Well they have made this distinction between sex and gender making gender out to be whatever your perceive yourself to be in your mind. Sex is based on reproductive parts.
So I would say that sexual orientation is comparable to gender, not sex. There is no physical test to check if you have any biological attribute that determines your sexual orientation. So, do you see the contradiction? Two mental states, one is genetic and the other is a social construct.
But I was stupid. Now that I think of it, they do think that gender is something you are born with regardless of your sex. They just think that the matching of sex and gender is social.. so those idiots on the left are kind of consistent after all.
I agree with you on gender. I would say there isn't enough data on homosexuality to determine whether it is genetic or not, though.
But obviously my question is to those that think gender IS a social construct because I think they're being logically inconsistent.
Mate, just answer my question. Why are you trying to guess what I am trying to do? I never said that I disagree with the established science that homosexuality is predetermined by genes!
I am not trying to do anything. There is no purpose to my question other than genuine curiosity. Those Tumblr idiots you speak of do think that homosexuality is predetermined but absolutely NOTHING ELSE is predetermined by genetics.
I hope there is someone who adheres to this group who could explain their point of view to me.
You are useless here because you probably hold the same view that I have. I don't think it is an established science, it is all speculation. But I do lean towards the genetic predeterminism of homosexuality.
SO, my question is to those who believe in 57 different genders ( Because I am sure they also think homosexuality is genetic).
Why does that matter?
Well it matters because you asked me why I didn't compare heterosexuality with incest instead of homosexuality. They just have more in common. And yes if freeing slaves was a sexual preference it would be comparable.
Only if they are willing to get sterilized first.
Sounds good.
If incest becomes normalized, many babies will be born with harmful mutations, because most people have sex before marriage.
Can't argue with that, you're right.
Why shouldn't they?
I never said they shouldn't. I was only explaining why I'm asking about these specific topics (Marriage and education).
Tell that to all the gay people who get bullied and beat up for it.
Really? Is that really a thing in 2018? I don't really believe it. Are you from the U.S? you guys bully everything.
Gay marriage doesn't pose any more of a danger than heterosexual marriage, so there is no reason to allow one and not the other.
Again, I never said that Gay marriage is "dangerous". My question was far away from this but if you must know, yes, I think Gay civil marriage should be allowed. I do think though that religious institutions should not be forced to perform marrying rituals on individuals that they don't want to marry.
But that is off topic. Congratulations, you have settled my debate with your teenage-sex-mutant-baby argument.
Why do you guys always assume people have a hidden motive behind a proposed discussion.. If I mention the word "gay" I'm either homophobic or an LGBT activist. If I say "Women" I'm either sexist or a feminist.
Sometimes, I just like to share an idea of mine and see what insights I can get from people. I'm sure others also do this without a specific agenda in mind.
LOL. Thank you! I knew all those IQ tests were lying to me! So I have a low IQ after all, oh well.
1- So? Lets? You said lets make that VERY clear yet you make no attempt to make anything clear.
2- Dude read the description, I set the assumption that producing offspring is off the table (male gets a surgery). So no gene pool being messed up.
3- Argument for what? I am not arguing FOR anything. I only seek to provoke thought. I'm merely asking questions and I assure you I have nothing against homosexuality or incest.
- I understand what you are saying about invalidity of saying "before" the Big Bang if there was no Time before the Big Bang.
Then you said: It means that there was something existent in a frame of reference we are yet to be able to fully understand, as beings limited by finite mental capabilities and a finite number of sense-faculties. It means that existence was not as we currently know it to be. But it does NOT mean there was nothing.
Sooo maybe there was a frame of reference we are yet to understand no? Why cant this frame of reference that we know nothing of... Include a different spacetime? If it did then that would validate my temporal reference to "before" the Big Bang.
And then I told you to assume that you are correct.. that talking about " before the Big Bang" is pointless. You did not answer me about the possibility of placing the Unmoved Mover at time 0.00 (Big Bang).
I guess our disagreement here will boil down to the fact that you think that the universe (or Multi-verse) just has ALWAYS existed, perhaps not as we know it, but through different forms and frames that we do not comprehend ( since you said " Nothing Can't Be"). On the other hand, I think this eternal view of the physical world is not possible.
Actually, now that I think about it, why would God all of a sudden decide to create the universe? He is supposed to be outside of Time and unchanging. What would change his Mind to start creating? This leads me to think that the multiverse indeed has always existed because if God was the creator then he must have been ALWAYS in a state of CREATING, because he is constant, unchanging ( because he is supposed to be Infinite, infinity never changes).
LOL so I may have just talked myself out of the Unmoved Mover argument.
- My consciousness argument still stands though.
Actually, I can
Oh you most certainly cannot! I mean sure our brains we recognize the same wavelength of light and identifies it with a specific image in our minds. That image remains consistent throughout our entire life and we learn to call it red. I know how light, color, and the eyes work, so bear with me...
When you were a child you learnt that Frequency 620-750 nm is called Red and that was and is true for all of us. But how does that Red look like in your mind? It could look exactly like my Green for example but I have learnt to call your Green Red and you learnt to call my Green Red. So we all agree on what to call RED... But have you any clue how the world looks like in my mind ? No! it can be all reverse-colored for all you know. Watch this video.
See the problem there? The question applies to heterosexual couples just as much, if not more, as it does to homosexual couples.
Yes of course it applies to heterosexuals as well but no one is against heterosexuality. What homosexuality and incest have in common is the backlash of society towards them. They both don't apply to the majority of people.
My personal opinion is that as long as a relationship is between consenting adults and no one is being harmed, people should be able to date whomever they want. Who am I to tell them how they should live their life.
So shall we then permit incest marriage legally? Shall we educate our young on how its normal for siblings/family members to engage with each other romantically, etc.?
I mean these are the kinds of rights the LGBT are pushing for. No one cares about consenting homosexuals dating each other, its all about the marriage, education, and propaganda issues.
No, you've got this wrong. You're specifying a "point" in time where something "moved" something else, before there was any time or space. That doesn't make any sense.
The concept of the Unmoved Mover is something Aristotle came up with. It isn't something I have gotten right or wrong. So why are you so sure that spacetime did not exist before the big bang? We have no clue about anything before the Big Bang. Maybe it was nothing, no space, no time. But we Do not know!
If we assume that spacetime did not exist before the Big Bang then we are saying there was Nothing. That the Big Bang was the absolute beginning (Most physicists do not think so). Then I am placing the timing of my Unmoved Mover taking His action at time 0.00 or even at time 10^(-43) ( Planck time).
Yes, you believe. Thats proof of nothing.
I didn't claim I have proof that God exists. I started by listing the reasons why I think God exists. Please, argue against my logic, but no need for mockery.
We are the consciousness of the universe we inhabit. That's the trade-off of a neocortex that allows us to thrive almost unfairly so compared to any other species on this planet. We question, and for some of us, that questioning provokes answers that are far too uncomfortable for the brain to handle. It's a scary thought, that we're on this planet amidst a dark and lifeless vacuum. So we make stories up to comfort ourselves at night. But it's just wishful thinking.
We are together on this planet, with a finite life, and that's exactly what makes every single one of those lives pricelessly invaluable. They ought to be cherished and protected.
There are aspects of our Minds that cannot be read, measured, or even detected by any physical means. We are hallucinating a conscious experience all the time and this experience is unique to each person, you can never see how I perceive the color Red for example. This is called Qualia and I think it is the essence of our consciousness; a metaphysical reality thriving within us. All I think is that while I agree that we are the the consciousness of the Universe, this consciousness is even bigger than just us, it constitutes the beginning and eternity itself.
If you say so.
You changed that from " You think you're being smart, but you're not". Thank you, again, there is no need for mockery.
Note It would be stupid to assume any of us here can prove anything about God. I am not coming here with proof. I am coming with my reasons of favoring God's existence and my logic behind it... for the purpose of voicing my opinion and hopefully hearing compelling arguments why I should change my mind.
I am not an atheist but I disagree that all atheists are literally retarded. I also do not fully support your argument for God's existence ( which I do believe in).
I think God exists for two main reasons:
1- An unmoved mover is necessary in any all-encompassing model of existence. So the universe had a beginning, we do not know what existed before that, it wasn't necessarily "Nothing" before the Big Bang. It could have been a different form of reality that gave birth to the current universe. Infinity has no room in the physical world. An infinitely existing universe that has always been there is just impossible scientifically. There MUST have been an Unmoved Mover at some point. Something infinite that is outside and inside the physical world, a living paradox if you will.
2- One word; Consciousness. I believe that whatever Force created our outstanding consciousness that can enable us to question our own existence is definitely of higher consciousness than we are. So it would no longer be accurate to call it just a force, but an infinitely Conscious Unmoved Mover GOD.
