Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know - I'm not a geneticist, if that's a word. We know there have been gay people for a very long time, but as the population increases, my theory is that there will be more gay people. An interesting study would be on China, where men outnumber women by a huge amount since they keep aborting all the girls. Will there also be a rise in gay males since there aren't enough women for them?
But China directly interferes with the natural processes of life, so they are the direct cause of their plight. It isn't nature that makes the male population of that country so high, it is the abortion rate when dealing with female children.
Also, you have an interesting idea which basically goes in the opposite direction of mine. While I put for the idea that homosexuality is essentially a dying gene which will eventually cease to exist, your idea puts forth the possibility of nature making more homosexual people to provide other homosexuals with mates. The only problem I have with this is you would be inserting feelings into the argument. I don't think nature would respond by making more gay men simply to provide a love partner for other homosexuals. Nature doesn't work based on love or hate. It is simply nature and works to preserve a natural order. So to create more humans that are non reproductive would be counter productive to the natural order.
That is, unless we now give nature a true conciousness, and believe the creation of more gay males and females is meant to combat the gross overpopulation of the earth.
But China directly interferes with the natural processes of life, so they are the direct cause of their plight. It isn't nature that makes the male population of that country so high, it is the abortion rate when dealing with female children.
Also, you have an interesting idea which basically goes in the opposite direction of mine. While I put for the idea that homosexuality is essentially a dying gene which will eventually cease to exist, your idea puts forth the possibility of nature making more homosexual people to provide other homosexuals with mates. The only problem I have with this is you would be inserting feelings into the argument. I don't think nature would respond by making more gay men simply to provide a love partner for other homosexuals. Nature doesn't work based on love or hate. It is simply nature and works to preserve a natural order. So to create more humans that are non reproductive would be counter productive to the natural order.
That is, unless we now give nature a true conciousness, and believe the creation of more gay males and females is meant to combat the gross overpopulation of the earth.
I know the Chinese artificially created the situation - I'm just wondering how "nature" will react to what humans created.
I don't have any personal feelings about your theory or mine. I've just always thought that it would make sense that the point of it was to hold down population. I never thought of your theory - and mine is no more valid or invalid than yours. If it's a dying gene, so be it. But with human population spiraling upward, wouldn't nature need to control numbers if the planet can only support so many humans? So to preserve humans, fewer need to be born for a period in order to maintain a number that the planet can support. Just a thought.
But China directly interferes with the natural processes of life, so they are the direct cause of their plight. It isn't nature that makes the male population of that country so high, it is the abortion rate when dealing with female children.
Also, you have an interesting idea which basically goes in the opposite direction of mine. While I put for the idea that homosexuality is essentially a dying gene which will eventually cease to exist, your idea puts forth the possibility of nature making more homosexual people to provide other homosexuals with mates. The only problem I have with this is you would be inserting feelings into the argument. I don't think nature would respond by making more gay men simply to provide a love partner for other homosexuals. Nature doesn't work based on love or hate. It is simply nature and works to preserve a natural order. So to create more humans that are non reproductive would be counter productive to the natural order.
That is, unless we now give nature a true conciousness, and believe the creation of more gay males and females is meant to combat the gross overpopulation of the earth.
Every study that I've ever seen around the prevalence of homosexuals in disparate societies is around 10% -- and that spans different time periods. I think it's safe to say that homosexuality will not "die" since it's been around since recorded time. You even have homosexual animals... this is a stable genetic mutation that won't disappear. I don't think it will increase or decrease in society... it will continue to persist.
I took those verses from the bible...are you saying the bible is wrong?
That English translation/interpretation was incorrect. (see link below)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgewalker
Why do you keep focusing on the "word". Just because the word "homosexual" doesn't appear in the bible doesn't mean it's not called out
as a sin. And are you absolutely positive it's not in the bible?
Are you absolutely positive that it is?
Get back to us after you read this:
Considering the often cited biblical texts on homosexuality. (http://fou.uniting.com.au/texts.html - broken link)
In case you don't know you're on my "not worthy of a response list."
I am bending that rule just this once to clue you in. Have a nice life.
PS, if you care to hunt you will find the response your looking for, just not in a reply to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen And I've said it's arguable whether or not homosexuality is a sin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgewalker Not according to my Saviour, Jesus Christ. What Church do you go to?
In case you don't know you're on my "not worthy of a response list."
I am bending that rule just this once to clue you in. Have a nice life.
PS, if you care to hunt you will find the response your looking for, just not in a reply to you.
WEAK. I was actually looking forward to the response because I have the same question. I didn't think Jesus ever addressed homosexuality -- folks only mention the Old Testament laws... which I thought Jesus came to change.
WEAK. I was actually looking forward to the response because I have the same question. I didn't think Jesus ever addressed homosexuality -- folks only mention the Old Testament laws... which I thought Jesus came to change.
Jesus never said a thing about homosexuality. My original post was in response to one by RW which claimed otherwise.
His reponse to me was to quote Leviticus, from the OT, which was a couple of thousand years BCE.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Way to go Ridgewalker!
