CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
New Study Proves that Homosexuality is not genetic
Read the article below for proof on this matter. I already knew that homosexuality isn't genetic in the first place. Just wanted to share it here to the people who think people are born gay.
This is not a study, nor does it directly cite any studies, nor does the referenced authority work in the field of genetics.
The rationale being presented is highly fallible because it concludes that if sexual orientation were genetic then pairs of twins must both be either homosexual or not homosexual. The problem with this is that it blatantly ignores very basic principles of genetics, the most notable of which is that genetics predispose us towards various attributes such as homosexuality but those attributes do not always manifest unless triggered by appropriate environmental stimuli. Consequentially, one twin can be homosexual while the other is not without this constituting evidence against a genetic origin.
Both sides of this argument can provide links to (study conclusions) that support their positions. The same studies can support different conclusions, owing to the predispositions of the researchers. We are consequently left with contradiction and confusion. Clearly blind acceptance of the latest study conclusions is not a path to understating. What we are left with is our own ability to reason and judge. Taking results rather than conclusions from these studies we can assemble a factual view of the subject, untainted by the bias of the researcher. The process of forming identical twins begins when a fertilized embryo divides into two embryos.
The long held conclusion that both embryos will develop identically because of starting with the same genetic material or mix of DNA has been proven to be incorrect. It has been clearly shown that during the trillions of subsequent cell divisions in both embryos copy number variants occur. These variants are then copied billions of times with even more copy number variants occurring. These CNV's result in identical twins with different genetic makeup. I will leave the conclusions to others, but clearly identical twins are not genetically identical.
I have yet to actually be presented with or to personally locate any research that actively contradicts the genetic origins hypothesis for homosexuality. I think science has generally established that genetics factor at least to some extent, and what is genuinely in question due to lack of research is only to what extent and exactly how. You are correct, of course, that looking at the actual results rather than others' interpretations of them is a more fruitful and accurate course to knowledge.
I was actually not familiar with the body of research pertaining to CNVs; quite fascinating! I cannot say it surprises me too much, given how different twins can be behaviorally and otherwise in my personal experience. Again, though, quite interesting to ruminate over.
"I can study a specific topic or a scope of topics and implement that knowledge into a debate; therefore my source is my studies. I may have no proof but you can surely look up my claim and see yourself if it's true or not. I'm not Googling my own assertions every time just for the opposed satisfaction."
Harvard generally lacks comprehension skills, but I believe he was prompting me to cite sources for my statements regarding the functionality of genetics. He thought he was being clever, since I have asked him to do in the past. Coming from just about anyone else the request would be valid, but given his persistent refusal to ever do so himself it is just more juvenile hypocrisy on his part and I am disinclined to supply him with anything.
That doesn't negate the fact that you said "reading comprehension skills needed" and was clearly wrong and made yourself look stupid because of your misperception.
Now you try and claim stupidity after you just stupidly asserted a false profession?
"reading and comprehension skills needed" was a very mature statement? Could you not have just asserted the false profession?
And even jace said that was a plausible reason for a citation request "Coming from just about anyone else the request would be valid"... so what about my request was stupid and how was it baseless? Now you are arguing against the guy you are defending... Come on man your messing up.
He is not arguing against me. Your post requested a citation without providing any indication as to what you thought needed a citation; it was just as reasonable within that limited context to conclude that you wanted a citation for my earlier comments as my latter ones. I merely supplied that you may have intended to request a citation for my original comments rather than those I made regarding the original citation that prompted the debate, though based on your comment alone there was no actual way to discern this definitively. That is one way in which your request was stupid.
The reason your request is not valid is for precisely the reason JustIgnoreMe indicated: it is hypocritical given your steadfast refusal to do so in almost every instance with everyone (and categorically with myself) due to your notion that citations are unnecessary in debate.
How can you just imply misinterpretation, then conclude with stupidity- which would only be valid on the supposed pretense of my comment? Clearly you knew what I meant as you clarified in a response (to me) that you would have supplied a source; but, given that you presumed my response was somehow a 'comical' one, you refrained from providing said source.
Clearly my response was to a comment in which 90% of it was composed with psychological claims. Claims that, obviously, you know could be sourced (given the "citation needed" was requested by someone else).
You guys really remind me of high school defending each other even when you very well know they are wrong (e.g. you knew what that citation request was directed to, but you (sophistically, of course) try and argue with 'definitiveness'?). Hey, I get it, I'm on the road to becoming a lawyer, this argument would be greatly applicable in the court of law; where you would have went wrong is your clarification on a response from someone directed to me implying that you knew where my request was directed.
It's no stopping you once your habitual sophistry predisposition becomes apparent. Say, are you Greek by some chance?
Your original post did not specify which of my statements needed a citation. Consequentially, it was not technically inaccurate for anyone to have ascribed your request to any one of my statements. Your subsequent clarification substantiated my particular ascription, but that does not mean that my ascription was more reasonable or well-founded than that of JustIgnoreMe. One of us was going to be correct; I did not know it would be me.
If you intend to be an attorney, I suggest you get used to sophistry; persuasive rhetoric is an integral tool in the lexicon of the successful lawyer. Overt narcissism, on the other hand, is generally less of an asset.
Well, I am a diagnosed narcissism, so is Steve Jobs. I am also very rational and can take criticism (I actually prefer it)- I just didn't see yours as being correct (esp. on the sources; I do give sources when I feel someone isn't just asking because they cant make a good counter-argument, usu. if my assertions turns out to be true).
If I had a case where a client was obviously guilty, then the usage of sophistry would be suggested. But, if you can stick to the core topic (replying to each claim), and be completely accurate with each response (implying a non-guilty client who is the accused) then that method would be the most successful. Jurors can tell when a lawyer is avoiding a key point in the accusation- and once that happens, your word starts to become demeaned.
----
Here is what I deem a well-deserved request for a source that I have given:
Topic: "why animals should not be kept in captivity (specifically zoos)."
Me; re: As for this visibility: the animals are sedated once onlookers become aware of its depressive state. That's why you normally see animals doing what appears to be relaxing.
Vermanik; re: Please give me a source of this happening as this is something I have only heard of happening once and that is in tiger palace in Thailand where they sedate the tigers so people can have a photo with them.
Your perception of the validity of substantiation requests as the sole basis for your determination in whether to provide that substantiation is seriously called into question at the point where you have demonstrated poorly managed narcissistic attributes that affect that very instrument of perception.
I appreciate that narcissism does not preclude living a fulfilling or successful life, and can even appreciate that there are times when narcissism has a positive functionality. However, this condition is more liability than asset in mediums such as debate or legal adjudication where there is an established external expectation for substantiation regardless of your own (deluded) sense of its necessity. Further, your reliance upon a clinically unreliable subjective sense to defend your views is not compelling to others and undermines your perceived legitimacy, which has very real ramifications in both debate and legal practice.
The reason sophistry persists is that it has been successful, and that is in no small part because the preponderance of people are not trained in critical thought and reasoning. The most successful debaters do not rely solely upon logos, ethos, or pathos but utilize them together; you can have all the facts in a case on your side but if you do not present them persuasively you can still lose.
Notably, you have once more avoided addressing the substance of the post which pertained to the matter of your non-specificity; instead, you presented an example for when you did provide a citation which is another debate entirely.
Simply, you are explaining how being a narcissist can impact debate (which I can agree upon).
[...] this condition is more liability than asset in mediums such as debate or legal adjudication where there is an established external expectation for substantiation regardless of your own (deluded) sense of its necessity.
You seem to forget this is just a website. In serious matters, when asked to substantiate I will gladly do so, no matter how undeserving it is- and if it's too undeserving then I'll object (typ. that would not be the case).
your reliance upon a clinically unreliable subjective sense to defend your views is not compelling to others and undermines your perceived legitimacy, which has very real ramifications in both debate and legal practice.
I've stated several times that I'd prefer someone who is well-rounded in X field of study to engage (with me) in a debate. But what usually happens is someone sees a title, and if it seems problematic or untrue, they Google it; then they click on one credible/non-credible site; read that one site; have an understanding; come back to this site; fallibly/infallibly assert their objection like they know all about; and as we progress and this fallibility starts to become apparent (i.e. I can tell you are not well educated in the topic); I'll then address it--and if you wish to view that as being narcissistic then..
To clarify the reason I request someone with a broad scope of knowledge in whichever field of study: When we go into depth about a subject, we can deduce based on a number of said field(s) aspects and have a more successful debate. If one only knows about a specific aspect that they've read about on one or two websites, then I advise them do disengage in our debate (as you do when I refuse to proffer sources- which I respect, but it is apparent that I don't get the same respect when I advise someone to go elsewhere when they pester me with irrational request for sources in a field they are not educated in- and its irrational because they engaged in debate knowing they are ill-informed).
As for the 3rd paragraph: I agree.
---
For the record, I have dyslexia (as you may tell with my consistent misspellings, misplacement of words, and sometimes illegible syntax), and it is a burden to either provide sources, or to go to sources (unless necessary) because I have difficulty reading and retaining pages (implying not just one or two paragraphs but numerous ones [just in case you hold my dyslexia as a liability in my assessment of arguments]) of information- I can successfully do so (my admission into Harvard under a full-term scholarship was for countless academic reasons) but it's much of an encumbrance (esp. if I am the one who needs to provide the source- as I already know it, there is no need (to me) to provide sources, especially if you should already know that field of study). Basically, this is my rationale on why I prefer not debating with someone unknowledgeable about the field study I am addressing.
Notably, you have once more avoided addressing the substance of the post which pertained to the matter of your non-specificity
I stated that with the court analogous that you responded to someone's response directed towards me clearly stating that my request was a valid one therefore implying your appreciation of the post. You did also imply, however, that it was clearly not to be taken serious- but that does not negate the fact that if it was serious it would have been a reasonable request therefore implying non-stupidity.
Simply, you are explaining how being a narcissist can impact debate (which I can agree upon).
I am explaining that, yes, but I am also specifically talking about how it has played out between us.
You seem to forget this is just a website. In serious matters, when asked to substantiate I will gladly do so, no matter how undeserving it is- and if it's too undeserving then I'll object (typ. that would not be the case).
As with offline debate, the caliber of exchanges on this site is directly related to how seriously the participants choose to take it. Your personal refusal to treat the exchanges you have here as seriously as you might treat offline exchanges becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy; the debates are low caliber precisely because you refuse to reciprocate the effort others are making.
I've stated several times that I'd prefer someone who is well-rounded in X field of study to engage (with me) in a debate. [...] I'll then address it--and if you wish to view that as being narcissistic then.
You missed my point: your refusal is based upon your perception of the credibility and knowledge of your opponents, yet you have indicated through your statements and conduct that that very sense is not always reliable. I am not saying this to be antagonistic towards you on account of your diagnosis; I live with multiple diagnosis myself, and have known those conditions to affect how I have misperceived others. I am suggusting less that your stance against providing citations to uninformed persons is incorrect, but rather that your ability to accuratley assess when that is the case is restricted.
To clarify the reason I request someone with a broad scope of knowledge in whichever field of study: [...] and its irrational because they engaged in debate knowing they are ill-informed).
The reason I have not respected your refusal to provide citations in our exchanges is primarily because I think your perception of my knowledge level and fields of expertise are inaccurate. I am not ill-informed on the matters we discussed; I have studied them under tutelage and independently. I think your mistaken view of my background is owing in part to the limitations imposed by your narcissism, and potentially also to your having misunderstood some of my statements in light of your dyslexia.
As for the 3rd paragraph: I agree.
Noted.
For the record, I have dyslexia [...] Basically, this is my rationale on why I prefer not debating with someone unknowledgeable about the field study I am addressing.
Thank you for sharing this; it clarifies a lot. I falsely assumed your incorrect syntax was due to laziness, based on your apparently not wanting to put effort into providing citations. I now understand that I was incorrect, and I apologize for that as well as the insensitive comments I made as a result. I can appreciate why you would not want to provide citations because of the extra effort it takes.
However, I do not respect your blaming other people for your refusal to give citations based upon your sometimes inaccurate perceptions of their knowledge and intelligence.
I stated that with the court analogous [...] request therefore implying non-stupidity.
Personally, I consider any citation request for any claim I make to be valid. The only reason I did not consider it valid coming from you was your refusal to do so yourself in all of our exchanges.
My other point was that since you did not specificy what claim needed a citation, any guess as to your intention was technically accurrate. Honestly, this is probably not worth arguing over anymore.
Also, this comment is completely vacuous as the description itself is the one jace claimed was fallible.. That said, my post would have been a request to proffer the counterevidence that jase asserted. So to say "the source is in the title" proves you could not comprehend that simple fact.
Ah, the use of comedy when one is wrong to deter the point...
As long as you know telling me to refer to the description for a source that did not provide Jaces' counterevidence knowing (or apparently not knowing) that said source would obviously (really obvious) not agree with him; and knowing my request was clearly directed towards Jace and not the creator (which would be the only thing that made the comment sensible); then call the comment stupid with your premise for that comment being premise: "the reference was clearly in the debate title,"- in other words: "because the reference was in the title, then my request for such deemed me stupid and incomprehensible"; and now knowing (as you apparently did not before) that my comment was a request for the counterevidence he posed, logically, means:
A: You did not, or perhaps could not comprehend the context
B: You are incapable of understanding the context- do to reasons such as, but certainly not limited to Psychological dysfunctions, such as significantly low IQ (stupid), learning disability, reading disability or liability (blindness, blurry vision, etc.), or another psychological factor incorporated herein
C: You didn't respond, rather someone else erroneously responded with what perhaps you did not intend for them to say (basically, you could be in the room with someone else typing, telling them the assertion, and them relaying that info in a manner now of your approval or intendancy, therefore responding erroneously)- but of course this is unlikely as you are defending erred assertions and/or refutations.
D: Your just trolling- which, for you intelligence and projection's sake, would be the best option to choose.
---
Funny you call people stupid, then assert questionable (unintelligible really) arguments derived directly form you intellect...
Now I am sure this will be responded with more attempts of a comical deterrence, or you may just only highlight this very sentence thus more deterrence from essential points, but know one thing ... you have yet to successfully and reasonably undermine me, nevertheless your fatal attempts are quite self-inflicting. The veracity of your 'undermines' to prove my 'non-intelligence' consist only of, legibility, syntactical structuring, and grammaticism. These are accurate (to an extent) but are expected as you may not have known but I have a condition termed dyslexia- which, the attributes you suggest makes someone stupid, these attributes are components of the diagnostic. I have a 177 IQ; SD 15- so, by logic, I am not unintelligent, rather, I have a hard time (mainly) with wring/typing legibly and comprehensibly (sometimes), however, this has no impact of the crux in my arguments. (P.S.: don't let this last paragraph be the key of this argument, still address the part 1 please).
First off I love how they source this from a blog on Orthodoxytoday.org, who got it from a Christian site named Hollanddavis.com. None of those are peer reviewed journals fyi, but in absence of that they should have cited the study that supports their conclusions. Heck they could have at least quoted the studies conclusions or had a discussion with the authors of the studies.
They didn't provide any of that though. However they did provide commentary from Neil Whitehead, a member of a gay conversion therapy organization NARTH (National Organization for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and author of a book called "My genes made me do it" (suprise....he argues against genetic factors being important in sexual orientation). Wow right? I mean at least he is published in the field right?
Nope, not in peer reviewed journals.
Anywho, Whitehead concedes right at the start of the article that genetics plays a role although he feels it is diminished"At best genetics is a minor factor,” which undermines the articles position that homosexuality is not genetic.
If the article said that the research shows that nature and nurture both play a role in sexuality it would be in line with the science. Instead their framing of "They are not born that way" implies not nature and nurture but only nurture.
The article has other snipets that are refuted by science such as claims that homosexuality comes about due to "...exposure to pornography or sexual abuse."
The article is not a study, provides no relevant expert nor does it frame the body of evidence in an accurate manner. The article is biased crap.
I suggest people get their science from peer reviewed sources and check the methodology and conclusions themselves, not from opinion pieces telling you their own take on the studies.
Here are some examples from peer reviewed sources from the field of study, heck you can even check their methodology.
APA meta analysis of 8 studies (....heeey, just lke in the article)
A consensus is forming that although biological influences are important for both men and women, they are probably more important in influencing male sexual orientation.
A newer study that is discussing the genetic side;
Conclusions Results, especially in the context of past studies, support the existence of genes on pericentromeric chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28 influencing development of male sexual orientation.
For the sake of argument I'm going to completely ignore all the flaws in that article and I'm going to pretend that they have found 100% conclusive evidence that genetics has absolutely zero influence on whether or not a person is gay. So my question to you is, so what? Why does it matter if it's genetics or societal influences or upbringing or just a personal choice they made because like to use the word fabulous?
IMO, I think the real reason some people want to believe that it's a choice is because they feel guilty for condemning gays if they are just born that way. Deep down they know it's wrong to condemn them and expect them to give up some of the greatest joys in life, like falling in love, getting married and raising a family. It also makes their god look like a dick for creating people that way and then condemning them for it. So if people can convince themselves it's just a sinful choice then they feel less guilty for condemning them.
What does matter is everyone has the right and freedom to believe what they will. No one should hurt snyone for believing differently, and no one should force anyone to lower their moral standards euther.
Both are a choice. All sexuality is a choice.
It actually doesnt matter what parts I agree or disagree
What mattes is "live and let live"
Why does it matter what we think or believe? Isnt that personal till we decide its safe for us to share with others?
The point is, Gay, Transgender, thats their buisiness to have gender preference.
And its the Christian baker's business to believe or not to believe however she likes!
Whatever happened to live and let live?
These laws LGBT pressures everyone with, arent "live and let live!"
They are 1 group gets to live, and the other doesnt get to live!
Gays were bullied, and so were many people.
But as a whole, society had balance. Live and let live.
The movement mellenials are embracing is Cruel! Heartless! and Selfish! And Christians are being bullied. Individuals bully, so why take it out on Christians?
This generation doesnt understand boundaries of others.
LGBT is intolerant of society, because they want to be moral dictators. No one had rights or freedoms aloud to disagree or have a moral standard that disagrees with them.
But why not? Why by force on everyone, as unconstitutuonal as you can ever get!
What does it have to do with anything?
Isnt it better to let everyone have a right to their own moral standard?
And a freedom to believe how they want to?
Why cant we be individuals respecting each others boundaries?
So if there are 30 specialty bakeries, Why do they have to take the one that disagrees and kill her? Isnt that targeted discrimination?
Are they Terrorists or Islam Radicals, if you dont believe their way, you will loose your head, or your business?
Bow down, and compromise your stand for something you believe in with all your heart, or commit business suicide?
Regarding the bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, it's one thing to refuse to perform a specific type of service, such as baking a cake in the shape of a penis. That's not discrimination because it's the type of cake they are against, not the person requesting it. It's an entirely different thing to refuse to make a cake for someone when you are willing to make that same type of cake for other people, because in that case it's the person you are discriminating against, not the type of service.
On the flip-side, there was a case in Ireland recently where someone requested a cake with a pro-gay message on it. The baker refused to make it because of the message. In this case I think they had a right to refuse to do it, because the cake itself goes against their religious beliefs. They would have refused to make that cake even if a straight person requested it. Therefore, I don't think they are discriminating against the person, but the requested service. Unfortunately, the court made a bad judgement and declared it was discrimination. I hope that the case is appealed and the decision is reversed, and that the U.S. courts don't make the same mistake by making a similar ruling.
It was against many people's religious beliefs to serve blacks. Was the government wrong in forcing businesses to serve blacks as long as it's based on a religious belief? Do you think it's okay for businesses to refuse to serve Christians, or minorities, or republicans, or women, or can they only discriminate against gays? If a Muslim owns the only hospital in a town, do you think they should be able to refuse service to Christians? The owners of Microsoft and Apple are both atheists, would it be okay if they refused to sell computers to theists? Every person regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation should have the freedom to fully participate in society, and should be able to shop, dine, and move about unfettered by bigotry.
The Baker claim they are refusing service to gays because it's against their Christian beliefs. Let's see what Jesus has to say about that.
Luke 6:27-36 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."
“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."
Matthew 5:40 "And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."
I assume you meant value, not "vales." If so, the people who are discriminating against gays are the one that are assigning degrees of value to people. The gay rights movement is trying to say everyone should be treated equally.
Since you didn't address any of my arguments or questions, I don't think you're actually interested in having a constructive debate, so I see no reason to continue with it.
No, lgbt are forcing themselves on others in a way that is damaging to themselves and others in the community
Here is the choice, you either force yourselves on society, and there will always be divisision, no one is changing their mind just because you hide in a law that forces them to serve you. But now you all angered people who didn't discriminate against.
We are all mad at you now, and we used to like you!
You dodnt gain groun you lost it.
Im telling you you were less discrinated before than after after this movement .
Because peoplre who are forced to extremes will ultimately resent u.
These laws LGBT pressures everyone with, arent "live and let live!"
Only the ones in North Carolina.
The movement mellenials are embracing is Cruel! Heartless! and Selfish! And Christians are being bullied. Individuals bully, so why take it out on Christians?
No one is bullying Christians. Bakers who don't want to do their job, a requirement to do business, are being "bullied". It has nothing to do with them being Christian.
This generation doesnt understand boundaries of others.
Your generation doesn't. Which generation are you in?
LGBT is intolerant of society, because they want to be moral dictators. No one had rights or freedoms aloud to disagree or have a moral standard that disagrees with them.
Your concept of "disagrees" is far from a dictionary definition.
Isnt it better to let everyone have a right to their own moral standard?
Absolutely not. We have to have an agreed on "moral standard". Societies become anarchy when everyone follows their own rules.
And a freedom to believe how they want to?
Absolutely. You can believe whatever you want as long as your actions follow the law (societal moral standard).
Why cant we be individuals respecting each others boundaries?
Your boundaries exceed the law. If I wanted the boundary of physical violence to not apply to me you would have to object.
So if there are 30 specialty bakeries, Why do they have to take the one that disagrees and kill her? Isnt that targeted discrimination?
No one killed her. It makes no sense for a bakery to turn down work.
Are they Terrorists or Islam Radicals, if you dont believe their way, you will loose your head, or your business?
It goes against "live and let live" to equate being forced to bake a cake to loosing your head.
Bow down, and compromise your stand for something you believe in with all your heart, or commit business suicide?
Or, a third option: read the Bible and recognize that Jesus said you were supposed to help sinners.
Millennials cant see that? Really?
Yeah, education makes people lose their religious delusions.
loved ones touched by religion are just drops of rain in a downpour of people religion has touched, I know hundreds of people touched positively by the free movement of religion.
Religious values making its effects felt in the lives of families everywhere, everyday, from drug addicts to criminals, to the broken and the abused.
Religion makes our streets safer, and gives hope to all those the lives its touches and changes.
Are they perfect people, no, but reaching, yes. And that’s not a bad start for anyone?
Religion IS in the public interest of peace and tranquility of all regardless of personal religious choice.
A moral standard belongs in a healthy society, a bar to reach, and a standard of accountability, without it there is no reach!
loved ones touched by religion are just drops of rain in a downpour of people religion has touched, I know hundreds of people touched positively by the free movement of religion.
We also know of many little boys that were literally touched by religion.
Are they perfect people, no, but reaching, yes. And that’s not a bad start for anyone?
Why is it ok for you to attack people for not being perfect, but when we tell you that you aren't being perfect it is so horrible? You admit that there are some points when you aren't perfect.
A moral standard belongs in a healthy society, a bar to reach, and a standard of accountability, without it there is no reach!
You are against a moral standard for the society. You want anarchy and for everyone to have their own moral standards. Can you make up your mind?
Pedophile creeps exist wvery where from football coaches in public school to the church, so should we encourage there to be no natural barrier for a child, by exposing them to possibilities that look natural by the are cukture and pressures all around them.
Do you think it would be harder or easier for a male coach to take advantage of a young athlete if homosexuality was ever present hand in hand with heterosexuality.
Do you think the coach will spot more or less kids to abuse?
And when the boy is abused this way, will he be more likely to report it or less likely?
Pedophile creeps exist wvery where from football coaches in public school to the church, so should we encourage there to be no natural barrier for a child, by exposing them to possibilities that look natural by the are cukture and pressures all around them.
You want to keep something that has never been shown to protect anyone, and you don't care at all about the things that have hurt people in the past.
Do you think it would be harder or easier for a male coach to take advantage of a young athlete if homosexuality was ever present hand in hand with heterosexuality.
It would be so much harder. When homosexuality is not presented hand in hand with heterosexuality a boy who gets molested tends to hide the fact that he was molested to prevent people from thinking he is homosexual since it is considered a sin. When homosexuality is presented hand in hand, the child will more likely come forward when there is abuse and we will be able to explain to the child that it had nothing to do with homosexuality, and that the attacker was wrong.
Do you think the coach will spot more or less kids to abuse?
Less. When you actually talk about homosexuality you can also talk about how to look out for predators. When you decide that homosexuality can't be discussed how is a boy supposed to talk about his male coach trying to touch him?
And when the boy is abused this way, will he be more likely to report it or less likely?
As history has shown, much less reporting happens when we don't discuss homosexuality.
All of these kids will present identifiers subconsciously
And a pedaphile will pick up indicators he can exploit
both consciously and subconsciously
Some things that effect the childs risk level are
Things exposed to, and his level of comfort and natural barrier
So if a boy is exposed to many man w man displays, not expliceit, simply seeing many stories of married gay men, subconciously he will apply intamacy as its component. So 1 or 2 of his guards may already be removed from the frequency of seeing 2 men together in an intimate relationship. Like 2 husbands.
Where as if he was not exposed to that often, the pedophile forsnt have to break down his "natural barrier"
Please tell me why you want other people to stop you from getting married and why you want people to kick you out of their restaurant. Why do you want that to happen to you?
And no a couple doesnt have to have a straight union, its up to them. There are many other bakers that would do it without going against what they believe.
So why not just ask a different baker. Did you ever not do something for standing in a belief, or dont you have any values that are that important to you?
Performing whatever actions you feel like in the comfort of your own home.
And no a couple doesnt have to have a straight union, its up to them.
Not if you had your way.
There are many other bakers that would do it without going against what they believe.
What constitutes a religious belief? Does it have to be spelled out by the actual religion? Or can it be any belief as long as it is tied back to God?
So why not just ask a different baker.
Why not do your job? What is more detrimental to society? Not knowing if the location you are going to visit is actually going to serve it's guests, or being forced to do your voluntary job?
Did you ever not do something for standing in a belief, or dont you have any values that are that important to you?
I have never once not done my job to stand up for my beliefs.
religious freedom is free moving and is part of you
Religion governs your consciemce.
In our own homes gives little opportunity, and we would have to he a pretty militant communistic society for gov to enter our homes to prohibit religion. So gov did not write an Ammendmwnt to protecy us from them in our own home!!
You and those who believe like you are the only people who exist that matter.
Not hopeful you will ever have the light go on
Fyi God does exist
And he is a God of love, he created us to choose him and be called his children
He is the Good Shepherd. His sheep hear His voice and another they simply will not follow.
There will be a day we each alone stand before Him. And that day we will hear 1 of 2 things.
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Hey, you finally got something right. You don't matter. You don't matter because your old backward ways aren't being tolerated by the new educated generation.
The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a moral maxim or principle of altruism found in many human cultures and religions, suggesting it may be related to a fundamental human nature.
I already told you that I agree that you don't matter.
Where was your mother when you were growing up?
She was teaching me the golden rule instead of pissing on the rules and calling them golden.
The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a moral maxim or principle of altruism found in many human cultures and religions, suggesting it may be related to a fundamental human nature.
Except when it comes to gays for some reason. Please explain why you want people to deny you the right to get married, and why you want people to deny you service in a restaurant. We're waiting for that answer. Or admit that you want to do unto others what you don't want done to you. Choice is yours.
I am not angry. I am simply pointing out how ever single thing you say doesn't make any sense.
You seem miserable
Miserable Millennials
You seem very stubborn and since other people disagree with you you start a hissy fit. If the Millenials are miserable what does that make the baby boomers? Crackpots? Hypocrites?
From my experience, the activists and supporters, are the rudest most selfish people I ever heard speak.
Im shocked they cant even see others.
We taught you all the golden rule, Im not sure, how or why your generation is so cruel.
You guys complain about bullying, but you all hide behind keys and bully even your own. As seen on how the internet ruined my life.
The mean things people say to those victims, ruining their lives, are said by millennials,
Not baby boomers!
So listen to a few of those shows, look in the mirror, and realize how selfish and cruel your generation is accurately defined as, and then decide if that is who you are personally!
The baker is your mother, your grandmother, the special Aunt that once made sure you didnt feel left out, or an older neighbor that kept a watchful eye out for you and your friends. Or she is that nice lady at the store that winked at you when caught shoplifting, and said "hey some advise next time you wont be so lucky!"
What if you were an animal activist, and I was a butcher? Should you have a right to not stock meat on the shelves of your store. And shouldnt I have a right to be a butcher and provide people who like and want steak, in other grocery stores?
Or should the animal rights person be able to trample my rights? Or me trample theirs?
Which one of us should be forced to shut down? Who gets to decide?
We don't actually have that right. Those signs don't actually give you the right to refuse service to anyone. Plus, I was asking more to determine if that falls under a live and let live scenario.
You have to have a reason to refuse service, and that reason can't be to descriminate against a protected group. But stores have trespass lists to keep specific individuals away for reasons other than protected class affiliation.
Not necessarily. If "live and let live" is akin to a non-aggression principle, then freedom of disassociation is as valid as freedom of association. So if I have a yard sale and I don't like my neighbor, I can tell him to shop elsewhere without impeding his rights whatsoever. On a larger scale, if I make cakes but don't want to make one for you, I have not infringed on your rights as you have no right to my property, but every right to shop elsewhere. You also have every right to convince a large number of people to disassociate from my cake business.
As a society we have decided that some reasons for disassociation are inconducive to social harmony. As such we demand that professional disassociation due to bias against a protected class be punished. So we force people to do business with people they would prefer not to. It may be the correct course of action by our government, but it is not a "live and let live" philosophy.
Violating rights violates the live and let live philosophy. Convincing others not to buy my product doesn't stop me from selling to willing buyers nor does it force me to sell. It that sense a boycott is perfectly conducive with a live and let live philosophy. It doesn't force another's actions directly but rather manages a non-coercive response.
Excellent. Now, is it hypocritical to say that organizing a boycott violates the live and let live philosophy, but the unwillingness to sell products doesn't?
To be clear, I said that organizing a boycott does not violate the principle. If someone said that a boycott violates the principle but refusal to sell does not, I would first suspect that the person is confused about consistent application of the principle.
Now you know what I am dealing with. The person I responded to is under the delusion that turning down someone who wants to buy from you is a live and let live situation, but someone organizing a boycott isn't.
She destroyed her own business. After she refused to make the cake, her business still generated just as much money. There was absolutely nothing from outside forces that lead to her closing the business. She chose to close the business on her own.
Since when is what one believes something for public scrutiny?
Since you started publicly scrutinizing others.
Is what people believe on trial?
No. It is only what people do that is on trial.
What is religious freedom?
Being allowed to follow whatever beliefs you want AT HOME.
Why has your generation been made to believe, removing what people believe benefits you?
We learned that from you. All you talk about is removing what people believe. You aren't fighting for your rights, you are fighting to take away someone else's rights.
And who and what do you think is behind it all, and how are you all so foolish to believe it?
That would be the hypocritical discrimination being done by you baby boomers.
Though I understand your comment to be rhetorical, I would like to respond literally if I may. Just for fun.
Your comment is posed as a question, but you actually seem more to intend a statement. Removing "Why are" from the beginning would then help it to better represent what your thinking.
Referencing studies as fake because the researchers carry a perspective into the work, would condemn nearly all research. To first hypothesize, then experiment is embodied in the scientific method.
I see publishing research conclusions that support a Christian view as a reasonable thing for a Christian to do.
I believe that you are biased against Christians and that your aim is simply to refer to Christians as fanatics. For Christians as a group, this is not accurate. I have personally come in contact with hundreds of Christians throughout my life. Very few fit that characterization.
Actual science works this way: Lets throw egg against a wall and see what happens, so you throw 20 eggs, make photos, write a paper about what have you seen with. You collect everything you have and send it to various recognized journals and see what happens.
Christian pseudo-science works this way: You start throwing hundreds of eggs against wall until one splash looks like face of Jesus Christ. Then you write a "paper" titled "Each time you throw egg on the wall it will look like Jesus Christ therefore Jesus Christ is the Lord." You paper will be refused by every single scientific journal so you publish it on "unbiased" webs like JesusIsTheLord.com or creationism.com ....
Erm.. posting an article from a christian website about homosexuality and asking us to take it as an unbiased source is like posting a article about the advantages of eating shit from www.ilovescat.com and asking us to take it as an unbiased source.
This could have easily been inferred based on the countless gay children with straight parents or straight children with gay parents. I don't see why this is even a thing. I mean really. Why.
Homosexuality is not determined by genetics but people still are born gay. Sexuality is determined by prenatal hormones. Disproving that it is genetic doesn't get you any closer to proving it's not something you're born with. It was always obvious hat it couldn't be genetic as a gay gene would wipe itself out as gays wouldn't naturally reproduce.
Hahaha, this is so funny. Children aren't sexually mature so really people aren't born gay or straight. No child is born having already found they have sexual preferences towards one or the other sex xD
It matters not what evidence you could possibly show those on the Left. They will deny it, they will twist it because they will NEVER admit anything being wrong in their ideology.
In their world it is ok to be judgmental against Christians or slander them if they should sin, but when the world sins, they actually hate it if Christians speak out to those sins. Those on the Left are true hypocrites and truly not worth debating because they will never admit their own hypocrisy.
Remember when Jimmy Swaggart sinned? The Liberal media bashed and judged him for years and still do to this day. Tell me why Swaggart's sins were so much worse than all of your sins? Oh that's right, he was a Christian who spoke out on sins so when he sinned, you hypocrites had to judge his sin of hypocrisy. Yes, Swaggart had the sin of being judgmental, so tell me why his sin is ok to judge? No one ever said Christians were perfect and Swaggart was the first one to admit his sin and never once tried to condone it.
So the simple truth is that those on the Left are total hypocrites!
Isn't that somewhat obvious? if you were to say homosexuality was genetic, then surely it comes to question who and when the first homosexual came about, which is unexplainable except by saying they are either a different race, (which wouldn't make sense as homosexuality seems to be present in every culture and race of human) or that they were placed here by god (which would be inconsistent with many peoples arguments and therefore not very popular, haha) or that they are a mutation, which would mean you would to some extent believe in evolution, (again rendering the sources of some arguments inconsistent). Even if homosexuality was a genetic mutation it would not be one that survives as HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT REPRODUCE WITH EACH OTHER
In some persons genes affecting human sexual orientation create a greater disposition towards homosexuality, but unless such persons are exposed to the environmental stimuli that trigger that disposition they will not become homosexual. There is also research that indicates that the same genetic composition that disposes towards homosexuality may also create greater fertility in the maternal line; the implication is that those offspring whose environment does not trigger that disposition still retain the genetic disposition and pass it on to their own offspring... of which there will be more than occurs within more heterosexually disposed lineages.
Notably, being homosexual also does not preclude one from having reproductive intercourse.
Though I appreciate your supplying references, these articles are not actually about sexual orientation. Consequentially, they do not establish anything either way with respect to the origins of human sexual orientation. I do agree, however, that there is little to nothing to indicate that sexual orientation is a choice.
With respect to the sources you did site, however, I wanted to raise a couple points of clarification. The first two are actually discussing biological sex, rather than gender identity. The third is discussing gender identity, and doing so quite poorly; it is applying outdated terminology and concepts (e.g. HBS has been discredited, is not commonly referenced, and actually only referred to transgender women; also "transexual" is not commonly used, rather "transgender" and "gender dysphoria" are the clinical terminology and only the latter is pathologized).
Wether homosexuality is genetic is not as relevant to the debate as one would think. It would be far more helpful if someone actually determined wether it is an inborn trait, rather than a choice.
As for your source, Jace already said what needed to be said about it.
Could you clarify the distinction you are making between genetics and an inborn trait? It seems to me that if genetics determine orientation, then it is not a choice.
All of this pertains to genetically determined human attributes (biological sex and gender identity), and does not demonstrate how something could be inborn while being non-genetic.
The closest these secondary sources get to demonstrating a non-genetic basis for inborn attributes is the hormonal washing hypothesis (which is not without standing controversy). The issue with that, however, is that the hormonal washing does not inherently produce the same results indicating that it is an environmental stimuli acting upon preexisting genetic dispositions... rendering the attribute ultimately genetic in nature.
Actually, "not being genetic" and "not being born with it" is a false dichotomy because it doesn't account for events that occur as a fetus is developing.
Unless events in the womb produce inherent, uniform results then those events function just as any other environmental stimuli outside of the womb. Namely, they are stimuli that engage the pre-existing genetic dispositions... rendering subsequent developments ultimately genetic in origin even though affected by external stimuli.
Genetics are not the only factor- hormones, epigenetics, and the various external stimuli that actually shape your brain as it develops are likely all factors in this. There aren't genes that make somebody gay- but everybody (for the most part) has a different genetic makeup, and certain genetic makeups would alter the likelihood of the individual emerging as any of the various sexual orientations upon the development of the sex drive.
Even if it's not genetic, it's still not a choice that can be decried. You can still make an argument that they make a choice to ACT on those impulses, but I can still make the argument that only a huge dick of a god would give someone basic primal instincts to perform action X, while telling said person that performing action X means eternal suffering.
Wouldnt common sense easily think through Bi means 2.
And 2 means there is a CHOICE?
I can go that way, or I can go that way. Isnt bisexual by its own definition a choice not forced "by birth?"
Are bisexual people saying by birth they were forced to make a choice, and change that choice throughout life, as they like?
So how where bisexuals different from everyone else that can choose from 1 or the other? 🤔
From - luckin(29) 1 point
------''
He she or it says "I would say that people are born with preferences, but acting on those preferences is a choice. I didn't choose to be straight, but liking people of the opposite sex is a choice I make"
My point back -
Yea right! Because every baby is born with preference! You've got to be kidding me!
How can this make sense to ANYONE? So then, these kids over in this group are born with a sweet tooth, and this group if kids were born to prefer vegitables??
We have to call it out!
Its one thing to give the what they need for living their own choice, its another thing to call it equal and let it invade and destroy or entire society, and to screw religious freedom while their at it!
And this moral value is a belief, like any religion! But those values are aloud to parade in our kids school, who most were born of natural sexuality, some helped by enhancement due to difficulties. But 100 of which were born, from male plus female!
Shouldnt the nature of their existance dictate the influences allowed BY GOVERNMENT?Isnt anything else vue based education?
Last I checked we werent oud to have "value based education"
And this is UNNATURAL VALUE BASED EDUCATION"
So will you all celebrate with them when Disney produces its first prince and prince fairy tale??
If you are not gay, would you pick up a book like this for a bedtime story with your 5 year old?
"John is a Police Officer and Bill drives the school bus in the morning.
The rest of the day Bill is a busy dad of 2 little boys.
Bill takes the boys to the grocery store where Miss Linda and Miss Patty work in the check out lines. They live next door, and they are Mary’s mommies.
Time to hurry home to make dinner! When John comes home they enjoy dinner on the deck and play baseball in the yard.""
I wouldnt mind a lawyer responding to this, and if down the rabbit hole, my concerns have some validity.
Gender bathrooms
-------------------------
You may not want to hear this, but dont reject true evaluation of legal process, to defend your views.
If you can say the trade off of letting preditors be preditors and continue to get away with it, and perping toms or worse will be excused in droves in the legal process over this law, then fine. Have a good day. We agree to disagree.
And I said before just do it. We wont likely question your gender, if you are really transgender. And ladies rooms have stalls. Your peeing is a private affair. But a law would present a loop hole you may want to think about 1st
But a nongender public bathroom law will aid preditors, and make it difficult to prosecute them!
Are you sure law has control of the legal process and loopholes, assuring these preditors will have to prove they are transgender?
And people who are victims will be able to prove something that is gray, against someone who is saying they are protected as a "transgender?"
Proof of an incident would be extremely difficult to prove or disprove, no matter how clear the incident seems to be?
Law is a funny thing! The burden of proof is on the accuser.
Word against word, ask a lawyer what would likely happen in a case like this!
The preditor may not have to show much proof of being a "transgender" at all. Afterall, "trangenders" will be protected. You would have to have proof of what you saw.
A d thst will be word against word! And God forbid DON'T snap a photo! Because you will get locked up!
A few dynamics people need to think about before you support this bathroom law, and are fair to some at the cost of great unfairness to all women and girls.
A guy could peep or fondle or rape in a bathroom or dressing room with or without this law. But, the difference is with this law passed, you WILL tie up just prosecutions of offenders!
Although being "uncomfortable" on either side is valid its only a 1 point to consider when making this law, with only a small picture in mind. You should be responsible, and look at the many different scenarios then apply them, to make sure you'll be fine with the outcome of each possible scenario. There is a price to pay for passing this law, you should make sure your willing to pay it.
Bigger issues than feeling uncomfortable.
You have a perv peeking or worse, with this law crimes will occur by nasty peepers in frequency beyond current incidents. And a law like this will protect the pervert inadvertantly, and the law wont be able to touch perverts legally who are using these areas easily for perversion.
Its a matter of chaos, its to confusing and it will make circumstannces gray and difficult to prosecute.
Preditors will jump for joy and prey on it!
Then get away with deviant crimes through this law protecting them from legal consequences.
Its a perfect legal argument! Enabling perverts to repeat crimes in bathrooms and dressing rooms again and again. Without even a smack.
As a matter of fact, the pervert will actually sue stores, and concerned citizens for infringing on their rights and privacy, AND WIN!
Without this bathroom law, if a customer or employee sees a 40 year old guy in the girls room, and he looks suspicious, they could act on it and can call police, and have it thoroughly investigated!
With this law, deviant behavior will get a free pass, and the law will protect preditors, and do harm by creating an environment of frequent victimization. And the we will have a hard time proving otherwise.
Preditors will easily claim they are trangender, and they may get as many get out of jail free cards as they want.
And be sure to tread carefully, because approaching these preditors with any suspicious will be a possible case of discrimination, guarenteed to get concerned citizens and store owners in big trouble, and sued too.
Preditors can and will sue you, regardless if you and they know that they are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt! You and the store will be in trouble, the victim will be without justice, and the pervert will be free to continue being a preditors! And possibly abduct or kill someone later!
So please look at at impact of a law like this, and weigh it with common sense, and also knowledge of the legal process we will face later!
This law will open up crimes against women and little girls and give predators legal arguments that will almost always escape prosecution!
Stores, concerned citizens who identify these deviant predators will find themselves in a whirlwind, and law enforcement, and the courts will have their hands tied and will not be able to deliver justice and keep women and little girls safe in bathrooms and dressing rooms!
Because
1 - They will have a legal argument of defense thanks to a law
And
2 - A law would justify bogus law suits from preditors, who should be prosecuted, and the law will justify suit against accusations on the grounds they are " transgender" and "discriminated against"
3 - the political correct environment will force the public to excuse these preditors day in and day out. As people ignore what theyve seen, and walk away from something that felt wrong to them. The law will foster a fear of being wrong or called names like bigot, as they decide not to question the confusing circumstances they just witnessed.
In general they will fear accusing a predator, because of not wanting to offend a transgender. Predator found a sweet spot as he isnt challenged!
My suggestion is write no law allowing it!
And let the issue go!
If you are truly "girl transgender," you most likely really look feminine, Just use the bathroom you look like you belong in. If you look like you belong there, we likely wont stare at you long enough to figure it out! Go into your stall, which are closed in ladies rooms, privately do your thing, wash your hands and then enjoy your shopping!
Because if its a law, you will effectively have given predators a free pass, and that's unconscionable!
You hear many incidents of peepers in bathrooms and dressing rooms, AND DRESSING ROOMS will come quickly if not passed in one swoop along with bathrooms!!
Dressing rooms are really the end game of the law. Bathrooms are just the foot in the door!
I wonder if the PA Govenor thought this through, if not, why not?
Being able to get a liscence change in PA, is actually even worse!
Imagine a world where people who would exploit and take advantage of innocent people, or be legal perverts can by laws selectively plan to become a protected class!
Hmm, no problem with that, is there?
Black people are born a protected class. But "transgenders" can choose to be a protected class!
Anyone can NOW dress up and become a protected class! Yea!
Imagine a world where people who would exploit and take advantage of innocent people, or be legal perverts can by laws selectively plan to become a protected class!
We are talking about gays in this debate, not Catholic priests.
They didn't need a study to prove sodomy is learned and not genetic. It's well known that 90 percent of sodomites were molested a children, naturally causing confusion about their sexuality.