrangler]

-Ing can be used to denote action but pretty much only when used in the present tense. -ing is more commonly used to change a verb (action) into a noun (being) ((get it...Be-ING ))

So says the expert on all things as I am being patient with you ... -ing - Wikipedia

@TinMan, we are Christians; Absolution is found ONLY in Christ.

You keep implying absolution is found in VICTIMHOOD; that a sin perpetrated against a sinner (homosexuality) absolves the sinner of sin. This is in mortal error.

 

[TinMan]

So says the expert on all things as I am being patient with you ... -ing - Wikipedia

@TinMan, we are Christians; Absolution is found ONLY in Christ.

You keep implying absolution is found in VICTIMHOOD; that a sin perpetrated against a sinner (homosexuality) absolves the sinner of sin. This is in mortal error.

and you keep insisting that calling oneself a Christian absolves the abuser.

Still waiting to learn just what little Gabriel did that was so evil it provokes his parents into torturing and murdering him.

 

[Behold]

will your "proof" be full of false quotes again?

Thank you for continuing to teach the members how to HEAR : The Gay Agenda

You are literally repeating as your arguments, what i posted as : The Gay Agenda.

 

[TinMan]

Thank you for continuing to teach the members how to HEAR : The Gay Agenda

You are literally repeating as your arguments, what i posted as : The Gay Agenda.

is that a yes, you will be including the fake quotes?

 

[CadyandZoe]

I didn't think I would have to explain that "shout" was a way of poking fun at the people who think being loud is a substitute for facts and logic

Since when have leftists employed facts and logic?

 

[CadyandZoe]

you posted laughably inaccurate claim about genetics

What did I say that was inaccurate?

for instance you strangely think mutations don't propagate

Did I say that mutations don't propagate? I don't think I said that.

Not how it works again you should educate yourself

What makes you think that I am not educated? You seem to have memorized a bunch of information, but also you don't seem to know what it all means.

If you had a basic understanding of genetics you would know about something called recessive genes.

I do know about recessive genes.

She doesn't have to pass on her genes as the genetic mechanism of homosexuality is based on recessive genes.

I never imagined that you might not understand human reproduction. I guess I was wrong. You really don't understand basic reproduction.

If you are having trouble understanding the concept of recessive inheritance, I can break it down for you. There's a diagram available online that showcases this concept. It consists of two adults - a male and a female - at the top and four children - two boys and two girls - at the bottom. Right now I am looking at a particular diagram that illustrates autosomal recessive inheritance.

I have seen plenty of diagrams, but I have never come across one that shows two males or two females at the top. Why is that the case? The answer is obvious - there is always a male and a female parent, each contributing genetic material to their offspring.

The bottom line is this. In order for a human trait to manifest, both the mother and father must contribute the recessive gene. Male-male orientation lacks a female parent; female-female orientation lacks a male parent. If you want to argue that, at times, a male-oriented man hooks up with a woman to reproduce, then the concept of "orientation" is meaningless.

You should rethink your position.

 

[Wrangler]

and you keep insisting that calling oneself a Christian absolves the abuser.

Still waiting to learn just what little Gabriel did that was so evil it provokes his parents into torturing and murdering him.

I've asked this question several times. Do you accept Christ as your master and savior?

 

[CadyandZoe]

I didn't think I would have to explain that "shout" was a way of poking fun at the people who think being loud is a substitute for facts and logic

And why did you think you needed to poke fun at people? Ridicule is a lost art. I don't think you should do it since you don't seem to have the knack for it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

romantic love is a huge part of orientation.

I don't think so. You are making a common mistake, confusing love with need, or desire, or lust.

I guess your response says you really only do love your when you are having sex.

On the contrary, Zoe knows that I love her so deeply that if I should have an accident so that I was unable to mate with her, I would still protect her, provide for her, care for her, treat her kindly, speak to her gently, consider her opinions, respect her and honor her in every way possible.

I realize that female partners and male partners would say the same kinds of things. I get that. But as I say, they can love their partner without attempting to mate with them. They can be kind, generous, considerate, loyal, dedicated, and all the rest quite apart from sexual activity. Th

So the only way to tell if you are a heterosexual is to watch you have sex?

I'm not sure why this is hard to understand or accept. In order for the concept of "orientation" to have any meaning at all, it must be a predictor of sexual activity. Otherwise, the partners are merely good friends.

Attraction is a complex concept. Sometimes women prefer to socialize with other women, spending time relaxing with them at a place where female issues can be freely discussed. Likewise, guys like to do "guy stuff" with other guys. Some women prefer to hang around other women and some men prefer to hang around with other men. But here I am talking about socialization, not sexualization.

During an interview process, someone might as a woman if she is attracted to other women, and she might say yes, but her meaning is ambiguous and contextual. Does she like to play bridge with her female friends? Maybe. Does she like to be undressed and caressed by another woman? That is a different question. Context informs the meaning of a person's statements.

Do you really think babies are interviewed?

Did I say that?

 

[TinMan]

What did I say that was inaccurate?


Did I say that mutations don't propagate? I don't think I said that.

"mutations are unable to propagate."

What makes you think that I am not educated? You seem to have memorized a bunch of information, but also you don't seem to know what it all means.

I do know about recessive genes.

Yet you make statements about how only direct line passage of genes is possible

I never imagined that you might not understand human reproduction. I guess I was wrong. You really don't understand basic reproduction.

If you are having trouble understanding the concept of recessive inheritance, I can break it down for you. There's a diagram available online that showcases this concept. It consists of two adults - a male and a female - at the top and four children - two boys and two girls - at the bottom. Right now I am looking at a particular diagram that illustrates autosomal recessive inheritance.

I have seen plenty of diagrams, but I have never come across one that shows two males or two females at the top. Why is that the case? The answer is obvious - there is always a male and a female parent, each contributing genetic material to their offspring.

and here you are demonstrating that you really don't get the concept.

The bottom line is this. In order for a human trait to manifest, both the mother and father must contribute the recessive gene. Male-male orientation lacks a female parent; female-female orientation lacks a male parent. If you want to argue that, at times, a male-oriented man hooks up with a woman to reproduce, then the concept of "orientation" is meaningless.

You should rethink your position.

the genetics found so far relating to homosexuality are passed on through the female. in females the genes make the woman more fertile. when passed to male offspring they produce a heightened chance of homosexuality, about 30% higher chance with each subsequent male child. The genes passed onto their daughters makes them more fertile and more likely to have a gay son.

That is how genes work.

 

[TinMan]

I don't think so. You are making a common mistake, confusing love with need, or desire, or lust.

On the contrary, Zoe knows that I love her so deeply that if I should have an accident so that I was unable to mate with her, I would still protect her, provide for her, care for her, treat her kindly, speak to her gently, consider her opinions, respect her and honor her in every way possible.

I realize that female partners and male partners would say the same kinds of things. I get that. But as I say, they can love their partner without attempting to mate with them. They can be kind, generous, considerate, loyal, dedicated, and all the rest quite apart from sexual activity. Th

and you can thank your orientation for that

I'm not sure why this is hard to understand or accept. In order for the concept of "orientation" to have any meaning at all, it must be a predictor of sexual activity. Otherwise, the partners are merely good friends.

if this were true than you and your wife would only be good friends

Attraction is a complex concept.

and one's attraction to males or females or both is orientation

Sometimes women prefer to socialize with other women, spending time relaxing with them at a place where female issues can be freely discussed. Likewise, guys like to do "guy stuff" with other guys. Some women prefer to hang around other women and some men prefer to hang around with other men. But here I am talking about socialization, not sexualization.

then why are trying to associate it with orientation?

During an interview process, someone might as a woman if she is attracted to other women, and she might say yes, but her meaning is ambiguous and contextual. Does she like to play bridge with her female friends? Maybe. Does she like to be undressed and caressed by another woman? That is a different question. Context informs the meaning of a person's statements.

So no one can't trust your above claim about your love for your wife and the only way you can show anyone you are heterosexual is to invite them over to watch you have sex with a woman.

Did I say that?

you wrote what you wrote

 

[TinMan]

I've asked this question several times. Do you accept Christ as your master and savior?

and I've asked multiple times just what evil Gabriel was doing that made his parents torture and murder him

 

[Wrangler]

and I've asked multiple times just what evil Gabriel was doing that made his parents torture and murder him

And I’ve answered MANY times. You just don’t like my answer.

 

[TinMan]

And I’ve answered MANY times. You just don’t like my answer.

What did he do?

 

[Wrangler]

What did he do?

Have you accepted Jesus as your master and savior?

 

[Naomanos]

Have you accepted Jesus as your master and savior?

Does it matter if he did or didn't? Is that going to change your answer?