PDA

View Full Version : Old Post Replies


Logic
06-14-2008, 01:04 AM
Here are a few responses to Reponses I received to posts a while back. I actually have a life so can’t spend all my time on here on a forum. I didn’t get a chance to reply to everyone since I have school so I’ll just post up what I worked on and forget about the rest since I didn’t even read it.

I don’t have the time or the desire to continue on a post that was deleted by the admins.
(Read it or Skip it, I don’t really care about this post anymore.)

[Text in quotes is mostly what I’m replying to.]


Logic: "It's not that you make much of a choice to be gay as a child, that is just what you were taught or that is just what you were exposed to as a child."

Were taught to be heterosexual as a child?
Another fallacy I believe, red herring.

You are raised, whether directly or indirectly, to become what ever you are today heterosexual, homosexual, etc. Now the main issue here is not how one was, rather raised, rather, if it is “okay” for homosexuals to be “accepted” by society and given rights such as marriage, etc. Look at my responses in context, the subject was brought up and I responded. Your accusation is misplaced.

Logic: "If a male child was born and lets say this child had no "father figure" just a mother and 3 elder sisters growing up. If this child is not raised properly, this child can/will grow and take after the traits and behaviors of the mother and his three sisters (psychological defect). Thus this male child, taking after feminine traits and behavior, will most likely grow to become a homosexual."

Then explain to me why children with two parents (male and female) can still turn out to like the same sex.

(B1)I already explained this.. twice. Read the posts.
This is usually the case when it comes to homosexuals/lesbians.

Male is born > no (or abusive/absent/bad) father figure, usually = Homosexual Male.

Female is born > no (or abusive/absent/bad) mother figure, usually = Lesbian Female.

Notice: “/bad”, You can have both of you’re parents but if they do not raise you properly you can grow to be “messed up”, as there is an “absence” of the idea roll said parent was suppose to fill but did not. I also did mention, “Childhood environment”, one can have perfect parents but if they are placed in the care of individuals, such as an aunt or teacher, that are mentally or intellectually distorted / ill, then that will gravely affect the upbringing and mental state of that child.

Logic: "Male is born > no (or abusive/absent/bad) father figure, usually = Homosexual Male.

Female is born > no (or abusive/absent/bad) mother figure, usually = Lesbian Female.


(AkA: Childhood environment.)"

There are children with two fathers or two mothers that still turn out to be 'straight' so you're argument is flawed.[/quote]

Actually I already explained how this could happen, [SEE (B1)]

(B2)“I also did mention, “Childhood environment”, one can have perfect parents but if they are placed in the care of individuals, such as an aunt or teacher, that are mentally or intellectually distorted / ill, then that will gravely affect the upbringing and mental state of that child.”

The same effect can happen vice versa, one can have horrible/mentally disordered parents, but if they are placed in the care of individuals, such as an aunt or teacher, that are mentally or intellectually stable / well, then that will gravely affect the upbringing and mental state of that child for the better.


Logic: "Want the simple answer? Cause they have no self control and let their emotions/lusts control their actions. "

And I suppose that would apply to us heterosexuals too, eh? And not every homosexual 'lusts' all of the time as you say.

Depends what type of definition you use for lust, and also see my comment in it’s context, I listed “and let their emotions/lusts control their actions”, here the word lust is to illustrate both ‘desire’ and/or ‘pleasure’, both fit.

“all of the time as you say”
I’m sorry, did I say “every homosexual ‘lusts’ all of the time”? No I did not. (Note: Another comment taken out of context.) But in the other hand, it is when a person acts upon homosexual desires and pleasures (aka lusts after someone of the same sex), and let’s emotions/feelings control their actions that make distinguishes them as homosexual.


"They do not choose how others will treat them"
That was my response to his comment here:

NO, you don't.
Why in the world would anyone make a "choice" to be gay? To be treated like you are a lesser human...

You can see here that he is implying that homosexuals chose to “be treated like..”
And I was responding to his response to my response here:

My brother did not choose to be gay. I am sure of this.
No matter how hard a homosexual person may want to be straight, they will NEVER be. There is no "rehab" for homosexuals, there will never be. No effective one, at least.

And then I responded:
Re-read the post.
"It's not that you make much of a choice to be gay as a child, that is just what you were taught or that is just what you were exposed to as a child.

And then I gave an example:
(Note: ANOTHER comment taken out of context/misread.)

Logic: "however, people may treat them differently because of their choice to be gay."

We know that, that was his entire point. Why would they choose to become homosexual knowing the hatred spewed by the over-pious?

WOW! I can’t believe this. I already answered this question!
Re-read the post.
"It's not that you make much of a choice to be gay as a child, that is just what you were taught or that is just what you were exposed to as a child.


Logic: "Homosexuality is like a drug problem,"

This will be fun...
Oh ya, I suppose heterosexuality is like a drug problem too right? No double standards guy.

You’re right, there is no double standard. Homosexuality is a psychological disorder and Heterosexuality is normal (and before you ask me to prove it to you, REREAD THE POSTS). They are completely different, thus no double standard.


"Homosexuality is like a drug problem, you were brought into in one way or another, whether self imposed or exposed to it your parents/child hood environment, you can learn how and train yourself to get out of it."

I suppose it's the same with us heterosexuals too right? No double standards.

Again, there is no double standard. Homosexuality is a psychological disorder and Heterosexuality is normal. They are completely different, thus no double standard.
(Before you ask me to prove it to you, RE-READ THE POSTS).

Logic: "If you can't there are many programs out there for people struggling with this problem (homosexuality/lesbianism). "

They almost always consider it a problem because Christians (or muslims or w/e) tell them they're EVIL and SINFUL.

(C1) What the heck are you talking about? If you READ the posts you will see I never once brought up the subject of Christianity or Muslims. If you see all my arguments against homosexuality they are completely based on secular science, ethics, morals, Logic, and psychological fact. (The posts about religion/God were brought up by other people, I simply responded to their comments and questions) My views on homosexuality are not completely based in the Bible or God, as some of you are thinking. They are based on Secular Science, Ethics, Morals, Logic, and Psychological fact.
Quit pretending like I brought up anytime of religious content, I didn’t.

Logic: "If you do not do what it takes to "rehabilitate", then you are subject to the same type of "hate" people have for druggies and pedophiles. "

What the hell? homosexuality =/= pedophilia and drug addiction. And there's no reason to be 'rehabilitated' either. If Christians would stop spewing hate at others for being different then they'd have no reason to go.

Again, where does this talk about “Christians” come from? LOL.
[Please make reference to comment (C1)]


Logic: "If you ask yourself, "Why wouldn't a gay person go to rehab to become to help them with their 'problem'? For the same reasons a drug addict and pedophiles don’t get out of their "problem"."

You could use the same reasoning to say heterosexuals are like addicts, we don't know we're wrong and sinful but there's a way to get out of it! You could apply that to anything guy, you're argument is terribly flawed.

Not really, seeing as I showed you proof that homosexuality is a Psychological Disorder, in which shows clear evidence of being directly influenced by “demographics,” and “the environment,” even the era one lives in—and no evidence of being directly influenced by genes. To the extent one may be specific about the nature of this “environment,” all evidence points towards early and continuing sexual activity and later cultural and demographic reinforcement, even education.

Again, Heterosexuality and Homosexuality are DIFFERENT; Quit talking as if they are the same.


** CONTINUED ON NEXT POST 1/8**
** CONTINUED ON NEXT POST 1/8**
-Logic-
* http://www.youtube.com/img/flags/en_US-orig.gif ( http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh) *

Logic
06-14-2008, 01:04 AM
** CONTINUED ON THIS POST 2/8**
** CONTINUED ON THIS POST 2/8**


Logic: Someone also posted a link of Animals displaying homosexual behavior.
yupp
………why respond to a section on a comment… that’s like talking to someone and in the middle of your conversation that person says, “yupp”…

Logic: "That's just the thing, liberals…"

wtf? How did we get into politics dude? We're talking about homosexuality being displayed in nature, leave politics out of this.

Umm, I don’t know if you noticed this but this thread was started BECAUSE of liberal politics. And here, I don’t mean liberals as in Liberalism I meant Liberals as in libertines, rakes, individuals who have a “loose” mindset and views, etc.

"liberals want to use none conscious living being as support/justification to justify disgusting, wrong, immoral, barbaric, debauched acts, such as homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, fornication, legalized assist/self suicide, etc.""

Let's not go into this please, we're talking about homosexuality in nature, you pulled an obvious red herring right there.

(D1)What the hell are you talking about?
I was RESPONDING to the comment you posted about animals. That’s kind of why I said: “Someone also posted a link of Animals displaying homosexual behavior.” Because I was responding to it! Why do you choose to consistently take sections of text and reply to them out of context?
You can even see me responding to multiple posts in the same thread.
I even put my response in it’s own section so you could understand my response in a whole… lol

Homosexuality has been observed in a lot of animals: flies, lizards, horses, even apes! It has nothing to do with media or "corruption"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

mk I'm done :o)

Here is the rest of my response you so continently left out of your above reasoning:

“Logic: Once we use the actions of animals to justify wrong and degenerate conscious human behavior, then there is no room for morals, ethics, laws, etc in society, as animals do no abide by any of those things. Once we do that we become nothing more than ignorant emotion driven barbarians."

What are you talking about dude? Most living things use reciprocal altruism as a kind of 'moral compass' it's even observed in bacteria. And besides that's irrelevant considering we were debating whether or not there really is a 'gay gene' not whether it's moral or ethical.

And I do believe that's a red herring for the 3rd time.

Wait hold on.. didn’t you just say we were talking about homosexuality in nature?

Let's not go into this please, we're talking about homosexuality in nature, you pulled an obvious red herring right there.

Again you’re lost because you are not reading the posts in context/order.
[Please make reference to (D1)]

In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:
1. Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
2. Homosexuality is irreversible;
3. Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.
Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises, the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.

Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?

This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

READ THIS (If You Can Handle It):
The Animal Homosexuality Myth:
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html


Logic: "There is a real danger when you begin to begin to compare hatred of homosexuality a falsified mental state of being, with hatred of people due to their race/genetic stock. That has a potential for disaster."

It's called being reasonable. And yes it's the same because THEY DON'T CHOOSE TO BE GAY. Every homosexual I've talked to said they wish they could be 'straight' it is nothing they can control.

It is neither logical nor true to say that hatred for the psychological disorder known as homosexuality and hatred of someone because of the color of their skin is the same. To say that is laughable.

Don’t be an ***** I’ve already posted multiple links to studies and testimonials, proving homosexuality is “escapable” by CHOICE. Those Homosexuals you say you’ve spoken to, if they really wanted to stop being gay, they could.

Again…I addressed this multiple times, READ all the posts.


** CONTINUED ON NEXT POST**
** CONTINUED ON NEXT POST**

-Logic-
* http://www.youtube.com/img/flags/en_US-orig.gif (http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh) *

Logic
06-14-2008, 01:05 AM
** CONTINUED ON THIS POST 3/8**
** CONTINUED ON THIS POST 3/8**


Logic: "People should NOT hate other people, you can hate what they do or believe, but when you hate individuals themselves is when you are wrong. Not only in the eyes of "civilized" society, but also in the eyes of God.

14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:14-15”

That book also says they will burn in hell (1 Corinthians 6:9) and that you are to kill them Leviticus 20:13

Where did this come from? I was posted how we should love everyone and not hate people themselves.

As for those scriptures, since YOU brought them up, I will address.

1 Corinthians 6:9 and Leviticus 20:13 fit perfectly.

Paul, writing to the church of God in Corinth, was informing them that homosexuals (as well as others 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) will not inherit/enter the kingdom of God (Heaven). Why is this? Leviticus 20:13 explains nicely, because homosexuals and lesbians, both of them, have committed an abomination and what is detestable, before God. And they must be put to death/go to Hell(death is another word for Hell, Romans 6:23); their blood will be on their own heads (because of their sin). Only way to avoid Hell that is to Repent and be Baptized, according to Acts 2:36-39. If anyone would like more info send me a message so we can talk.

Let us, continue..



Logic: “Re-read the post.
"It's not that you make much of a choice to be gay as a child, that is just what you were taught or that is just what you were exposed to as a child."

Likewise, we're not born heterosexual, it's what we choose. No double standards!

Hahahahahaah, Looks like we agree on something. If you notice, I never said you were born heterosexual. Babies are innocent, its what you throw at them that either helps or destroys them. And your right! There isn’t any double standard!

Lol, you notice you just contradicted yourself?

Logic: There is a real danger when you begin to begin to compare hatred of homosexuality a falsified mental state of being, with hatred of people due to their race/genetic stock. That has a potential for disaster."

Your Response:

"It's called being reasonable. And yes it's the same because THEY DON'T CHOOSE TO BE GAY. Every homosexual I've talked to said they wish they could be 'straight' it is nothing they can control.

and now:

" Likewise, we're not born heterosexual, it's what we choose. No double standards!”[quote]

nice..

Logic: "For example:
If a male child was born and lets say this child had no "father figure" just a mother and 3 elder sisters growing up. If this child is not raised properly, this child can/will grow and take after the traits and behaviors of the mother and his three sisters (psychological defect). Thus this male child, taking after feminine traits and behavior, will most likely grow to become a homosexual.

This is usually the case when it comes to homosexuals/lesbians.
Male is born > no (or abusive/absent/bad) father figure, usually = Homosexual Male.
Female is born > no (or abusive/absent/bad) mother figure, usually = Lesbian Female. ""


[quote]1) How would homosexuality start if they'd have no 'gay' parents to begin with -_- I'm pretty sure you can see the problem with your argument lol
2) There are 'straight' parents that still raise gay children
3) There are gay parents that still raise straight children
It's not as simple as you're making it out to be logic.

I already explained how this could happen.. Three times. Read the Posts!
This is usually the case when it comes to homosexuals/lesbians.

Male is born > no (or abusive/absent/bad) father figure, usually = Homosexual Male.

Female is born > no (or abusive/absent/bad) mother figure, usually = Lesbian Female.

Notice: “/bad”, You can have both of you’re parents but if they do not raise you properly you can grow to be “messed up”, as there is an “absence” of the idea roll said parent was suppose to fill but did not. I also did mention, “Childhood environment”, one can have perfect parents but if they are placed in the care of individuals, such as an aunt or teacher, that are mentally or intellectually distorted / ill, then that will gravely affect the upbringing and mental state of that child. This can also happen vice versa:

[PLEASE REFER TO (B1) and (B2)]


** CONTINUED ON NEXT POST**
** CONTINUED ON NEXT POST**

-Logic-
* http://www.youtube.com/img/flags/en_US-orig.gif (http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh) *

Logic
06-14-2008, 01:05 AM
** CONTINUED ON THIS POST 4/8**
** CONTINUED ON THIS POST 4/8**


Logic: "When you realise you are attracted to or lust after an individual of the same sex as yourself and you pursue your feelings. Then you choose to be a Homosexual."

"There are several problems with your argument"
1) How would they get the 'lust after an individual of the same sex' to begin with?
2) That isn't the scenario for everyone that is homosexual.
3) LIKEWISE, you can use that to argue that we choose to be straight..no double standards

1. How they were raised and what they were exposed to as a child, is what determines what they will like/lust after as an adult.

2. It’s not? So if desiring and engaging in Homosexual activities does not make you a Homosexual, what does?

3. Umm.. actually no.. you cant. NOTICE: “you are attracted to or lust after an individual of the same sex as yourself and you pursue your feelings. Then you choose to be a Homosexual.", heterosexuals don’t do that…


Logic: "If a Homosexual goes up to you (a straight male) and asks you to have sex with him and/or enter into a relationship with him, and you refuse because "I'm not gay", You have just made a choice to be straight."

LMAO there's a problem though.
You were considered 'straight' before then. It's not like a test where you finally decide whether or not you're gay lol

Actually, it kind of is.. as one can decide to take part in homosexual activities or not. This happens all the time.


Logic: "If a drug addict comes up to you and asks you to have some drugs with him with him, and you refuse because "I don’t do drugs", You have just made a choice to be "straight"."

You didn't do drugs before that moment lool, and again homosexuality =/= drug addiction. And you wouldn't be called 'straight' you'd be refusing drugs >_>
Again.. the point of this was to prove, you CHOOSE to stay “straight” and reject drugs(in example2) and homosexuality(in example1) and same can be done vice versa.

And the word “straight” fits both examples as the word straight can mean: Not using drugs; not intoxicated with drugs or under their influence. And it can also mean: a heterosexual person; someone having a sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex; not homosexual.

Reverence: Google search: “Define: Straight”


Logic: "Just like a druggie can choose to accept or reject the drug, so can a homosexual."

Oversimplification to the highest degree.
Here's an experiment for you, try to go out and get a date with a guy and see if you can actually be attracted to him (if you are a girl then try a girl) Why is it so difficult for you to be attracted to the same sex after being 'straight' for all of your life? Can you honestly 'choose to be gay' ?

That “experiment” has already been tested and proven possible. Haven’t you ever heard a girl, after being dumped by a guy, say “I’m done with men, I’m becoming a lesbian”. Same can happen vice versa. Proof? “Ex-gay” men and women.

Read this: Changing Sexual Orientation Is Possible (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200709/CUL20070917b.html)


Logic: "You or your brother was born first and your mother knowing how boys should be raised, raised the first born male how a male should be raised. Then a second male was born, that second male learned how to be a male from the mother and the brother. Then a female was born, your sister, you mom went into "girl training mode" and raised your sister how a girl should be raised. Then a fourth child is born, a male. The youngest child usually stick s closely to the mother, and your mother still being in girl training mode didn't raise the fourth child to be a "boy" as she did with here first 2 children (which were males). Thus he grew up learning the more feminine traits from the mother and traits from the sister, which was probably being raised along side him in how to be a "girl".

Another scenario,
Same a the top but in this order:
Children born in order:
1st male(raised to be a boy-straight), 2nd female(raised to be a girl-straight), 3rd male(mother still in female training mode while raising the female child leads to male becoming -homosexual), 4th male (realising there was a mistake in raising the 3rd male child, the 4th child was taught to take after more masculine traits thus leading him to be - straight)."

Very good, but that doesn't apply to every situation >_> I have a friend that has no brothers or sisters, has great parents but is still homosexual. Mind explaining this? ;)

I already explained this…
[PLEASE REFER TO (B1) and (B2)]

** CONTINUED ON NEXT POST**
** CONTINUED ON NEXT POST**

-Logic-
* http://www.youtube.com/img/flags/en_US-orig.gif (http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh) *

Logic
06-14-2008, 01:06 AM
** CONTINUED ON THIS POST 5/8**
** CONTINUED ON THIS POST 5/8**

Logic: "P.S. I just showed you how people are NOT "born gay"."

No, you've presented several fallacious arguments and never thoroughly showed how homosexuality isn't caused by genetics.

Is there any proof that homosexuality is cause by genetics? No:
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

If not then where does it come from? It’s a psychological defect that comes from.. :
http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf

Hrmm.. believe there is some so called “gay gene” that there isn’t any proof for or believe proven scientific and psychological studies and reviews….

Don’t know about you, but I’d rather go with proven facts than “fallacious theories”.

I've given you a link to homosexual behavior in nature but you called it propaganda. If you are not willing to address it (ie male bonobos having sex with other male bonobos) then don't bother responding.

I did address it. “Once we use the actions of animals to justify wrong and degenerate conscious human behavior, then there is no room for morals, ethics, laws, etc in society, as animals do no abide by any of those things. Once we do that we become nothing more than ignorant emotion driven barbarians.” And seeing as ethics and morals plays a major roll this issue, the actions on none conscious beings should not be used to justify or excuse conscious human behavior. “Once we use the acti…”


Logic: "First off, my point was to show that there is no scientific base to believe there is a “gay gene”. Using scientific Disproof (of the “gay gene”), to prove my point. Those who believe there is such thing as a “gay gene” are scientifically and logically ignorant."

I gave you an article showing homosexuality in nature and you called it propaganda spewed by liberals.

You quoted that article from www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

the same conspiracy site that says evolution is a myth. I'd need an unbiased source please.

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html


Logic: "Define what you mean by proof. The Bible cannot be disproved in any way and there are amazing Proved facts about and in the Bible. Such as prophecies that, against all odds have come true."

It can. and has.
example: 2 Timothy 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 7:12
Hah I was actually reading this on Friday. All you have to do is continue reading in the same chapter verse 40 and you will see that Paul mentions, “I also have the Spirit of God” as to backup/support his words.. again taking sections of text out of context.

What prophecies?

Here’s a few:
http://www.100prophecies.org/


Almost all of them are vague. like 'a man will declare war in the 1st century' and btw, the Qur'an supposedly makes prophetic claims, would that make it the word of god also? No

Whos talking about Islam? And seems to me, just like the majority, you’ve had a biased opinion of the Bible since the beginning. I’ve been trying to stick to secular facts and literature but people keep bringing “the bible” into this discussion, as if it makes any difference.


Logic: "The Bible is one of thee most factual, moral, and ethical books ever written."

Factual: ( I copied this from yahoo but still it's a good read)
1 John 4:8 "God is love"
1 Corinthians 13:4 "love is kind and is not jealous"
Deuteronomy 5:9 "for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God"
Exodus 34:14 "for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God"

lawl
morality and ethics: pick any book in the old testament lol but..

Exodus 22:17
Deuteronomy 17:12
Leviticus 20:13
Numbers 25:4

These are simple..

1 John 4:8 "God is love" – True that.
1 Corinthians 13:4 "love is kind and is not jealous" – Actually looking at the original Greek text, 1 Corinthians 13:4 is more like this: “1 Corinthians 13:4: “4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,”

Deuteronomy 5:9 "for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God" – Read below:
Exodus 34:14 "for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" You forgot to add the context again! Do not worship any other god.. for… Tell me, lets say you get married, do you want your spouse to “be” with anyone else? Why would God want his bride to be with anyone else? “As a young man marries a maiden, so will your sons marry you; as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you”, Isaiah 62:5.

Exodus 22:17 – (Read the scripture in context) Prearranged marriage was common practice in those days and played a major roll in social and cultural agreements. If an unmarried virgin daughter was found to have slept with a man. That man would be subject to the laws of the land and would have to pay the consequences. Whether it be death or to pay what would have been gained by the marriage of the daughter, such as land or right, just like the royal families of the pasts.

Deuteronomy 17:12 – (Read scriptures in context) This is referring to the priests and to the judge who gave Judgment in the Court of Law. People inquire of them and they gave the verdict. This being the punishment of those who went against the judge’s final verdict.
Leviticus 20:13 – Already Explained, You reap what you sow.
Numbers 25:4 - (Another text taken out of context) Reason for this: Numbers 25:1-3


Now back to the topic of the thread: homosexuality

Agreed. Lets get on with it.

** CONTINUED ON NEXT POST**
** CONTINUED ON NEXT POST**

-Logic-
* http://www.youtube.com/img/flags/en_US-orig.gif (http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh) *

Logic
06-14-2008, 01:07 AM
** CONTINUED ON THIS POST 6/8**
** CONTINUED ON THIS POST 6/8**

Logic: "And besides, it takes ALOT more faith to believe you came from a random explosion that came out of no where and came from nothing and then to believe you "evolved" from a monkey"

Jesus christ how did we get onto this!

When the issue of faith came in.

1) Read a book about cosmology before claiming ignorant **** like that -_-
2) No one claims we evolved from a monkey, we share a common ancestor with them. This is supported by both the fossil record and genetics (ie endogenous retro viruses, humans chromosone #2 showing a fusion between ape chromosome 14 and 15)

So common homologies = common ancestry? I think not.

The common Designer explanation makes much more sense of the findings of modern geneticists, who have discovered just how different the genetic blueprint can be behind many apparent similarities in the anatomical structures that Darwin saw. Genes are inherited, not structures per se. So one would expect the similarities, if they were the result of evolutionary common ancestry, to be produced by a common genetic program (this may or may not be the case for common design). But in many cases, this is clearly not so. Consider the example of the five digits of both frogs and humans—the human embryo develops a ridge at the limb tip, then material between the digits dissolves; in frogs, the digits grow outward from buds. This argues strongly against the ‘common ancestry’ evolutionary explanation for the similarity.
Evolutionary propagandists claim that the DNA code is universal, and proof of a common ancestor. But this is false—there are exceptions, some known since the 1970s, not only in mitochondrial but also nuclear DNA sequencing. An example is Paramecium, where a few of the 64 codons code for different amino acids. More examples are being found constantly. The Discovery Institute, one amongst many institutes, has pointed out this clear factual error in this view. (Also, some organisms code for one or two extra amino acids beyond the main 20 types.)

There is no experimental evidence, since we lack the DNA code of these alleged ancestors. There is also the theoretical problem that if we change the code, then the wrong proteins would be made, and the organism would die—so once a code is settled on, we’re stuck with it. The Discovery Institute also demonstrated the illogic of these claims. Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is best explained by common design. Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours, or similar, is optimal for protecting against errors. But, the exceptions thwart evolutionary explanations.


Bottom line. When it comes to endogenous retro viruses, similarities are evolutionist’s strongest point of contention. Yet, scientists are to the point of declaring ALL mutations to DNA detrimental to the organism. This keeps in line with the second law of thermodynamics. As well The seemingly beneficial mutations, which still keep in line with the entropy of information by the way, are on the verge of being declared “calculated” mutations. This will prove a higher level of design in the cell and further alienate the evolutionists fallacy.

Evolutionists have always blatantly underestimated the complexity they are dealing with in the genome. From their terrrible track record in the past we are justified to remain highly sceptical of anything the evolutionists choose to say about the information in the Genome.

Hell just look at our skeletal structures, they're almost identical.
Visual similarities do not coincide common ancestry. Common design, perhaps, but ancestry? No.

Claiming evolution never happened is intellectually dishonest and ignorant.
Anyone who agrees with this statement is either ignorant of the scientific facts against such a comment, is a victim of the educationally forced feed evolutionism, or someone who simply chooses to be a close-minded fool.

** CONTINUED ON NEXT POST**
** CONTINUED ON NEXT POST**

-Logic-
* http://www.youtube.com/img/flags/en_US-orig.gif (http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh) *

Logic
06-14-2008, 01:07 AM
** CONTINUED ON THIS POST 7/8**
** CONTINUED ON THIS POST 7/8**


Logic: "1. It's not introducing an external variable, since statistically homosexuals/gays are more prone and responsible for the spread of those diseases."

LOL WHAT? Where did you get that nonsense? You spread diseases by (obviously) having a disease! Not by your sexual preference lawl

(D1)Not once did I say your sexual preference spread diseases (HIV, AIDS, etc.). I did however state the fact that Homosexuals are more PRONE (than heterosexuals) to do so. You may disagree but that’s fact.

READ:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2151198

“2. It happens in heterosexual couples too!”

Logic: "2. It does but not at the same scale as in homosexuals/gays. And you’re right; drugs do have detrimental effects on the body, statistically so does homosexuality."

Umm I think you're wrong there guy, I think you're confusing sexual activity with homosexuality, a common mistake.

Remember you’re speaking of the transfer of HIV… a SEXUALY transmitted disease. Seeing as there is usually a sexual activity involved in contracting it. My response was correct. Please refer to (D1).

And besides, HIV aside, I’m right in both aspects:

I’m not confusing anything, read this:
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
(Also, emphases on “statistically”)


Logic:"(And fine, if you don’t like the “drugs” example, switch drugs with pedophilia"

homosexuality =/= pedophilia either! You could use the same reasoning to say heterosexuality is like pedophilia or a drug addiction -_-

You can try to but it wouldn’t work. Homosexuality and Pedophilia are proven psychological disorders, as where Heterosexuality is not.


Logic: "Insert every argument a homosexual presents when trying to defend him/her self and imagine a pedophile using the same arguments."

Or insert a heterosexual, you'd get the same results. It proves nothing.

No you don’t. Homosexuality and Pedophilia are proven psychological disorders, as where Heterosexuality is not.


Logic: "It’s and ethical and moral issue, but when “they” try to present bogus science then we must counter with factual science, and yes theoretical and logical foolishness will be presented (aka “gay gene”), but in the realm of ethics and morals, they are severely flawed.)"

You haven given any unbiased, peer reviewed paper on homosexuality not being natural. You've given links to a biased christian site >_>

Here I would tell you to re-read the posts, but I’ve just discovered the post has been deleted so here, again:

http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html


Logic: "The view that society has on Homosexuality/Gays has a HUGE impact on not only the homosexuals, but an impact on everyone in general. As it would change the base of many laws, rules, regulations, and principals that govern and affect every single one of us, ESPECIALLY our children. "

Care to back that up? How would it affect the children?

Remember the impact of Childhood Environment?
The social and legal “acceptance” of homosexuality would change the base of many laws, rules, regulations, and principals that govern and affect every single one of us (including children). As structured education will teach and raise our children to believe homosexuality is normal, when it’s not.

Proof? READ:
http://www.narth.com/docs/glsen.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf



Logic: ". All because of a radical, liberalist minority that is not restrained or held back, due to dumb ass political correctness."

*sigh*
yep.

** CONTINUED ON NEXT POST**
** CONTINUED ON NEXT POST**

-Logic-
* http://www.youtube.com/img/flags/en_US-orig.gif (http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh) *

Logic
06-14-2008, 01:10 AM
** CONTINUED ON THIS POST 8/8**
** CONTINUED ON THIS POST 8/8**


Logic: "I'm not even looking at the homosexuality issue in a "religious" point of view I'm looking at this issue in a completely secular point of view."

You've quoted the bible to back up your view, and when you tried looking at it from an unbiased position, you made outrageous and unsubstantiated claims (ie homosexuality being like pedophilia etc.)

That’s a blatant lie. I did not once bring up religion or the bible myself, someone else brought up the bible, I was simply replying to a question/comment that was presented.

Homosexuality IS like pedophilia, in the sense that they are both psychological disorders... the bible or religion had no influence on that. LOL


Logic: "Logically, to peruse a homosexual life style, from a logical standpoint, is to be tenaciously *****ic. Also trying to "prove" that Homosexuality is hereditary would also disprove Evolution and Natural Selection (LoL)."

Again, unsubstantiated claims, I'm started to doubt whether or not you're being serious.

If homosexuality was indeed genetic, according to the process of Natural Selection, it should have died out hundreds of thousands of years ago. So to prove hereditary homosexuality is to disprove natural selection.


Logic: "First off, the Bible does not corrupt anyone."

Crusades, inquisition, hitler (yes, he was a catholic, He used gott (german for god) in several of his speeches)

Hahaha don’t compare biblical fundamentalism with Catholicism. I’m speaking of the Word of God, not a false doctrines derived by man in 325AD.

(Founders: The First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey), convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325)

Logic: "If you’re interested (since you’re the one who brought it up), here is what God says about homosexuals/gays…"

He also claims that slavery is alright (Leviticus 25:44-45) and wearing clothes with different fabrics is evil (Deuteronomy 22:11) you can't really trust anything Yahweh claims.

Yet another example of complete disregard for context.
Leviticus 25:44-45 – Slavery was common practice back then. Though you’re no longer a slave working hard for the slave master, that he may grant you commodities and bread, if you got a job you’re pretty much a modern-day slave to your boss. You work he gives you bread.

Deuteronomy 22:11 – Look at the scriptures in context, God established these laws to ensure that low quality fabrics are not produced. Prevention measures to keep His people healthy even in produce. Today clothes are pretty safe, so it’s not something that really affects us. Also mentioned in Leviticus 19:19. Look at who the scriptures are directed to and why.



Done.

In regards to this specific post itself, I’ve decided to “Let it go”, as I’m busy and do not have the time for this ( and since the admins will most likely remove it). If you got any specific questions send me a PM.



-Logic-
* http://www.youtube.com/img/flags/en_US-orig.gif (http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh) *

Mushy2000
06-14-2008, 01:53 AM
That is the most egotistical BS I have ever read in my life...

hightower
06-14-2008, 03:22 AM
Yeah, all he's doing is fueling more arguements, whats the point?

Plus you say you have a life, why bother arguing over the internet then?

scorcher868
06-14-2008, 07:15 AM
i agree with you logic.

BypassHacker
06-14-2008, 07:29 AM
I skimmed over the first post, then realized there were 8 more posts and gave up. Logic, why are you talking about all this stuff on the rewards1 forums anyway?

breakers22
06-14-2008, 07:59 AM
That is the most egotistical BS I have ever read in my life...

Same here waste of my life... Not even close to true. You choose to be gay or lesbian period. It cant be passed on thrue jeans or even lifestyles. YOU CHOOSE

ravstar11
06-14-2008, 10:24 AM
That is the most egotistical BS I have ever read in my life...

OMG HOW BIG IS THIS DARN THREAD!!!!!!!!!! *GLARES AT SCREEN*

Mushy2000
06-14-2008, 01:12 PM
Same here waste of my life... Not even close to true. You choose to be gay or lesbian period. It cant be passed on thrue jeans or even lifestyles. YOU CHOOSE


You must lack any kind of intelligence... because you are terrible at interpreting someones sentences... The meaning of my post was to state that what logic wrote is BS... you don't choose to be Gay... but your ignorance really shows through so there is no use in arguing with you...

myownfreeworld
06-14-2008, 01:43 PM
edit nevermind

myownfreeworld
06-14-2008, 03:07 PM
edit - I don't want to debate anymore, at the end of the day neither of us will be convinced >_> and I'd still need to take more classes to debate someone in college >_> so you win :thumbs

Dommzyd
06-14-2008, 08:42 PM
Just letting you know I'm a female.
So the "he" in your post(s), i didn't really read them to be honest, is incorrect.
:thumbs

Logic
06-16-2008, 02:27 PM
edit - I don't want to debate anymore, at the end of the day neither of us will be convinced >_> and I'd still need to take more classes to debate someone in college >_> so you win :thumbs


I'm not in college... but agreed. I'm done with this post.



-Logic-