God's "Word" vs Homosexuality: Living In The Dark Ages
AND THE PASTOR SPOKE
“GOD'S WORD EXPLICITY SAYS HOMOSEXUALITY is a choice, a sin,” said Tim Reed, pastor of First Baptist Church of Gravel Ridge in Jacksonville, Arkansas, a quote from a CNN article titled Baptists plan exodus from Boy Scouts, By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor. What Reed was expounding upon was the Boy Scouts of America's belated decision to recognize homosexuals were people too, and that being gay, in virtually all instances, is NOT a choice, but genetics (at least for those under 18, apparently once you hit the age of majority, it is a choice again vis-à-vis the Scouts decision to continue the ban on gay Scout leaders.) It should be noted that like the adolescence girls, who are generally more mentally developed and mature than boys and that comprise its membership, the Girl Scouts, as I understand it, do not discriminate based on God-given sexual orientation.
But, the Southern Baptists are, for the country's largest Protestant denomination is threatening to cut and run from the now sinful Boy Scouts. In June, their convention will vote (non-binding but nevertheless influential) on whether to urge its 45,000 congregations and 16 million members to cut ties with the Scouts because of the Scouts new found understanding that being gay is not a choice, nor is it a character flaw.
WHAT DO OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS HAVE TO SAY?
SO GOES FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS, what about other major denominations? According to the CNN article, The National Jewish Committee on Scouting, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which sponsors more Scout units than any other faith, all endorsed the change the Scouts made. Further, the CNN article goes on to say, "the National Catholic Committee on Scouting, which is run with oversight from a bishop, said Thursday that allowing gay youths in the Scouts does not conflict with church teaching. Each bishop will decide whether or not to allow churches in his diocese to charter Scout units, the committee added. “We ask that Catholic Scouters and chartered organization heads not rush to judgment,” said Edward Martin, chairman of the National Catholic Committee on Scouting."
Without question, the views of American's, once bordering on homophobic, have made a sea change in their attitudes regarding the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and their relationship to straight society. DOMA, is probably doomed. DOMA, the conservative-sponsored federal intrusion into American secular and religious lives, aka the Defense of Marriage Act, went before the Supreme Court in 2013 and will, in all likelihood be found unconstitutional. California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in that state by the narrowest of margins in 2008 also went before the Supreme Court at the same time. The fate of that action is much more unclear. But, if it should go against the LGBT community, I have no doubt, a new proposition will be initiated in California to overturn the previous vote and allow gay marriage to occur. Passage of this measure should have a high probability of success now that some time has passed from the previous vote.
The number of states who stopped discriminating against the LGBT society has grown to eleven plus Washington D.C; there are another eight who allow "domestic partnerships". There are moves afoot to gain passage of same-sex marriages in four additional states and it shouldn't be long before new initiatives are filed to overturn Constitutional amendments in states where marriage discrimination was written into their Constitution. As the saying goes, "the times, they are a-changin' "
STATES THAT ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGES OR DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS
THE CONUNDRUM OF A STRICT BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
THE PROBLEM THOSE WHO ARE BIBLICALLY OPPOSED to same-sex marriage, gays in the Boy Scouts, or just homosexuality in general face, use to be logic but now is biological as well. The logic problems are several in nature IF one assumes the Bible is the exact Word of God as opposed to allegory, metaphor, guidelines or other such methods humans communicate to one another. I won't try to cover all of the possible combinations and permutations of logic knots strict Biblical interpretation tie you in, instead, I will offer just a couple.
The first is a simple question. Why does God hate homosexuals so much while giving a pass to incest? For example,
- Genesis 4:17 where Cain's wife must be either his mother or his sister
- Abraham's brother Nahor married his niece Milcah, the daughter of his other brother Haran
- Genesis 19:30-38, where Lot's daughters basically commit rape on their father while he was passed out drunk
- Abraham admitted that his wife Sarah is also his half-sister, on his father's side
- Abraham's son Isaac married Rebekah, his first cousin once removed, the granddaughter of his father's brother Nahor and niece Milcah
- Isaac and Rebekah's firstborn son Esau married his cousin Mahalah, daughter of his father's brother Ishmael
- Jacob married his cousins Leah and Rachel, daughters of his mother's brother Laban
- Genesis 35:22, where Jacob's firstborn son Reuben committed incest by sleeping with his father's concubine Bilhah.
- Genesis 38, is where Judah, the fourth son of Jacob, mistook his daughter-in-law Tamar for a prostitute while she was veiled, and had sex with her
- Amram married his paternal aunt, Jochebed, the mother of Miriam, Aaron and Moses
- In the book of 2nd Samuel, Amnon, King David's eldest son and heir to the throne, raped his half-sister Tamar, although granted, Amnon got his just rewards when Tamar's brother, Absalom, learned of the incident and, two years later, ordered his servants to have Amnon killed
Other than Amnon, where did God bring his wrath down on any of these who participated in what most believe today to be one of the most sinful of behaviors? Where in the Bible does it say, with as much authority as it does for male homosexuality, that incest is a sin? But gays (not lesbians) get special mention in the Bible, according to the Fundamentalists.
The other tact is this. According to a literal reading of the Bible, being a homosexual, or at least practicing it, is a sin; an abomination to God. Many of those who take the Bible literally also do not believe in free-will, rather we live in a predestined world where God has laid out a plan which each of us will follow, no matter what our own willful intentions are. Under this strict interpretation, we have two competing views:
- Being gay is a "Choice" and it is a sin to be gay and
- God has already predetermined you will either 1) be born a homosexual or 2) choose to be one.
If these two views are simultaneously correct, then God has predetermined you will be a sinner all of your life and there isn't much you can do about other than accept the punishment meted by the Bible, or those who strictly follow its dictates.
In the case where those who believe the Bible strictly prohibits homosexuality but do not accept the pre-determined paradigm, then, once it became obvious that homosexuality IS NOT a choice, they are back to the same contradiction. To wit, how can somebody be a sinner when he or she is simply doing what God designed them to do even though the Bible allegedly says they can't? Said another way, "how can you be a sinner if you are doing what God designed you to do?".
GENETICS PLUS ENVIRONMENT = EPIGENETICS
GENETICS IS PROVING HOMOSEXUALTY IS PART OF GOD'S DESIGN
THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A BATTLE BETWEEN "Naturists" and "Nurturists", whether it is Nature or Nurture which controls human nature. There are strong proponents for both sides, but until recently, few scientists wanted to take the middle ground; we humans seem to like extreme positions whether it be science or politics. What scientists have begun to discover over the last ten or so years, the time since the human genome code was cracked, that common sense will probably prevail and that human nature is determined by 1) Nature (your genetic code, acting alone), 2) Nurture (environmental factors acting alone), or 3) Nurture acting on Nature (genes expressing themselves differently depending on environmental input).
Possibility number three apparently never occurred to many people of high or low intelligence for millennia, until ten years ago or so, that is. What scientists have discovered is that some traits, such as eye color, are almost totally Nature, while traits such as sports preference may be almost all environmental. Some traits however, such as certain mental diseases, occur when a gene or gene variant is expressed most often under certain environmental conditions. For example, there is one specific genetically-based mental disorder that appears most often when there is a harsh childhood upbringing, but much less frequently when a normal childhood is experienced. Schizophrenia is another; here the rate of occurrence increases proportionately with the age of the father at time of conception.
Recent scientific research is showing that homosexuality appears to be expressed in this latter manner, called Epigenetics. There is a long string of empirical evidence showing that homosexuality can be generational, i.e., passed down through family generations. Most, but not all Identical vs. fraternal twin studies strongly suggest a partial genetic link to sexual orientation. More recent studies have focused on the Xq28, 7q36, 8p12, 10q26 genes,.from the X, 7th, 8th, and 10th chromosomes, respectively, being involved in sexual orientation.
It is becoming more apparent that it is these, and similar, genes, interacting with both the environment within the womb as well as later development after birth that ultimately determine if a person is going to be straight or LGBT. In fact, for epigenetical reasons having to do with hormonal resistance, scientists have found birth order is the best predictor of homosexuality in men, birth order! Studies show that each succeeding older brother has a 33% more chance of being gay. How do you derive "choice" out of all of that?
CIRCLING BACK TO RELIGION AND THE GOOD PASTOR REED
IT SHOULD BE CLEAR BY NOW THAT THE GOOD PASTOR TIM REED is quite wrong when he proclaimed, “God's Word explicitly says homosexuality is a choice, a sin”, far from it. His, and his Southern Baptist brethren's wrath against the Boy Scouts of America is sorely misplaced. Instead of condemning an effort for humans to express their humanity to each other, Pastor Reed ought to be embracing it as a shining example of Christian values, don't you think?
Will Sexual Orientation Ultimately Be Found Not To Be A Choice By Mainstream America?
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY #1
Do you consider yourself more closely aligned with the
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY #2
Are you
© 2013 Scott Belford
Comments
Scott
Gender is binary and it is complimentary. Any deviation beyond binary defeats the purpose of Male and Female which is procreation. Without procreation the world wouldn't have more than 7 billion people.
Any change in the genetics is a defect, just like 6 toes, and conjoined twins. There is no scientific test is there that can 100 percent say that homosexuality is not a choice or why homosexuals think they are homosexuals. And you failed to tell me how B in LGBT is not a choice.
The obvious answer to homosexuality and the LGBTX orientation is a defect in the copy function, or a mutation of the genes from any number of sources like radiation, drugs etc.
We should be fixing genetic defects not encouraging them.
Like the Russian Trump collusion, the liberals keep telling a lie like it is the truth. Would you really care about sexual orientation if they all voted non Democrat? Yeah, sure you would. Just like you would if illegal aliens got citizenship and voted non democrat.
- AUTHOR
Here is one of a whole host of articles concluding what is simple common sense - sexuality is genetic.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cross-c...
Unlike you, the human condition is all its aspects is not binary and that includes sexual orientation.
Scott
There is no God and that means there is no word. There is no test to disprove that homosexuality is not a choice. Until that becomes a scientific fact, homosexuality remains a choice. My comment to you about this was to start with the Bisexual in the LGBT and tell us why they don't have a choice?
Scott
Can you prove that homosexuality is not a choice?
Start with the "B" in LGBT!
My Esoteric
Really, that is not what a republic or democracy does, and that is not the criteria that is used by the Supreme Court.
Once again, and again, how do you know there is no voter fraud if you don't allows checking of the voters authenticity. In California no questions can be asked about the voters. And Ca has more than ten percent of the US population.
ME
This is getting ridiculous, I write very detailed examples and points and responses to them continue to avoid them.
These responses lack substance and veracity. The views go into great statistical details to absolutely pure rhetoric.
My question on how do we determine the grounds for homosexuality have been ignored.
I will write my own hubs as there is nothing to be gained here.
Sorry.
Have Happy Holidays.
- AUTHOR
BM - "Once again, How many people, and do they vote?"
ME - That is the wrong question at this point in time. So long as there is no need for photo ID, then if one person is dissuaded from voting because they can't get a photo ID, that is one too many. Your question becomes relevant only when voter fraud becomes a problem.
My Esoteric
We did get off the track??
You wrote
I found a few of his suggestions of where photo ID is required, but the examples of when it becomes difficult for people to get photo IDs are valid and many have been upheld in court rulings.
bm:
Once again, How many people, and do they vote?
----------
You wrote
The SSN has been specifically been banned as a national ID, as has the concept of a national ID. Also, SSNs don't have pictures on them.
bm
I said it was a de facto National Id, and we are mandated to use it.
-----------
You wrote
The case he mentions about the cost of the certificates is real and I had given that one to you before.
bm
Not really relevant, as I said his example was in conjunction with a plaintiff that had a lawsuit on the photo id. He can't afford the eighty dollars, but he can hire an attorney and sue the state. If he is not one of those that doesn't have a photo id, then he shouldn't have been able to get standing to pursue the lawsuit.
========
You wrote
There are no Esoteric stats because the lack of fraud in elections (regarding citizenship) is well documented in several research papers and I don't have the wherewithal to go find it out in any case.
bm
Apparently, it is not that well documented if you can't get it that easily.
Once again, there are no stats because they don't check voter ids.
No check, no stats, no valid research paper.
-------
Y0u wrote
As to stats regarding reasons, just a listing of valid reasons regarding the difficulty for some people to obtain a photo ID, where they otherwise don't need one, is all that is needed. The source I provided is sufficient
bm
How many people, you keep avoiding the question?
The source you gave was not valid, and it also didn't mention how many.
I need a valid photo id just to get a library card in my hometown.
And also, are they now voting?
I gave you the TSA requirements, and according to your source, it says that you don't need a valid id.
So much for that source.
===========
BTW, how did we get so far of the hub topic?
How do we determine who is gay in order to invoke the privilege of entering into a homosexual marriage. The same gender ban against marriage was based on their homosexuality. You know the one that they can't control.
How is homosexuality that is not based on a simple preference determined?
Is it based on genetics. or hormone levels, or brain wiring. or some other test? It has to be more the a mere sexual preference.
Bisexuals? Surely this is simple preference.
My point is that if it is simple preference than it would have the basis of the lawsuits that won against the banning of homosexual marriages.
So does any group or minority call the shots for the country when it is based on their whims. Like the alleged smoker's rights of years ago.
It is time to write another hub. We are lost here, and there are no visible bread crumbs.
LOL
-
-
- AUTHOR
I found a few of his suggestions of where photo ID is required, but the examples of when it becomes difficult for people to get photo IDs are valid and many have been upheld in court rulings.
The SSN has been specifically been banned as a national ID, as has the concept of a national ID. Also, SSNs don't have pictures on them.
The case he mentions about the cost of the certificates is real and I had given that one to you before.
There are no Esoteric stats because the lack of fraud in elections (regarding citizenship) is well documented in several research papers and I don't have the wherewithal to go find it out in any case.
As to stats regarding reasons, just a listing of valid reasons regarding the difficulty for some people to obtain a photo ID, where they otherwise don't need one, is all that is needed. The source I provided is sufficient.
BTW, how did we get so far of the hub topic?
My Esoteric
The website on the photo id is just another person making wind.
He says that you don't need a photo id to fly.
TSA
Acceptable IDs for screening purposes include:
U.S. passport
U.S. passport card
DHS trusted traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
U.S. military ID (active duty or retired military and their dependents, and DoD civilians)
Permanent resident card
Border crossing card
DHS-designated enhanced driver's license
Driver's licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent) for the sole purpose of identification
Native American tribal photo ID
HSPD-12 PIV card
Airline or airport-issued ID (if issued under a TSA-approved security plan)
Foreign government-issued passport
Canadian provincial driver's license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada card
Transportation Worker Identification Credential
------------
He also mentions a PLAINTIFF that was objecting to the photo id because he heard that Louisiana charges eight dollars for a copy of a birth certificate.
If he is a plaintiff, he must have the eighty dollars.
The article never really mentions who these people are and how many of them there are that can't get photo ids. We don't even know if these people are voting now without photo id.
Ah, all of a sudden, I don't see the My Esoteric stats.
The government mandates every one has a Social Security Number.
So, if the government mandates photo id to vote, and there are no facts to support why people can't get photo id's then it would be constitutional.
The SS number is a de facto National Id, and it is the bridge to identity theft. The government mandates SS number, but does little to protect the people from its targeted misuse.
That article was just blowing smoke.
- AUTHOR
That should be LW (landmark wealth).
As to voter fraud, try this, it is one of several: http://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud
This should do on the difficulty some people have in getting photo ID: http://rhrealitycheck.org/ablc/2014/10/16/well-act...
As to cherry picking, that's your fault; you write so damn much I can't get to it all, lol. So I pick the most interesting things, respond to that, don't Approve the comment so I can find it again, then come back later to work on more.
My Esoteric
You skipped over a lot of my comments and seemed to cherry pick.
If confuses me,especially who is LM?
Anyway, how can you have statistics about voting fraud when no one is checking. That is the whole purpose of requiring photo ID.
Can you describe these voters that will have a problem with getting a photo id for voting?
Seriously, how many of them can there be, and why can't they get one.
Thanks
- AUTHOR
LM - "We don't let young people buy liquor, or even smoke among other things without them having to show proof of age. "
ME - Are you putting being able to buy booze and smoke at the same level as the right to vote?
Don't you find it just a little bit strange "after 50 years of no problems" (I just picked the 1965 Voting Rights Act as a start point for grins-and-giggles), and I mean imperceptible abuse by non-eligible voters, that the Conservatives, and only the Conservatives, have decided there is a danger of voter fraud? Why now? Why now by the very type of people who were responsible for voter suppression from 1875 to 1965?
To me, it is not a coincidence that as soon as the Conservative Supreme Court gutted the Voters Right Act, Conservatives are at it again, passing laws right and left whose only effect is to deny minorities, the disabled, the elderly, the poor and anybody else where additional barriers tend to make it more difficult to cast their ballot. What is common about this cohort? They all tend to vote for Democrats.
What else can be the purpose be?
1. It can't be to prevent voter fraud ... there ISN'T ANY that is material.
2. Virtually the only lawmakers who are instituting these laws are Conservatives who have most to lose if more votes are cast for Democrats.
3. Most of these laws are in States who have a long history of voter suppression
4. The only cohort hurt by these laws tend to vote Democratic
The ONLY logical conclusion is these laws are designed to suppress votes.
As to why shouldn't people present picture ID again at the voting booth where their name is already on a list of qualified voters which is in the possession of the poll workers: my answer is why should they be? Requiring people show ID is an impediment to personal liberty and the only reason that liberty should be abridged is if it can be shown it will prevent a harm. Since not showing ID was not causing a problem, why limit a person's liberty unnecessarily? You have never answered that question.
-
-
My Esoteric
Conjecture
There is no female deity, Father, Son, and energy.
When the bible and the US Constitution speak of men, they are really talking about male, not mankind.
Women created from the rib of a man, makes women less than man, and that is what the world evolved around.
- AUTHOR
BM - "Why is it beneficial to propagate homosexuality which reduces the possible numbers of normal dna propagation."
ME - I'm not sure that is relevant since gender identity is part of the genetic code and it is going to do what it is going to do; in other words, it will propagate all on its own and never die out since it is not lethal nor does it materially reduce the population of heterosexuals.
Even if the world were made up of 100% gay and lesbian men and women. There is nothing at all preventing them from procreating as needed; its just that the mother and father may not a love attraction as in I want to spend my life with you (that, of course, was never the purpose of "traditional" marriage either except in debate out this subject).
- AUTHOR
Ahh, thanks for commenting @Deborah; I thought my commenting world had shrunk to two prolific individuals, @Bradmaster and @Landmarkwealth.
That is very interesting, what you present. I never knew its context, which, of course, changes the interpretation quite a bit. Thanks.
In Leviticus both woman and man are being warned about what they should not do, and are told they are not to obey the laws, or preform the actions of the pagans.
All of the rules in Leviticus have to do with Idolatry, and the rituals. Things also that are “unclean” ritualistically
Notice that women aren’t mentioned, as far as laying with women..Lev. 18 verse 23 warns women about lying with beasts, which is the verse right after verse 22 telling men not to lie with men, as with women.
That’s because Lev. 18:22 isn’t speaking of an everyday homosexual relationship, but of the Temple Male Prostitutes, and Idolatry.
They have found something very interesting, and something that may prove homosexuals are born, and that it's not a choice. I've written about this myself. If it goes the way we think, it may solve a lot of legal issues too
Now I hubber
My Esoteric
You wrote
Tell me, what is the purpose of marriage in today's society?'
bm:
To stay the same as it always was except that it should be taken away from the use by the federal government for taxes.
If I were to change it at all, I would take it out of the hands of the government completely. It was meant to be a religious ceremony and not to be used for reasons chosen by the government.
-----------
You wrote
Also, what is preventing a purely homesexual society from continuing. Simply because homosexuals "prefer" the same gender doesn't prevent them them from procreating with the opposite sex in order create the next generation?
bm:
That just continues the spread of a genetic defect, and it doesn't provide the child with two natural parents. It is like the adopted kid, that when it turns into an adult, it wants to find its bio;ogical parents.
------------
You wrote
The issue of marriage and tax is mute, it is what it is, universally.
bm:
It is not moot, and illegal drugs are used universally, so does that make it right?
------------
You wrote
As for gene propagation, just like the first "defect" for lighter skin, and by your definition, it is a defect, since it wasn't fatal, it propagated. This mutation, in fact, had beneficial effect in certain climates so it initially concentrated in certain areas of the world where it was useful and disappeared, for the most part, in areas where it wasn't (Africa).
bm:
You mistated my previous comment.
A defect is something that is not beneficial. The skin adaptation was beneficial.
It seems like you didn't read my previous comments.
---------------
You wrote
Had the light-skinned pigmentation mutation not been beneficial, it still would have maintained because it wasn't lethal, just like homosexuality, bisexuality and all the rest. It is simply an integral part of the human genome now along with all the different colored eyes, people who are naturally intuitive and those that aren't, people who are sad by nature and people who are happy, so on and so forth.
bm:
Homosexuality is in conflict with the whole purpose of our dna. Why would we want to make homosexuality a dominant persistent quality of human life. It serves no useful purpose, and it unnaturally spreads the genetic defect, as if we don't already have too many of them now.
We should be cleaning up our dna not continuing a contamination. There are many side effects due to the compromised copying of normal dna from those that have genetic defects including homosexuality.
The hormones are not in balance, and these differences can cause deviations in the brain function. Have you wondered why there are so many mentally ill people in the world today.
The human body and mind are being bombarded by bad genetics, and artificially generated alterations to our few existing normal dna.
Having mixed gender functionality, and emotions such as transgenders doesn't serve any useful purpose to continue generation after generation.
You still haven't answered the question of bisexuals, choice or defect?
------------
You wrote
Homosexuals are no more different from you than a black man is, assuming you aren't black.
bm:
A black man doesn't differ in normal dna function, while a homosexual of any color differs in many areas.
Do you want to stand by your statement?
Once again skin color is adaptation, what is homosexuality adapting?
-----------------
You wrote
Sterile men can't procreate and your claim is homosexuals can't either, that seems to be important to you. So if the military wants to ban gay guys, why not ban sterile guys as well because who knows what they are like. Obviously I am being sarcastic to make a point.
bm:
Asked and answered
-----------------
You wrote
As to marriage, I think, in a legal sense, it ought to be banned altogether. You and I seem to agree on that Only civil unions performed by the State ought to be recognized by the State. If religions want to partake of "marriage" whether it be for love or the more traditional bondage, then so be it. But, the only "legal" standing that marriage has is within that particular religion and any other religion who recognizes it. The State will not recognize it as a valid marriage.
The problem, of course, is religion will never let that happen.
bm:
The fact that religion has allowed marriage to be commandeered by the state and federal government means that they have already lost that battle.
As I said before, the government state and federal should disband their use of marriage, and replace it with a new created civil entity called a personal partnership.
The personal partnership will satisfy any of the uses of marriage for government purposes. That partnership can be any two humans, even those non homosexual relations that are preventing from marriage, such as incest.
As you will note by my last statement that I don't discriminate, but I don't believe the government should be the basis of discrimination as it has in its interference with marriage.
----------------
You wrote
But, by taking marriage off the table, then the whole argument can go away.
Civil Unions can be between two people who love each other and marriages can be for whatever reasons the church elders deem appropriate at the time "for normalcy's sake".
It is simply beyond my understanding how you can make some humans legal and some humans not legal. Why do I say that? Your statement "Then even if judicial notice for homosexual genetic deviance was acknowledged, then the only way to know if the individuals that want to invoke genetic defects as the reason for having a gay marriage, they would have to have a dna test to verify their legal grounds." causes me to say that. As hard as this sounds, back on the '30s Hitler substituted Jew for homosexual, and it wasn't until 1967 when the Supreme Court finally did away with similar reasoning for inter-racial marriages. Imagine, being a criminal if a black man married a white woman ... oh the horror!
bm:
This is the same reason why you don't agree with valid photo id for voting. They both require proof before they are allowed to invoke the rights.
We don't let young people buy liquor, or even smoke among other things without them having to show proof of age. So, how do we know that if homosexuality is a defect, that the person taking advantage of a legal right actually has that defect.
Why does a newborn baby have to be tagged with a SS #?
-------------------
You wrote
Imagine, being a criminal if a man marries a man ... of, the horror!
"So no one in the LGBT is a member of the NRA?" - That is an example of a non-sequitur statement.
bm:
I have to disagree as you made a categorical statement about guns, and it only follows that doesn't exclude homosexuals. So, if there was a non sequence, than it must have preceeded my statement.
-----------
Why is it beneficial to propagate homosexuality which reduces the possible numbers of normal dna propagation.
So, would you be against having a method similar to the rebooting of a computer to the default state before the blue screen of death shut down you computer, that would do the same for human genomes.
Think of all the bad traits that have been induced into our genes over time. How many people are born, not equal by deformities, with susceptibility to major debilitating and deadly diseases.
BTW, it would also totally wipe out homosexuality, and homo based attributes.
What would you do?
Thanks
bradmasterOC
- AUTHOR
Tell me, what is the purpose of marriage in today's society?
Also, what is preventing a purely homesexual society from continuing. Simply because homosexuals "prefer" the same gender doesn't prevent them them from procreating with the opposite sex in order create the next generation?
The issue of marriage and tax is mute, it is what it is, universally.
As for gene propagation, just like the first "defect" for lighter skin, and by your definition, it is a defect, since it wasn't fatal, it propagated. This mutation, in fact, had beneficial effect in certain climates so it initially concentrated in certain areas of the world where it was useful and disappeared, for the most part, in areas where it wasn't (Africa).
Had the light-skinned pigmentation mutation not been beneficial, it still would have maintained because it wasn't lethal, just like homosexuality, bisexuality and all the rest. It is simply an integral part of the human genome now along with all the different colored eyes, people who are naturally intuitive and those that aren't, people who are sad by nature and people who are happy, so on and so forth.
Homosexuals are no more different from you than a black man is, assuming you aren't black.
Sterile men can't procreate and your claim is homosexuals can't either, that seems to be important to you. So if the military wants to ban gay guys, why not ban sterile guys as well because who knows what they are like. Obviously I am being sarcastic to make a point.
As to marriage, I think, in a legal sense, it ought to be banned altogether. You and I seem to agree on that Only civil unions performed by the State ought to be recognized by the State. If religions want to partake of "marriage" whether it be for love or the more traditional bondage, then so be it. But, the only "legal" standing that marriage has is within that particular religion and any other religion who recognizes it. The State will not recognize it as a valid marriage.
The problem, of course, is religion will never let that happen.
But, by taking marriage off the table, then the whole argument can go away.
Civil Unions can be between two people who love each other and marriages can be for whatever reasons the church elders deem appropriate at the time "for normalcy's sake".
It is simply beyond my understanding how you can make some humans legal and some humans not legal. Why do I say that? Your statement "Then even if judicial notice for homosexual genetic deviance was acknowledged, then the only way to know if the individuals that want to invoke genetic defects as the reason for having a gay marriage, they would have to have a dna test to verify their legal grounds." causes me to say that. As hard as this sounds, back on the '30s Hitler substituted Jew for homosexual, and it wasn't until 1967 when the Supreme Court finally did away with similar reasoning for inter-racial marriages. Imagine, being a criminal if a black man married a white woman ... oh the horror!
Imagine, being a criminal if a man marries a man ... of, the horror!
"So no one in the LGBT is a member of the NRA?" - That is an example of a non-sequitur statement.
Time to go to bed.
MyEsoteric
You wrote
And to this "It is not on gender identification, but gender mis-identification.
That is why it is a genetic defect, as the intended target was not correctly copied. This happened somewhere in the beginning of civilization."
There are hundreds of millions of people out there with this set of genes and because they are built that way, you want to discriminate against them?
bm:
I explained in detail why the genes keep propagating even though a pure homosexual society couldn’t last beyond a generation.
How am I discriminating against them. I have not said anything about their basic rights, only that they don’t need to redefine marriage. I even advocated that th 1135 federal benefits be made available for a civi union.
This gives them equal rights, but as they don’t fit the marriage requirements, I am against a deviant group from destroying the normality of life.
Once again, you snip my comments and only choose those parts you want to attack. I also mentioned that a better solution is to get the federal government out of using marriage as a tax status.
Any couple should be allowed to take the tax advantage of a personal partnership. It is a more generic and encompassing position. There are many couples homosexual and heterosexual that want control over their SO but they don’t want to get married.
Marriage should be left as a religious function, and taxes should allow a broader inclusion of tax status once marriage is taken out of the IRC..
I beleve that is a better plan than the militant attack on traditional marriage posed by the LGBT and the ACLU. Government has no business, nor any expertise in social matters.
You wrote
It should not matter one bit to anybody what their genetic code is. Why does it matter to you?
Bm:
It matters because like smoker’s alleged rights, the constitution is being watered down for the purpose of a deviant group trying ti validate their CHOICEs.
The federal government has already stretched the constitution with the misuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause, Now the LGBT, which is not a homogeneous group itself,is using their political power and wealth to steamroll its ideaolgoy under the guise of the 14th amendment.
This is wrong, an f they want to do something this ridiculous, it should be done by amendment, as was done for the 15th, and 19tth amendment. -----------
You wrote
Pedohiles like little girls are not homosexuals are they? They are just pedophiles, regardless of which sex they prefer. Being homosexual in and of itself is not dangerous to humanity and should therefore not be criminalized.
Bm:
pedophilia n. an obsession with children as sex objects. Overt acts, including taking sexual explicit photographs, molesting children, and exposing one's genitalia to children are all crimes. The problem with these crimes is that pedophilia is also treated as a mental illness, and the pedophile is often released only to repeat the crimes or escalate the activity to the level of murder.
You wrote
I have no clue why pedophiles like children, maybe someday I'll research it and understand. But whether, like psychopathy, it is genetic based or not, it needs to be dealt with because of the harm it causes.
Bm:
Taking snippet without taking the full context leads me to having to repeat myself.
Sodomy was once illegal, but it is no longer thanks to the LGBT of protecting one of their maind sex acts. My previous comment referenced children and 13 is the biological age of adulthood, while the legal age is artificially chosen and therefore like the sodomy laws they can be changed.
So there is a nexus between the LGBT and their changing of the laws, that have the same basis as pedophiles. If the LGBT can changed the laws to suit themselves, then it should b available to other groups that claim they have no choice, but only show a choice without any other foundation to make their changes.
You wrote
I have no argument on besexuals, why should I? They aren't hurting anybody either. Nor are transvestites. I worry more about an NRA guy with a gun and an axe to grind.
Bm:
So no one in the LGBT is a member of the NRA?
The bisexuals are under the umbrella of the LGBT, and once again I have to repreat myself. They are simply making a choice, and they should not be included in the gay marriage.
The same is true of the transsexuals, and they also should not be part of the homosexuals. So any choice arguments should be left to the LG, and exclude the BT.
You wrote
What is your position on people with six toes, that is a defect; or how about three breasts (yes, they exist); or no arms? Are you going to treat them different?
Bm:
Yes, these are real generic defects, and we don’t currently treat them at all. While homosexuals don’t have the scientific backing of actual genetic defects want to be treated differently and better than those with proven genetic defects.
And the exmples that you mentioned don’t require a redefinition of marriage..
------------
Or better yet, given your argument about reproduction, how about somebody born sterile, that is a defect, and they can't reproduce just like a homosexual.
Bm:
Once again, your example doesn’t have to require a redefinition of marriage. And repreating myself, human genes create two symbiotic genders for the pupose of procreation period. But, that doesn’t mean that they have to procreate, it just means that they are able to procreate.
---------
What should be done about them?
Bm:
Nothing has to be done for them, because their defect is not a deviant ideology, or lifestyle.
---------------
Bm:
What does sterility have to do with the military?
It is the attraction of the LG to its own gender that is the problem, not lack of procreation.
I repeat myself, our country separates public areas such as rest rooms and dressing rooms by gender. The reason only works for heterosexuals, and it is based on sexual attraction. The LG renders that separation useless. That allows the fox in the hen house.
So far, I haven’t heard any valid arguments on how the LG All have the same common denominator to make it a legal fact that would be so overwhelming that we have to redefine normal marriage to try to fit them in it.
The only way to do that is for judicial notice to make genetic defects the reason for their homosexual choice. That would rule out bisexuals, because by definition they are simply making a choice.
Then even if judicial notice for homosexual genetic deviance was acknowledged, then the only way to know if the individuals that want to invoke genetic defects as the reason for having a gay marriage, they would have to have a dna test to verify their legal grounds.
I am not being emotional, subjective or religious about my views on gay marriage. I am being logical, and methodical about the basis of my arguments, but I don’t seem to see that in your responses.
Your questions of why should it matter to me are indications of no real argument to country my position. This is an observation and not a retort.
It is likewhen smoker’s declared a right to smoke, even in your personal space, and for several decades there was no effective challenge to their alleged rights.
The same is true of the LGBT as they have taken advantage of the utter collapse of congress, and the legal system to pitch a full on offense while the guard is down, and everyone has been trained to be PC.
I have written a lot to support my position on gay marriage, and much of it has been skipped over causing me to have to restate it.
Are there any valid, logical reasons that can be made to make my arguments fail under scrutiny as being false, or inaccurate?
Thanks
bradmasterOC
- AUTHOR
And to this "It is not on gender identification, but gender mis-identification.
That is why it is a genetic defect, as the intended target was not correctly copied. This happened somewhere in the beginning of civilization."
There are hundreds of millions of people out there with this set of genes and because they are built that way, you want to discriminate against them? It should not matter one bit to anybody what their genetic code is. Why does it matter to you?
Pedohiles like little girls are not homosexuals are they? They are just pedophiles, regardless of which sex they prefer. Being homosexual in and of itself is not dangerous to humanity and should therefore not be criminalized.
I have no clue why pedophiles like children, maybe someday I'll research it and understand. But whether, like psychopathy, it is genetic based or not, it needs to be dealt with because of the harm it causes.
I have no argument on besexuals, why should I? They aren't hurting anybody either. Nor are transvestites. I worry more about an NRA guy with a gun and an axe to grind.
What is your position on people with six toes, that is a defect; or how about three breasts (yes, they exist); or no arms? Are you going to treat them different? Or better yet, given your argument about reproduction, how about somebody born sterile, that is a defect, and they can't reproduce just like a homosexual. What should be done about them? Should they not serve in the military?
My Esoteric
Many of my answers here have already been posted in previous comments.
You wrote
"Pygmies and Watusis are more variety than defects." How do you determine the difference, all are based on different combination of alleles.
bm:
There is no functional loss because of their heights, it is a defect when people are not fully formed such as dwarfs, and midgets.
There are all sorts of birth defects, but color is not a defect it is once again and adaptation to the environment.
---------------
You wrote
No, I haven't answered your previous questions because my answers depend on your perceptions of these other questions. Exactly, on a genotype basis, is gender identification any different than skin pigmentation? My answer is emphatically "No" and yours seems to be just as emphatically "Yes".
bm:
It is not on gender identification, but gender mis-identification.
That is why it is a genetic defect, as the intended target was not correctly copied. This happened somewhere in the beginning of civilization.
--------
You wrote
Mine is no because it is shaped by such science as referenced in the following short section from this hub -
"Recent scientific research is showing that homosexuality appears to be expressed in this latter manner, called Epigenetics. There is a long string of empirical evidence showing that homosexuality can be generational, i.e., passed down through family generations. Most, but not all Identical vs. fraternal twin studies strongly suggest a partial genetic link to sexual orientation. More recent studies have focused on the Xq28, 7q36, 8p12, 10q26 genes,.from the X, 7th, 8th, and 10th chromosomes, respectively, being involved in sexual orientation.
bm:
Once again, this defect started early in civilization, but a population of homosexuals couldn't have survived even several generations before dying out, and that is why it is a defect.
Bisexual, and maybe even homosexuals engaged in normal sexual congress with a member of the opposite and that is how the damaged genes are propagated generation after generation.
------------
You wrote
It is becoming more apparent that it is these, and similar, genes, interacting with both the environment within the womb as well as later development after birth that ultimately determine if a person is going to be straight or LGBT. In fact, for epigenetic reasons having to do with hormonal resistance, scientists have found birth order is the best predictor of homosexuality in men, birth order! Studies show that each succeeding older brother has a 33% more chance of being gay."
bm:
Had we practice the survival of the fittest, these genes would have died off, but humans don't do what the animals do. When we inbreed German Shepards we propagate the hip defect. This is human decision to inbreed, it is not an animal instinct. The animals want to procreate and only do it with the strongest genes for their specifies. Humans screw up that basis survival concept.
-------
You wrote
You should see why your arguments based on "The whole purpose of the human DNA is to construct two symbiotic reproductive humans. The entire differences between the two not three or four genders is based on the ability of humans and primates to procreate, and thereby continue the existence of the species." is moot. Why, because you, nor I, don't know that this is ALL there is. Certainly, procreation is a requirement, but it is only your judgement that homosexual behavior serves no purpose whatsoever. That could very well be true OR it could just as likely be true that it serves some purpose you haven't thought of.
bm:
It is only moot because you say so, as you have not proffered any scientific basic to support it.
If homosexuality is not a defect, than it is a simple choice. You can't successfully argued both.
There is no reason why homosexuality is an attribute of our DNA, as it doesn't complete the purpose of two genders which is procreation. Once again, homosexuals cannot procreate, and they cannot sustain themselves generation after generation, that requires the intended use of our DNA.
From your knowledge of science and genetics, you should agree that homosexuals, and especially transgenders are defects of the copy function of DNA.
Once a defect is introduced into DNA from whatever reason, there is a high degree that it will copy this corruption, in the same manner that our attributes are copied.
The difference between the concept of passing on brown eyes or blue eyes and passing on homosexuality is that the former is not a defect.
Why would we ever want homosexuality to be a dominant gene?
The environment, and the changes that we made in our food supply, and even water, plus all the chemicals that we find common place today may have corrupted our immune system, but homosexuality corrupted genes have been around since early civilization was formed.
i never said that homosexuals are bad people, but I do say that I don't like the militant and devious actions of their groups that supposedly represent All of them.
Propagating defective genes can't possibly be a good thing.
I don't see any merit in your response.
-------------------------
You wrote
What I know is that homosexuality has been around since recorded history and it occurs in a lot of animals. For example, as of 1999, it has been observed in over 1500 species from primates to gut worms (Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999; ISBN 978-0312253776)
bm:
When you stray from primates you are outside of any possible comparison. Homosexuality in primates is most likely a result of the survival of the fittest getting most of the females. So the males, like humans in prison masturbate by themselves, and then do mutual masturbation with another of their same gender.
This is certainly not an example of good genes.
----------
So where do you stand on pedophiles?
They are homosexuals?
They just like children because they can't compete in an adult relationship.
Legally adult age begins somewhere from 16 to 21
but physiologically it starts at 13.
So are they making a choice or is a gene defect?
Should they be treated any differently than homosexuals?
-------
Also, what is your argument on bisexuals?
bradmasterOC
- AUTHOR
"Pygmies and Watusis are more variety than defects." How do you determine the difference, all are based on different combination of alleles.
No, I haven't answered your previous questions because my answers depend on your perceptions of these other questions. Exactly, on a genotype basis, is gender identification any different than skin pigmentation? My answer is emphatically "No" and yours seems to be just as emphatically "Yes".
Mine is no because it is shaped by such science as referenced in the following short section from this hub -
"Recent scientific research is showing that homosexuality appears to be expressed in this latter manner, called Epigenetics. There is a long string of empirical evidence showing that homosexuality can be generational, i.e., passed down through family generations. Most, but not all Identical vs. fraternal twin studies strongly suggest a partial genetic link to sexual orientation. More recent studies have focused on the Xq28, 7q36, 8p12, 10q26 genes,.from the X, 7th, 8th, and 10th chromosomes, respectively, being involved in sexual orientation.
It is becoming more apparent that it is these, and similar, genes, interacting with both the environment within the womb as well as later development after birth that ultimately determine if a person is going to be straight or LGBT. In fact, for epigenetic reasons having to do with hormonal resistance, scientists have found birth order is the best predictor of homosexuality in men, birth order! Studies show that each succeeding older brother has a 33% more chance of being gay."
You should see why your arguments based on "The whole purpose of the human DNA is to construct two symbiotic reproductive humans. The entire differences between the two not three or four genders is based on the ability of humans and primates to procreate, and thereby continue the existence of the species." is moot. Why, because you, nor I, don't know that this is ALL there is. Certainly, procreation is a requirement, but it is only your judgement that homosexual behavior serves no purpose whatsoever. That could very well be true OR it could just as likely be true that it serves some purpose you haven't thought of.
What I know is that homosexuality has been around since recorded history and it occurs in a lot of animals. For example, as of 1999, it has been observed in over 1500 species from primates to gut worms (Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999; ISBN 978-0312253776)
My Esoteric
There is a difference between variety and defect.
Pygmies and Watusis are more variety than defects.
Much like blonde hair and blue eyes, versus brown hair and brown eyes.
None of these goes against the purpose of the complimentary two gender system based on our DNA.
Skin pigmentation is an adaptation based on living in a certain environment, but what does homosexuality adapt to?
Race, color, or ethnicity don't go against the purpose of our DNA, but that can't be said of homosexuality.
You have not really addressed the basis of my opinion described in my last comment and your comment is a red herring to detract from the core issue.
I don't base my opinions on emotion, I try to use logic and intelligence. I may sometimes go off the rails on that, but when I do, I don't have a problem being called on it.
Thanks
bradmasterOC
- AUTHOR
Before I make a full reply to these two comments, let me ask what is your response to this?
I presume you are caucasian, like I am. If so, then I will make the categorical statement that we are "defective" to use your terminology. Why? Because original humanoids were black. That was the "normal" genetic pigmentation until a mutation occurred. What is your response?
My Esoteric
Homosexuality has nothing to do with religion.
I detest the use of the word homophobic to describe any one who opposes homosexuality.
If there is enough science to proof homosexuality is more than a choice, why hasn't the SC been to use it as judicial notice making is a legal fact?
How are bisexuals not making a choice?
If it is genetics and not a choice for the dissimilar members of the LGBT, then it is a genetic defect.
The whole purpose of the human DNA is to construct two symbiotic reproductive humans. The entire differences between the two not three or four genders is based on the ability of humans and primates to procreate, and thereby continue the existence of the species.
A purely homosexual population couldn't sustain itself.
Two things have kept homosexual genetic defects alive.
1. Humans don't practice the survival of the fittest so that defects are not propagated from generation to generation.
2. Bisexuals perform the connection to continue the defects generation after generation.
The complimentary organs, and hormones of the two human genders is a fit for the purpose of sustaining human life. That doesn't mean that every man and woman has to procreate, it just means that it is available as a normal function.
Homosexuals have no such purpose, and there is nothing that is normal in their relationship. Sexual relations between them can not be done in any normal manner. It is mutual masturbation.
The reason that we have separated the two genders in public areas such as restrooms is to reduce the normal sexual tension between them. As well as protecting the children from the opposite sex, more so for the males.
So with homosexuals how is this process of separation working?
In addition, how close are pedophiles to vanilla homosexuals?
On an individual basis, I don't have a problem with homosexuals, but when they form a powerful wealthy, and politically militant group to force their choice into normality, then I am opposed that intrusion on society.
Twisting the constitution to force validation of their lifestyle is not helping their cause. Redefining marriage to make their square peg fit is like calling a bowl of lettuce a salad.
Normality in the world is opposites attract, and likes repel.
A magnet has intrinsic properties such that to change them it is no longer a magnet.
As for marriage it is the intrusion of the federal government that makes this an issue for gays.
The states have the domain over marriage, and yet the marital status is the major function of the federal income tax.
Without the income tax there would be no need to give special status to marriage.
Civil Unions can be given the same federal benefits as traditional marriage, but homosexuals don't want equality, they want validation.
Gay marriages also don't help couples that don't want marriage or civil unions, but they do want to share with their partners as if married.
A personal partnership could be created for government tax purposes that would allow any two people to combine in a partnership to get government benefits without the need to get married.
What business is it anyway of the government to get involved in marriage, including the state government. There is no constitutional right of marriage in the constitution. And a common right shouldn't be changed from state to state.
Had the SCOTUS had judicial notice of genetics causing homosexuality they wouldn't have declined to answer the constitutional issue of gay marriage bans. Additionally, calling the ban by the states as unconstitutional means that it is now controlled by the federal government. As such, it has to be deemed a federal right, and not a states rights.
So in order for the ban on gay marriages to be removed, so must the control of marriage be removed from the states, as it exists for race.
We would also have to remove the differences of gender that allow men to go topless in public, and women to be clothed.
Redefinition for a major deviance of the genders just doesn't make any sense. We could also lower the age of consent to the biological age for adults, which is 13, and that would allow them to marry what are now artificially classified as children.
When do we stop redefining for the benefits of a deviance from the natural to appease groups that have power?
bradmasterOC
My Esoteric
What you are saying here is that homosexuality is a genetic defect.
Clearly, it is deviant from the purpose of the genes which provides from complimentary genders for the purpose of procreation.
This has nothing to do with religion or God, it has to do with human genetics.
Too date there is no judicial notice to make the claim of homosexuality not being a simple choice.
The lesbians and gays are not attracted sexually to the opposite sex. Is it a fact, that all of them are doing so because something like an irresistible impulse, and none of them are not simply making a choice?
Now, how is choice or irresistible impulse a factor in bisexuals?
Because they can go both ways, should we allow them to pick a spouse from each of the genders?
Transgenders are the most visual example of a genetic defect, where the cloning process go confused and created the wrong body for the hormones, and the mind of that person.
So, if there is a genetic defect, then why can't the scientific experts convince the courts to take it as judicial notice?
The reason for many human genetic defects is that unlike the animals we don't practice the survival of the fittest. This allows defects to carry on from generation to generation.
Pedophiles and sex offenders are also compelled by an irresistible impulse.
My point is that it is difficult with the free will of humans to rule out simple choice?
We should be more interested in bringing the full power of our human genes back to a pristine state instead of encouraging genetic defects. The genetic defects that we have today are the source of most of our auto immune system diseases. They are numerous, and they go from simple allergies, to chronic and deadly diseases.
Since our beginning the human genes had defenses to protect us from disease, and even today most of our healing is done by are immune system. For example, the cold, the flue and others are not cured by doctors or drugs, they are the result of our immune system working to render the disease no longer affecting us. So many of our drugs don't do anything but treat the annoying symptoms of diseases, but a properly working immune system can get at the root cause of the disease, and control it or kill it.
The real issue then is not the LGBT, but getting our immune system repaired, and not propagating genetic defects from generation to generation.
Thanks
bradmasterOC
- AUTHOR
Thanks, @Electro.
This is a good article on a tricky subject (well, not so tricky, in the long term...). Enjoyable to read as well.
- AUTHOR
Thank you @phdast.
Excellent as usual. Well laid out, rationale arguments and no hysteria. A pleasure to read and ponder. Thanks.
31