Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: ribonucleic on March 08, 2007, 01:48:32 PM
-
"If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use"
http://www.almohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891
-
"If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use"
http://www.almohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891
Don't you have to actually kill people for there to be "genocide"?
-
Don't you have to actually kill people for there to be "genocide"?
This is the equivalent of sterilizing every black person in the world so there won't be any more black people.
In the face of such overwhelming moral horror, I'm not inclined to bandy definitions.
-
We should all just show our penises to every male possible during a every rain storm.
We could call it "national heterosexual affirmation day" or we could call it "Wet Willie Day"
-
This is the equivalent of sterilizing every black person in the world so there won't be any more black people.
In the face of such overwhelming moral horror, I'm not inclined to bandy definitions.
O.K. So whether or not "genocide" actually means killing people is just a matter of semantics . . . to you. :-\
And the race/homosexuality comparison doesn't work.
-
So whether or not "genocide" actually means killing people is just a matter of semantics . . . to you.
Taking deliberate action to insure that a group of people who exist now will not exist in the future...
Call it whatever the fuck you like.
-
Taking deliberate action to insure that a group of people who exist now will not exist in the future...
Call it whatever the fuck you like.
lol. That is precisely what you are doing.
-
lol. That is precisely what you are doing.
I'm fascinated. Let's hear the Bum-Approved term for this brave program of theirs.
-
I'm fascinated. Let's hear the Bum-Approved term for this brave program of theirs.
Oh that's a hard one. Let's see . . . not genocide. ::)
-
Oh that's a hard one. Let's see . . . not genocide. ::)
Is that your final answer? "Not genocide"?
Fine. Thanks for playing.
-
How many couples would have a gay child on purpose?
Please don't try equating gays with blacks, chinese, etc... they are not a seperate race.
-
That is a provocative idea, but not necessarily a new one. The impulse to eliminate a homosexual population is tempting, but it could backfire in ways we cannot yet imagine. I’ll make my point with an analogy.
Due to recent technological innovation it is now possible to preselect the sex of an unborn child. Through genetic testing it is also possible to screen embryos for a number of illnesses that have a genetic basis or predisposition (such as cystic fibrosis, diabetes, colon, breast cancer, and many other illnesses) which may develop later in life. As of right now, this screening can take place when an embryo is as small as eight-cells in a petri dish. This screening is called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or P.G.D. and it has been available for about 10 years. You can read an article about it here http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/health/03gene.web.html?ex=1173502800&en=de323c864d6562f5&ei=5070
As our technology advances we are able to screen for more and more potential “problems” in embryos and increasing numbers of couples are taking advantage of this technology. I put that word in quotation marks because sometimes Nature has a reason for introducing what we think of as a “problem” and using new technology to eliminate some of those “problems” may result in much bigger problems down the road that we cannot anticipate.
PGD is still in its infancy. We are starting to learn that genes and mutations that cause certain illnesses also have benefits that we either do not yet understand or would not want to live without. We have recently learned, for example, that a mutation of the CCR5 gene -- called "delta 32” renders the carrier immune to HIV. People who have this mutation cannot contract the HIV virus even when they are exposed to it in the usual ways. Obviously, studying this population and their genetic make up is one angle researchers are pursuing . . .
It is a good thing that we have discovered this when we did, because if given a choice, many people might elect to screen out what they thought were defective or mutated genes in their embryos without really understanding the future implications of doing so.
My point is simply this: Nature knows what it is doing.
We may not always like it, but it generates and mutates genes for reasons we cannot always immediately understand. We shouldn’t be quick to interfere with this. Similarly, Nature has decided that for some reason, a certain percentage of the population should be homosexual. We may not like it because of social or religious reasons, but the fact is Nature has been producing a homosexual population since mankind has existed. It has done so in the animal kingdom as well. Nature has a reason for doing this. The fact that we do not yet understand that reason does not mean we should try to solve a “problem” that Nature has decided should exist.
-
Nature has decided that for some reason, a certain percentage of the population should be homosexual.
Oh, didn't you get the word from Beach Bum yet?
It's not biological. It's a lifestyle choice.
Hope this helps.
::)
-
Here's a question:
If we modify this gene aren't we tampering with "GOD"'s creation?
;D
would the same people who are against stem cell research be against that?
would the same people who are against abortion be against that?
would the same people who are against selective breeding be against that?
-
Here's a question:
If we modify this gene aren't we tampering with "GOD"'s creation?
;D
would the same people who are against stem cell research be against that?
would the same people who are against abortion be against that?
would the same people who are against selective breeding be against that?
There's no point in asking bigots for intellectual consistency - even as a rhetorical gesture.
They hate queers. That's about as much insight as they bring to the issue.
-
Bay,
I have a question for you. You're an openly gay man, at least on these boards. When you were a little boy did you shower with your father and did he show you his penis? Also, did he have you pound a square peg into a square hole?
You see according to Dr. Dobson your father did neither of those things because they prevent homosexuality and as we all know, you're a homosexual.
-
There's no point in asking bigots for intellectual consistency - even as a rhetorical gesture.
They hate queers. That's about as much insight as they bring to the issue.
BB, is not a bigot. he's just really close minded about the origins of homosexuality.
He has his beliefs about it, he believes people choose to do something that would make their skin crawl. Or in a Bi-sexual's case he believes they choose to gain pleasure from both male and females.
-
Mohler makes it clear in his last paragraph that Christians have to be careful about painting themselves into a corner and focus on the real issue which is that being gay is a sin. Then again, it was easy for him to be straight - his Dad had a massive penis which he used to help affirm his sons maleness
10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God's moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.
-
When you were a little boy did you shower with your father and did he show you his penis? Also, did he have you pound a square peg into a square hole?
That really made your day, didn't it. :)
-
That really made your day, didn't it. :)
It would be nice to get a little perspective from the homosexual community. Bay can speak with authority on the subject so I thought perhaps he could lend some insight.
If you think I'm beating a dead horse so to speak I'll give it up.
But it's soooooooooooo easy.
-
Is that your final answer? "Not genocide"?
Fine. Thanks for playing.
That's my final answer. As I tell my kids, I'm not going to think for you. You made a rather absurd comment. I'm not going to figure out how to make your point for you.
Well . . . if you really want me to I will, but I'll have to send you a bill. :)
-
BB, is not a bigot. he's just really close minded about the origins of homosexuality.
He has his beliefs about it, he believes people choose to do something that would make their skin crawl. Or in a Bi-sexual's case he believes they choose to gain pleasure from both male and females.
True I'm not a bigot, but I'm not close-minded. Aside from that conspiracy nonsense, you know I will read pretty much any link or story you or anyone else posts (if asked). If you have an article, etc. you'd like to share that provides proof of this "homosexuality is genetic" argument, I'll be happy to read it.
And I disagree with your characterization about people engaging in conduct that makes their skin crawl. Aren't they engaging in conduct they enjoy? It's the people who don't engage in that kind of conduct who might think its gross.
-
I'm not going to figure out how to make your point for you.
I'd have been satisfied if you'd figured out a way of making a point of your own. :)
Instead, your contribution to this thread has been: 1) "Is that your definition?", 2) "I don't agree with your definition", 3) "I'm rubber and you're glue", 4) "I don't agree with your definition", 5) "I'm not going to bother giving my own definition."
You've been a wonderful contestant. We have a box of Rice-a-Roni for you as a parting gift. ::)
-
True I'm not a bigot, but I'm not close-minded. Aside from that conspiracy nonsense, you know I will read pretty much any link or story you or anyone else posts (if asked). If you have an article, etc. you'd like to share that provides proof of this "homosexuality is genetic" argument, I'll be happy to read it.
And I disagree with your characterization about people engaging in conduct that makes their skin crawl. Aren't they engaging in conduct they enjoy? It's the people who don't engage in that kind of conduct who might think its gross.
I'm talking about them engaging in conduct they don't enjoy with a person of the same or opposite sex. Why would someone choose to do that?
You are right you are not close minded. Opinionated would have been a better word. sorry ;)
-
Here's a question:
If we modify this gene aren't we tampering with "GOD"'s creation?
;D
would the same people who are against stem cell research be against that?
would the same people who are against abortion be against that?
would the same people who are against selective breeding be against that?
Opponents of stem cell are hypocrites.
Research with stem cells IS eventually going to go forward and treatments will be derived from it. And when they become available the opponents of stem cell research will be the first in line to demand access to the treatments they didn’t want to fund the research for. ::)
-
Let's take Bay's premise that gayness is an occasional mutation. Isn't gays not being able to have children nature's way of limiting the mutation?
Besides, my point (aside from annoying Bay) is: would you really intentionally have a child go through what most gays experience? True, it's not the same as trisomy 18. I'm not comparing being gay to mental retardation but it is a pretty hard life and a lot of parents wouldn't willingly impose it upon their children or even themselves, for purely selfish reasons.
Then again, most people are such morons they'd start testing for fat genes next. :)
If they find a way to genocide stupid people..... :)
-
I'd have been satisfied if you'd figured out a way of making a point of your own. :)
Instead, your contribution to this thread has been: 1) "Is that your definition?", 2) "I don't agree with your definition", 3) "I'm rubber and you're glue", 4) "I don't agree with your definition", 5) "I'm not going to bother giving my own definition."
You've been a wonderful contestant. We have a box of Rice-a-Roni for you as a parting gift. ::)
My contribution was to ask a question about your tortured use of the word "genocide," refuse your request to help make your point for you, snicker while you flailed about, and make the generous offer to actually help you if you agree to pay me.
What's funny is you probably still don't understand what "genocide" means or how to properly use the word. But hey it's your story and you should stick to it. :)
-
I'm talking about them engaging in conduct they don't enjoy with a person of the same or opposite sex. Why would someone choose to do that?
You are right you are not close minded. Opinionated would have been a better word. sorry ;)
You don't think homosexuals enjoy having sex with each other?
Opinionated is a better word. No need to apologize, but thanks anyway. :)
-
Genocide involves killing real live human beings
hope this helps
-
Genocide involves killing real live human beings
hope this helps
so you have no problem with abortion then?
-
I consider abortion to be morally reprehensible. I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion from my post.
-
I consider abortion to be morally reprehensible. I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion from my post.
actually it does help
I think misunderstood the premise of this thread
I thought it was about aborting babies that were somehow identified as having a gay gene or something but I guess it's about somehow turning off the gay gene and flipping on the straight one.
I mean it's all hypothetical since we all know that being gay is a choice and there is no genetic component
-
My contribution was to... refuse your request to help make your point for you
For those of you joining us late, this has been the conversation so far...
R: This is genocide.
B: Is that what you call it?
R: Pretty much.
B: So you don't care about the exact meaning of the word.
R: That's what it means to me.
B: You're making it mean whatever you like.
R: Well what would you call it?
B: I wouldn't call it what you called it.
R: It's obvious that you're not going to take this seriously.
B: You don't know what you're talking about.
R: You've wasted my time.
B: I enjoyed doing it too.
I guess it serves me right for thinking you might have something worthwhile to say. I'll try not to make the same mistake again. :)
-
For those of you joining us late, this has been the conversation so far...
R: This is genocide.
B: Is that what you call it?
R: Pretty much.
B: So you don't care about the exact meaning of the word.
R: That's what it means to me.
B: You're making it mean whatever you like.
R: Well what would you call it?
B: I wouldn't call it what you called it.
R: It's obvious that you're not going to take this seriously.
B: You don't know what you're talking about.
R: You've wasted my time.
B: I enjoyed doing it too.
I guess it serves me right for thinking you might have something worthwhile to say. I'll try not to make the same mistake again. :)
lol. What a drama queen. Ribo you can define genocide in any manner you deem fit. Really. It's okay man.
-
"If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use"
http://www.almohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891
What's the big deal with preventing homosexuality?
I don't wish homosexuality on anyone.
They can't reproduce regularly, and it's an anomality. If science can safely prevent homosexuality in the future, I see no reason why it shouldn't be offered to future parents.
I definitely wouldn't want my kids to be gay. I'd love them just as much if they were, but why would I wish that upon them?
That being said, I think Gay is A-okay, I am a big supporter of gay rights, and one of the reasons I oppose the Islamic culture is because of the status of homosexuality in those cultures.
-Hedge
-
what if the "science" can only determine that your child has the "gay" gene but we don't have anyway to turn it off and/or turn on the straight gene.
With that set up - the only choice would be to abort or have a gay child
What would Jesus do?
-
"If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use"
http://www.almohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891
I think we'd only support it for so long... then when the reality of overpopulation sinks in, ...we'd be longing for the good ol days when people could love each other without putting such a tremendous strain on the earths ability to feed us all.
-
We should all just show our penises to every male possible during a every rain storm.
We could call it "national heterosexual affirmation day" or we could call it "Wet Willie Day"
;D
Be sure to let me know when it is.
-
;D
Be sure to let me know when it is.
it's at my house tonite :o
-
it's at my house tonite :o
Don't forget to send me the pics. How many wet willys will be there?
-
Don't forget to send me the pics. How many wet willys will be there?
Well just one, :), it was a gender exchange version tonite ;D, i showed willie to jenny ;D
-
Here is an interesting follow up to my earlier thesis that Nature knows what it is doing. A few weeks ago Nightline featured a story about dwarfs in Equador that are effectively immune to cancer! You can read about it here http://abcnews.go.com/Health/OnCall/story?id=6282128&page=1
The same genetic mutation or “disorder” that causes them to be dwarfs also prevents them from developing cancer. Researchers are now studying this population of dwarfs and trying to isolate the cancer suppressant factor in their genetic code. It is still a long way off, but if their work is successful, the cure to cancer could very well come from this population of dwarfs!
Now, imagine if genetic screening were widely available (as seen in the film Gattaca) and the parents of all these dwarfs had been told “your embryo has a mutated gene… and unless we take action your child will likely be a dwarf. Would you like us to eliminate this ‘problem’?” Most people would, of course, say “yes.” My earlier point is worth repeating here: genes that cause a predisposition to problems--even serious problems like dwarfism--may also cause benefits that we do not yet understand and cannot predict.
We do not yet know the etiology of homosexuality, but many geneticists believe that there is a genetic component to it. Now, imagine that early in your pregnancy, your doctor comes to you and says they have run a battery of tests on the embryo and they have determined that your child will likely be gay or lesbian, but they can fix this ‘problem’ by flipping a genetic switch. Most people today would opt to flip the switch . . . but mankind might regret that later!
I have long said that Nature has a reason for producing a homosexual population and that homosexuality is part of the diversity of Nature’s portfolio. We should embrace that diversity in all its forms. The diversity we reject today could be the very thing that saves us tomorrow. ::)
-
Opponents of stem cell are hypocrites.
Research with stem cells IS eventually going to go forward and treatments will be derived from it. And when they become available the opponents of stem cell research will be the first in line to demand access to the treatments they didn’t want to fund the research for. ::)
Treatments are ALREADY being derived from it. What you keep forgetting is that, from a conservative Christian viewpoint, the only type of stem cell research they oppose is EMBRYONIC stem cell research (which has cured exactly ZERO diseases or ailments). All the other types are cool.
In fact, not too long ago, I made a thread, linking a site to a conservative Christian doctor, who heads a company, that is doing research on stem cells from baby teeth.