...
I said that what you (your articles) imply is not valid because we have evidence that the homosexuality was expressed without modern toxins.
Gene expression can be influenced by various environmental factors (stress etc), but you have to have the right genes to begin with. External stimuli like modern toxins cannot account for the level of 'gay gene expressions' that are (were) expressed in nature. Mutations do happen but are rare and it takes generations to change the gene pool makeup.
...
Homosexuality is natural. It exists in nature. The root cause is probably a response to control propagation of one's genes.
...
Again your argument in no way shows that the findings of the scientific studies I highlighted are false. What you are essentially saying is that homosexuality is natures mechanism for eliminating entire individuals from the gene pool. Basically you are making the claim that it is a scaled up form of cellular apoptosis. Cellular apoptosis for those who do not know is a form of biological cell death. If a cell is catastrophically damaged by toxins or trauma it is considered a danger to the organism. Cells that sustain such damage are hardwired to stop reproducing and self destruct. This process is called Programmed Cell Death or Intrinsic Apoptosis. Every cell in the body has this hard wiring and will self destruct if sufficiently damaged. It is natures primary mechanism of suppressing and preventing cancer. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/intrinsic-apoptosisYour claim while not impossible is extremely controversial to put it mildly. I am not aware of any data supporting it. Do you have any evidence for it? Furthermore even if you are correct the conclusions you are drawing remain flawed. Let's run with your hypothesis for a moment and say homosexuality is a programmed mechanism of genetic suicide that is triggered when mother nature decides an individual cannot be allowed to propagate himself to the next generation. That just pushes the questions back one step. Why is mother nature's condemning so many individuals to reproductive failure? It is toxin exposure? That's whats known to trigger this mechanism on a cellular level. Or is it some other danger to the species as a whole that remains unrecognized? Nature is not God. If there is a natural mechanism in place that declares certain individuals damaged and eliminates them from the gene pool wouldn't it be better to figure out what was triggering the mechanism and fix the actual problem rather then condemning countless individuals to nature's scissors? |
|
|
|
...
You don't get to sidestep the question. You stated that toxin exposure could not be responsible for the modern rise in homosexual behavior because homosexuality existed in ancient times. This is a ridiculous statement. It's like saying it's impossible for cigarettes to cause lung cancer because ancient people sometimes got lung cancer. I cited three separate studies highlighting three separate and widely used toxins all of which have now been shown to cause homosexuality in various species of animals. I also cited another study where it has been shown that human homosexuality is linked to chemical changes in DNA. You say you are an engineer and value logic so be logical. Admit you are wrong, or defend your argument. |
|
|
|
... Have you heard of Biology? Try reading some Biology textbooks for a change. You might learn something. ... Homosexuality existed in ancient times, so your argument that it is induced by the modern pollution is not valid. I see so according to these "Biology textbooks" you like to read a condition that existed at low levels in the past cannot be exacerbated or triggered by an exposure to a toxin or environmental trigger? Lung cancer predates cigarettes so cigarettes can't cause lung cancer? Is "Biology textbooks" your secret code word for LGBTQ magazines? |
|
|
|
These two clowns know one thing: "Bible is God inspired, we need to defend it no matter how silly we look."
...
This whole book is a joke, and these two imbeciles are trying to defend something that cannot be defended unless you go back in time.
Well for any readers looking to make this determination for themselves as opposed to taking your word for it I will repeat my prior recommendation. For a skeptic looking to understand the overarching logical framework of the Bible a reasonable place to start is with Dennis Prager's book The Rational Bible or Jordan Peterson's online Biblical Lectures Series. Both them explore the logical depths of the text and do so from a rational perspective. |
|
|
|
My feeling is that homosexuality is perfectly natural process of restricting or completely eliminating some genes from the gene pool. The key word is natural. You fail to see it. Your judgement is clouded by your religious indoctrination.
Remind me not to trust your feelings. The key word here is unnatural and the evidence for that is growing every year. Mercury Poisoning Makes Birds Act HomosexualMetal may influence sexual development in white ibises, expert says.https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101203-homosexual-birds-mercury-science/A Common Herbicide Turns Some Male Frogs into FemalesOne of the mostly widely used weed killers, atrazine, may be disrupting male frogs' sexual development--even reversing ithttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/common-herbicide-turns-male-frogs-into-females/Exposure to BPA potentially induces permanent reprogramming of painted turtles' brainsBPA can disrupt sexual function and behavior in painted turtles. Now, the team has identified the genetic pathways that are altered as a result of BPA exposurehttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170517143612.htmHomosexuality may be caused by chemical modifications to DNAAssociations between specific epi-marks predicted sexual orientation with almost 70% accuracy.https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dnaYour logic of assigning homo sapiens some special 'sin' status is hilarious.
One of the primary themes of the Bible is that it is the knowledge of good and evil that separates us from the animals. To knowingly choose evil is to sin. Animals do not know what evil is and thus cannot sin. The fact that you find that hilarious is odd. |
|
|
|
From your Wikipedia link above. "although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."[8] One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[9][10] "About 10% of rams (males), refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."[10]
So the one known example of large scale exclusive homosexual behavior occurs in domesticated sheep? Ovis aries has been artificially selected by humans for at least 12,000 years. Thousands of years of artificial inbreeding, linebreeding, and outcrossing makes for a bad example when discussing nature and natural law. Or are you trying to say that humans are like domesticated sheep? I agree that there are certain similarities. Sheep Logic - This Is The Age Of The High-Functioning Sociopathhttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-06/sheep-logic-age-high-functioning-sociopath These are baby-doll Southdowns, and yes, they’re exactly as cute as they look in this picture. We only have four today on our “farm”, as sheep have a knack for killing themselves in what would almost be comical fashion if it weren’t so sad. We keep them for their so-so wool, which we clean and card and spin and knit. It’s so-so wool because the Southdowns were bred for their meat, not their fleece, and I can’t bring myself to raise an animal for its meat. Well, I could definitely raise birds for meat. Or fish. But not a charismatic mammal like a baby-doll Southdown.
Here’s the thing I’ve learned about sheep over the years. They are never out of sight of each other, and their decision making is entirely driven by what they see happening to others, not to themselves. They are extremely intelligent in this other-regarding way. My sheep roam freely on the farm, and I never worry about them so long as they stay together, which they always do. But if I only count three in the flock, then I immediately go see what’s wrong. Because something is definitely wrong.
That’s the difference between a flock and a pack. A flock is a social structure designed to promote other-awareness. It has no goals, no coordinating purpose other than communication. A flock simply IS. A pack, on the other hand, is a social structure designed to harness self-aware animals in service to some goal requiring joint action — the raising of cubs, the hunting of meat, etc. Both the flock and the pack are extremely effective social structures, but they operate by entirely different logics.
We think we are wolves, living by the logic of the pack.
In truth we are sheep, living by the logic of the flock.
* * *
There’s no domesticated animal species that has had more of a reputational fall from grace than the sheep. To call someone a sheep today is just about the worst insult there is. To call someone a sheep is to call them stupid and — more pointedly — stupidly obedient and in thrall to some bad shepherd.
It wasn’t always this way. Jesus isn’t insulting you when He calls you a sheep. The point of all those Biblical allegories isn’t that sheep are stupidly obedient or easily led, but that the healthy life of a willful sheep requires a good shepherd.
Ask anyone who actually keeps sheep. Sheep are weird. Sheep are evolved to have a very different intelligence than humans. But sheep are not stupid. Sheep are not obedient. And sheep are definitely not easily led.
Of course, no one except a dilettante farmer like me keeps sheep today, so all of the Old Stories about sheep and shepherds have lost their punch. They’ve all been diminished through the modern lens of sheep-as-idiot-followers...
Sheep are evolved to have a specific type of intelligence which has the following hallmarks.
Enormous capacity for other-regarding behaviors. Sheep are unbelievably sensitive to what other sheep are doing and their emotional states. If another sheep is happy — i.e., it’s found a good source of food, which is the only thing that makes a sheep happy — then every other sheep in the flock is filled with jealousy (there’s really no other word for it) and will move in on that good thing. If another sheep is alarmed — which can be from almost anything, as bravery is not exactly a trait that tends to be naturally selected in a prey species — then every other sheep in the flock is immediately aware of what’s going on. Sometimes that means that they get alarmed, too. As often, though, it’s just an opportunity to keep going with your own grazing without worrying about the alarmed sheep bumping into your happy place.
Zero altruism and overwhelming selfishness. The most popular misconception about sheep is that they are obedient followers. It’s true that they’re not leaders. It’s true that they are incredibly sensitive to other sheep. But it’s also true that they are the most selfish mammal I’ve ever encountered. They don’t lead other sheep or form leadership structures like a pack because they don’t care about other sheep. Every sheep lives in a universe of One, which makes them just about the most non-obedient creature around.
The determination to pursue any behavior that meets Hallmark #1 and #2 to absurd ends, even unto death. My worst sheep suicide story? The first year we kept sheep, we thought it would make sense to set up a hay net in their pen, which keeps the hay off the ground and lets the sheep feed themselves by pulling hay through the very loose loops of the net. Turned out, though, that the loops were so loose that a determined sheep could put her entire head inside the net, and if one sheep could do that, then two sheep could do that. And given how the hay net was hung and how these sheep were sensing each other, they started to move clockwise in unison, each trying to get an advantage over the other, still with their heads stuck in the net. At which point the net starts to tighten. And tighten. And tighten. My daughter found them the next morning, having strangled each other to death, unable to stop gorging themselves or seeking an advantage from the behavior of others. The other sheep were crowded around, stepping around the dead bodies, pulling hay for themselves out of the net. That was a bad day.
In both markets and in politics, our human intelligences are being trained to be sheep intelligences. That doesn’t make us sheep in the modern vernacular.
We are not becoming docile, stupid, and blindly obedient. On the contrary, we are becoming sheep as the Old Stories understood sheep … intensely selfish, intensely intelligent (but only in an other-regarding way) and intensely dogmatic, willing to pursue a myopic behavior even unto death.
...
We need a lot more shame in the world. The loss of our sense of shame is, I think, the greatest loss of our modern world... to put it in sheep logic terms: the tragedy of the flock is that everything is instrumental, including our relationship to others. Including our relationship to ourselves.
Why do we need shame? Because with no sense of shame there is no sense of honor. There is no mercy. There is no charity. There is no forgiveness. There is no loyalty. There is no courage. There is no service. There is no Code. There are no ties that bind us as citizens, as fellow pack members seeking to achieve something bigger and more important than our ability to graze on as much grass as we can. Something like, you know, liberty and justice for all...
This is the Age of the High-Functioning Sociopath. This is the Age of Sheep Logic. We have to survive it, but we don’t have to succumb to it. How do we Resist?
...
We resist by changing the System from below, by carving out local spheres of action where we are relentlessly honorable and charitable, relentlessly un-sheeplike. We resist by Making America Good Again, one pack at a time, which is a hell of a lot harder than making America great ever was.
...
...
I think your IQ is below average
...
'sin' only applies to homo sapiens? You are digging deeper and deeper hole for yourself.
...
You are fan of Mormons, what is your view of polygamy? You support it? I bet you do.
Sin my ass, I don't even know what 'sin' suppose to be.
...
Random topics here but you were better off with the insanity argument. There is a reason my second citation in this thread was from Mensa magazine. Sin by definition requires knowledge of good and evil so yes it is uniquely human. No one thinks that a lion who eats a man sinned. Polygamy is harmful to society under most but not all circumstances. Thus it is illegal which is reasonable. Here is an interesting article on the topic. The link between polygamy and warPlural marriage, bred of inequality, begets violencehttps://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-link-between-polygamy-and-war...thus homosexuality is not a sin, you failed again.
Unfortunately I have a significant project coming up so I must bow out of the conversation for a couple of weeks. For the record I do not believe male homosexuality prevents one from being an amazing person. Nor does it prevent one from being a force for good in the world. However, it is clearly a tragic condition that is biologically quite harmful to those unlucky enough to suffer from it. Female homosexuality is a separate issue and appears to be much less biologically harmful. We have both articulated our positions and appear unlikely to reach consensus. |
|
|
|
You are looking at this from a completely wrong angle.
It could be that nature makes you gay because it wants to rid of your genes. Perfectly natural process, IMHO. We see homosexual behaviors in other animals.
This talk about sin is just nonsense. It is what it is. It is like saying nature is a sin.
Go see a professional...
Go see a professional said the fool for I am wise. You have it backwards once again. Nature is not sin. Willful violation of natural law is. Natural law is inviolable. No amount of rationalizing or self justification will protect an individual or society that violates it. If you convince people they can act in ways that violate natural law without consequences then you have lied. Whatever other factors may be present in an act of wrongdoing, folly is one that is never absent. To do a wrong act a man must for the moment think wrong; he must exercise bad judgment.
Sin, I repeat, in addition to anything else it may be, is always an act of wrong judgment. To commit a sin a man must for the moment believe that things are different from what they really are; he must confound values; he must see the moral universe out of focus; he must accept a lie as truth and see truth as a lie; he must ignore the signs on the highway and drive with his eyes shut; he must act as if he had no soul and was not accountable for his moral choices.
Sin is never a thing to be proud of. No act is wise that ignores remote consequences, and sin always does. Sin sees only today, or at most tomorrow; never the day after tomorrow, next month or next year. Death and judgment are pushed aside as if they did not exist...
Sin is basically an act of moral folly, and the greater the folly the greater the fool.
|
|
|
|
If you agree the bible is wrong, why do you still believe in a god or the bible?
I don't agree that the Bible is wrong. Many of the rules listed in Exodus for example seem dated. Not many people own oxen for example. However, almost any legal code becomes dated in its specifics. The issue is the values and teaching we can derive from the law. The depth reveals itself on deeper reflection “Things that at first appear irrelevant, primitive, or even immoral turn out to be important and often great moral leaps forward.” -Dennis Prager - The Rational Bible--Exodus Being infertile is not a sin, engaging in sex when you are is. See how that works, it doesn't."
Being infertile is not a sin, deliberately making yourself infertal via castration or chemical sterilization because it makes you happy is. Severe depression is not a sin. Committing suicide because you are depressed is. Pathological dislike of your weight is not a sin. Starving yourself with aneorexia is. Now do you see how that works? Again, why would you have to cure it? I personally don't want children, does that make me a sinner too? Should I also get ''cured'' because I don't want kids? Your logic is absolutely garbage here.
Unless you have a very good reason for choosing extinction over life such as being the carrier of a horrible and untreatable genetic disease then yes your behavior is irrational and not compatible with sustained existence. You should seek to explore the beliefs led you to embrace death over life and change them.
Homosexuality is not a sin, is not morally wrong and doesn't hurt anyone directly, the bible is wrong, god is not real, stop believing fairy tails.
Yes this seems to be the progression of your thought process. First a small error in denial of the reality of a single sin with subsequent extrapolation to ever larger errors until you end up arguing that your genetic death is a great thing because it makes you happy. Sin is a bad idea or harmful deed something that leads to undesirable things happening to you. At a deeper level sin is not just a harmful deed, but a harmful deed that disrupts ones "life" with life defined as synonymous with ones connection to God. Sin is a disruption of this connection and thus sin is death. Sin is also folly for it is ultimately irrational to consciously choose self harm and death over life and self preservation. Finally sin is an opportunity to recognize our failings and understand the negative consequences of harmful deeds. Thus sin is also an opportunity to redeem ourselves by refining our nature and rejecting the sin. Acting on male homosexual desires meets all of the criteria of sin. Thus it is sin. There are lots of sins. Homosexuality does not even make the top 10. It's minor league sin. |
|
|
|
...
You are underestimating the gains Atheists have made.
You are done in Europe
...
I am well aware of the large gains Atheists have made especially in Europe. Sadly I cannot dispute the claim that Europe is lost. Atheist predominance in one geographic area, however, does not make your total denial of the trends in multiple other geographic areas any less silly. Here is some news that won't require you to jump through hoops of denial or struggle to misinterpret. Atheism Overtakes Religious Faith in Norwayhttp://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/03/22/for-first-time-in-history-atheism-overtakes-religious-faith-in-norway/Sweden 'least religious' nation in Western worldhttps://www.thelocal.se/20150413/swedes-least-religious-in-western-world/amp52.1% of East Germans identify as Atheists.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/22/atheism-east-germany-godless-placePS. Would you hire an engineer who professes he is a Mormon? I would question his judgement.
I visited both a Mormon church and a orthodox Jewish synagogue once when I was doing research for the opening post of this thread. The Jewish service was entirely in Hebrew so I did not understand much but they were welcoming. The Mormons have an interesting central service that is attended by all members even very small children. It made for a somewhat noisy but very family friendly dynamic. I would be much more likely to hire an observant Jew or a temple visiting Mormon over an rabid atheist assuming they were all qualified for the job. With the former you know their moral code and can better predict their behavior. With the latter you have no idea what they they believe in increasing the risk of erratic and unanticipated behavior. |
|
|
|
The War on Wisdom ContinuesCalifornia Assembly Bill 2943 would make the selling or advertising of sexual or gender conversion therapy a violation of the state’s consumer fraud laws.Does Science Support Bans on ‘Conversion Therapy’ for Gender-Identity Issues? http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/does-science-support-bans-on-conversion-therapy-for-gender-identity-issues#.Wv85_kFlCEc...
Transgender-rights activists are adopting claims of the therapy’s harm as they seek to ban therapies designed to help patients realign their gender identity with their biological sex.
...
Dr. Paul Hruz, a pediatric endocrinologist at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, challenges the claim that science supports a ban on corrective or neutral responses to this condition. Likewise, he questioned whether research endorses an “affirmative model,” which has led to guidelines that direct students to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity.
“The vast majority of children with gender dysphoria will realign their gender identity to match their sex,” Hruz told the Register.
“The transgender identity will persist in a small percentage, 5%-20%, and usually the dividing line is adolescence,” he added.
He noted that those who identify as their opposite sex after their teenage years are less likely to change. He also emphasized that specialists still cannot predict “who will continue in that transgender identity and who will not.”
Given these established facts about the small percentage of young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria — about 0.05% of the population — Hruz worried that the “affirming model” could lead more young people to retain their identification with the opposite sex into adulthood and may play a role in the reported increase in adolescents receiving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone therapy, often in preparation for “sex reassignment” surgery that alters their bodies to appear more like the sex with which they identify.
Hruz is equally concerned about the long-term impact of puberty suppressants, which are introduced around age 12, and cross-sex hormones, introduced after age 14.
The Endocrine Society supports these medical interventions for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria. But the guidelines published by the professional society acknowledge that they are based on low-quality scientific evidence, and in many areas solely on expert opinion and not scientific studies, Hruz said.
“Puberty suppression — the first stage during which endocrinologists are asked to intervene — is presented as ‘safe and reversible,’” he said. “But there is no scientific evidence to support the view that this is safe.”
“You are disrupting the normal process of physical and psychological development that takes place during this period, and that could have serious long-term consequences,” Hruz stated.
The American College of Pediatricians’ statement raised similar concerns. Treatment protocols that combine puberty suppressants and cross-sex hormones result “in the sterility of minors,” the professional group stated, while disputing the scientific basis for arguments that present gender-identity disorder as “innate,” and thus fixed.
...
clinicians may find themselves under attack if they seek to cure, rather than affirm, patients dealing with gender dysphoria.
The story of Kenneth Zucker, a leading Canadian researcher and clinician who adopted a nuanced two-step approach for treating children with gender dysphoria, is instructive.
For decades, Zucker operated without much public controversy as he encouraged his patients to realign their gender with their biological sex and only approved medical interventions when the initial therapy proved unsuccessful.
“Just because kids are saying something doesn’t necessarily mean you accept it, or that it’s true, or that it could be in the best interests of the child,” said Zucker, explaining his approach in a BBC documentary, Transgender Kids: Who Knows Best?
Then, a few years ago, Zucker began to face mounting criticism from “LGBT” activists. And in late 2015, he was fired from his post.
“For more than 30 years Dr. Kenneth Zucker ran Canada’s biggest child gender clinic and was considered a recognized authority on childhood gender dysphoria, until he lost his job,” read a statement released by the BBC, defending the film. “He believes he was fired for challenging the gender affirmative approach.”
...
Activists launched a petition campaign to prevent the airing of the BBC documentary. That effort failed, but it marked their strong desire to control the debate over treatment options and force skeptics in the medical community to fall in line.
The perplexing refusal to tolerate therapies designed to foster an alignment between gender identity and sex has already made it tough for psychologists, doctors and families who want to help patients resolve problems that are associated with serious mental-health problems.
...
Meanwhile, the furious reaction of activists to the nuanced methods of experts like Kenneth Zucker highlights the political stakes for the “LGBT” movement, which increasingly opposes any suggestion that gender (identity) may not be a fixed condition. That resistance deserves more scrutiny from policymakers than it has received, say critics who argue that gender ideology, not science, is behind this trend.
|
|
|
|
... Clearly homosexuality is a tragic condition the mismatch of desire with biological reality that is to some degree inherent. Equally clear is that the response of society to this condition should be to try and help people who have it especially males as they appear to be by far the most damaged by it. Why do you think it is not "bad"? It is definitely biologically harmful to the males who are unlucky enough to have it. Research on the condition indicates that it varies in severity. Some suffer from an extreme variant that makes functional reproductive activity inconceivable. Others have a milder variant where they have some greater or lesser degree of choice. The condition can thus be looked at as a disability that is partially inherent and partially transmissible to susceptible individuals. That ultimately is the argument of Oxford professor of philosophy Richard Swinburne. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg37626428#msg37626428I see no logical flaws in his reasoning. ... ... I don't even know what you are trying to argue here. Just admit it, homosexuality is not a sin and homosexuals shouldn't be killed. I am sorry you do not understand. The argument was clear enough. Maybe if you read it again slowly it will come together for you. There are many sins and we are all sinners of varying degrees. I for example have not honored the Sabbath for most of my adult life violating one of the 10 commandments. That's major sin much higher league then mundane homosexuality. I have mentioned several times now that I don't think homosexuals should be killed. Why repeat the same questions over and over? Being a homosexual is not a sin. Engaging in homosexuality is. Any free choice that unnecessarily harms the self and/or others is a sin. Professor Swinburne correctly noted that homosexual acts qualify. The bigger problem is not so much the sin we are all sinners. The serious problem is the inversion of reality that follows the denial of sin. Once we celebrate sin we are in trouble as we lose the ability to gradually move towards rectification and improvement. In the case of homosexuality long term rectification of the sin would require we find a way to cure it. Given our current rate of technological progress that should be possible in the near future if we prioritized it. However, we won't prioritize it. That is the evil that comes from celebration of sin. Not only will we not prioritize it attempts will be made to ban and outlaw the quest for a cure. That is the inevitable insanity that results from the celebration of sin. |
|
|
|
...
Anyone who advocates Bible's moral code is just a psychopath.
...
A recent study estimated that there will be 2.6 billion Christians by 2020. Which is more likely that there are 2.6 billion psychopaths in the world or that you lack the wisdom or intellect to understand the moral code the Bible makes possible? Ultimately the readers of this thread will need to decide for themselves. |
|
|
|
You know exactly what I'm asking and you are not able to provide evidence on why homosexuality is bad (pd: it's not).
That's is a challenging question. Clearly homosexuality is a tragic condition the mismatch of desire with biological reality that is to some degree inherent. Equally clear is that the response of society to this condition should be to try and help people who have it especially males as they appear to be by far the most damaged by it. Why do you think it is not "bad"? It is definitely biologically harmful to the males who are unlucky enough to have it. Research on the condition indicates that it varies in severity. Some suffer from an extreme variant that makes functional reproductive activity inconceivable. Others have a milder variant where they have some greater or lesser degree of choice. The condition can thus be looked at as a disability that is partially inherent and partially transmissible to susceptible individuals. That ultimately is the argument of Oxford professor of philosophy Richard Swinburne. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg37626428#msg37626428I see no logical flaws in his reasoning. The issue would be less problematic if those with this tragic condition made every effort not to spread it to others who are vulnerable but not destined to it. Sadly the opposite situation appears to be the case. One in 10 male, same-sex Craigslist ads seek men who don't identify as gayhttps://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-03/cums-oit032414.php...
To examine the subgroup of men seeking non-gay-identified (NGI) men in the online sexual marketplace, the researchers reviewed 1,200 Internet personal ads posted on Craigslist
...
Among the ads studied, 11% were placed by men seeking NGI partners... only 24% of online advertisements seeking NGI men were posted by men who were themselves non-gay-identified. This suggests that many of the posts are placed by gay men seeking NGI men, perceived by some gay men to be more masculine, dominant, or "straight-acting."
...
Only a small number of ads by NGI-seeking men mentioned safe sex or condom use. The analysis revealed that men seeking NGI partners were significantly less likely to mention that they wanted to have safer sex/use condoms (15% vs. 33%) and were more likely (66% vs. 42%) to omit mention of condoms or safer sex in their advertisements.
...
The findings have unique implications for sexual health research targeting non-disclosing, NGI MSM and their same-sex partners.
...
the research has allowed us to document the existence of a subgroup of men who actively seek out sexual encounters with men who do not identify as gay
|
|
|
|
It should be an easy question to answer and the bible should answer it clearly, why would a god expect people to follow his laws when they are senseless and without logic? You know exactly what I'm asking and you are not able to provide evidence on why homosexuality is bad (pd: it's not).
Even if it was bad that would still not be a good reason to kill them. The bible is garbage, just admit it already.
Why do you think it should be an easy question to answer? The Bible contains several hundred prohibitions on behavior. When examining any one of them and exploring the logic underlying it you need to make a total determination on the effect of the behavior on the entire arc of human development both in the past and into the unknown future. Whatever the ultimate answer may be it is certainly not easy or simple. The best we can really do is make an approximate determination that violating a prohibition causes harm on understood metrics. Even that is difficult. The Bible recommends the death penalty for many high profile sins. This punishment must be viewed in context of the very limited options available to early man. Death, exile, lashes that about it. All crimes pretty much had to be punished with one of the three. It is only now with the wealth and knowledge those ancestors passed to us that other options become available such as prisons to separate violent criminals from society without killing them. The more important question here is not whether Biblical punishments were severe or if modern technology and wealth will lead to superior and more effective ways to eliminate and punish crime. Clearly the answer to both those questions is yes. The important question is to confirm that the sins listed are indeed harmful. That the sins lead to problems that should be taken seriously. |
|
|
|
Thousands In Sweden Have Implanted Microchips Under Their Skinhttps://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-18/biohack-thousands-sweden-have-implanted-microchips-under-their-skinMore than 3,000 people in Sweden have implanted tiny microchips beneath their skin to replace their credit card information, identification, keys, train tickets, among other everyday items, Agence France-Press announced Sunday.  The implant, which is about the size of a grain of rice, utilizes Near Field Communication (NFC) technology, also found in credit cards, debit cards, key fobs, and smartphones. This technology is considered “passive,” which means the microchip stores data that can be read by other devices but cannot read data themselves.  This might resemble an Orwellian nightmare to many, but in Sweden, residents are flocking to get these implanted microchips by “convenience over concerns of potential personal data violations,” AFP explained. Governments in Europe quietly experimented with embedding the small chip in humans in 2015 in Sweden, and several other countries in the region, before the recent rollout. “Swedes have gone on to be very active in microchipping, with scant debate about issues surrounding its use, in a country keen on new technology and where the sharing of personal information is held up as a sign of a transparent society,” AFP notes. Ulrika Celsing is one of 3,000 Swedes with a microchip implanted in her hand — a process called “biohacking.” The 28-year-old told AFP, “It was fun to try something new and to see what one could use it for to make life easier in the future.” Celsing explained that the microchip has turned into an “electronic handbag” and has even replaced her gym card. She can even book a train ticket online, and then use her hand like a ticket to board a train. While the tiny microchips can store personal data that can be extracted by other devices, they are considered passive — which means the chip cannot read data themselves. Meanwhile, some still have concerns that the progression of this technology could jeopardize personal security. “I don’t think our current technology is enough to get chip hacked,” Celsing told AFP. “But I may think about this again in the future. I could always take it out then.” ” Sweden has a track record on the sharing of personal information, which may have helped ease the microchip’s acceptance among the Nordic country’s 10 million-strong population. Citizens have long accepted the sharing of their personal details, registered by the social security system, with other administrative bodies, while people can find out each others’ salaries through a quick phone call to the tax authority,” AFP said There are still serious privacy and security concerns associated with biohacking Swedes. Regarding privacy, corporations will have unprecedented access to personal data of consumers and or employees. In the fast-approaching dystopic future, corporations and government could soon be collecting private data on their citizens via implanted microchips... What could go wrong?…
|
|
|
|
Dennis Prager has an excellent video clip on the seventh commandment. It goes into some detail on the damage caused by the sin of adultery and why this action is forbidden. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B0-epfgG7lI THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT THE FAMILY
There is an old joke about the Seventh Commandment, “Do Not Commit Adultery.” Moses comes down from Mount Sinai, and announces: “I have good news and bad news. The good news is that I got Him down to ten. The bad news is that adultery stays.”
The joke is telling. The prohibition on a married person having sexual relations with anyone except his or her spouse may be, for many people, the most consistently difficult of the Ten Commandments to observe. The reasons shouldn’t be hard to guess. One is the enormous power of the sex drive. It can be very hard to keep in check for the entirety of one’s marriage—especially when an attractive outsider makes him or herself sexually or romantically available. Another reason is the human desire to love and be loved.
For normal people, there is no more powerful emotion than love. If one falls in love with someone while married, it takes great effort not to commit adultery with that person. And if we add in the unfortunate circumstance of a loveless marriage, adultery becomes even more difficult to resist. That’s why the joke with which I began is funny—because it reflects truth. Why is adultery prohibited in the Ten Commandments? Because, like the other nine, it is indispensable to forming and maintaining higher civilization.
Adultery threatens the very building block of the civilization that the Ten Commandments seek to create. That building block is the family—a married father and mother and their children. Anything that threatens the family unit is prohibited in the Bible. Adultery is one example. Not honoring one’s father and mother is another. And the prohibition on injecting any sexuality into the family unit—incest—is a third example.
Why is the family so important? Because without it, social stability is impossible. Because without it, the passing on of society’s values from generation to generation is impossible. Because commitment to a wife and children makes men more responsible and mature. Because, more than anything else, family meets most women’s deepest emotional and material needs. And nothing comes close to the family in giving children a secure and stable childhood.
And why does adultery threaten the family? The most obvious reason is that sex with someone other than one’s spouse can all too easily lead to either or both spouses leaving the marriage. Adultery should not automatically lead to divorce, but it often does. There is another reason adultery can destroy a family. It can lead to pregnancy and then to the birth of a child. That child will in almost all cases start out life with no family—meaning no father and mother married to each other—to call his or her own. And if adultery doesn’t destroy a family, it almost always does terrible harm to a marriage. Aside from the sense of betrayal and loss of trust that it causes, it means that the adulterous partner lives a fraudulent life.
When a husband or wife is having sex with someone other than their spouse, their thoughts are constantly about that other person and about how to deceive their spouse. The life of deception that an adulterous affair necessarily entails inevitably damages a marriage even if the betrayed spouse is unaware of the affair. Finally, the commandment prohibiting adultery doesn’t come with an asterisk saying that adultery is okay if both spouses agree to it. Spouses who have extramarital sex with the permission of their husband or wife may not hurt their spouse’s feelings, but they are still harming the institution of marriage. And protecting the family, not protecting protecting spouses from emotional pain, is the reason for the commandment.
Many marriages, sadly, are troubled. And it is not for any of us to stand in judgment of others’ behavior in this realm. No one knows what goes on in anyone else’s marriage. And if we did, we might often well understand why one or the other sought love outside the marriage. But no higher civilization can be made or can endure that condones adultery. That is why it is prohibited in the Ten Commandments. Thus we see adultery as a harmful deed something that leads ultimately to undesirable outcomes. At a deeper level it disrupts life by undermining the family and thus the society itself. In simpler terms it can be viewed as an act of defection advancing ones personal interests at great cost to society and the social fabric as a whole. |
|
|
|
And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.
1 John 3:4: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.  That's not an explanation of what a sin is... The Bible defines sin at least in part as a violation of one of its prohibitions. It ultimately makes the claim that these actions a deviations from fundamental truth aka universal law. The question you seem to be asking, however, is a rational explanation for why certain actions are sin. Why certain actions are violations of universal law. That is not always an easy question to answer. It requires a full analysis of the impact of a sin across time. We must determine what consequences were avoided by avoiding the sin in the past, the impact of the sin in the present and project its consequences into the future. |
|
|
|
It is all arbitrary.
If one truly embraces the view that it is all arbitrary then one might conclude that morals themselves are subjective constructs rather then objective truths. Then of course there is no such thing as sin. Every crime is morally permissible. Secular laws become arbitrary behavior constraints nothing more. On the other hand if one takes the position that objective morality exists then it follows that there is such a thing as sin. At a minimum it is objectively immoral behavior. And yet homosexuality is none of those, it is not a bad idea or harmful at all, it's like saying some people prefer blondes over brunettes, that's not harmful, it's just preference, so we can conclude that homosexuality should not be a sin and yet it is?
If you want to understand objectively why something is a sin you first have to define sin. Then you have to figure out a way to map that definition onto the behavior. We should start with something easy like adultery because most people intuitively agree that adultery is wrong. If we can't figure out objectively why something simple like adultery is a sin we are unlikely to succeed with something difficult like homosexuality. Do you have any objections to the definition of sin above? We need to reach at least a partial agreement on what sin is before we can hope to determine if an action constitutes sin. |
|
|
|
|
Thus we have a broad outline of what sin is.
Sin is a bad idea or harmful deed something that leads to undesirable things happening to you. At a deeper level sin is not just a harmful deed, but a harmful deed that disrupts ones "life" with life defined as synonymous with ones connection to God. Sin is a disruption of this connection and thus sin is death. Sin is also folly for it is ultimately irrational to consciously choose self harm and death over life and self preservation. Finally sin is an opportunity to recognize our failings and understand the negative consequences of harmful deeds. Thus sin is also an opportunity to redeem ourselves by refining our nature and rejecting the sin.
We will not get very far in understanding why certain actions might be a sin without agreement on what a sin is so I will stop here for today.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
