Baptist Church to punish other churches that are gay friendly

[Demontestament]

http://www.wwaytv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=5678335

GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) -- The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina voted today during its meeting in Greensbor to cut ties with congregations that affirm or approve of homosexuality.

The moves means the 1.2 million-member convention has formally adopted a rigid anti-gay policy that allows the group to investigate whether member churches are gay friendly.

The convention says the measure is was one of the most rigid anti-gay policies among the nation's Christian churches.

Convention spokesman Norman Jameson says the convention didn't want to take the stance but says it was forced to because "homosexuality is the only sin that has its own advocacy group."

The vote changes the convention's long-standing laws, which previously only required its members to support the convention through cooperation and financial contributions. Now any churches that "knowingly act to affirm, approve, endorse, promote, support or bless homosexual behavior" will be barred from membership.

Now, should two church members request an inquiry, the convention has the formal authority to act.

Jameson says 16 churches in North Carolina will come under immediate scrutiny under the policy. Those churches are associated with the Alliance of Baptists, a Washington-based group that welcomes gays as equal members.


This makes my sick with anger, how people can be so simple minded I don't know.

Now, should two church members request an inquiry, the convention has the formal authority to act.

How exactly would this work? If two members may think that another member or members is gay then they have the right to investigate if it is true. And then if it is they can ban the church from membership with them if they knew about it and allowed the gay person/persons to attentd and worship? Umm correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't that be an invasion of privacy and grounds for a huge law suit?

Convention spokesman Norman Jameson says the convention didn't want to take the stance but says it was forced to because "homosexuality is the only sin that has its own advocacy group."

You sir are a simple minded moron. Please die in a fire.

Ok I know this is another religion type thread but I ask anyone who posts a response to keep it civil and not start a damn flame war. I would like to see a civil discussion and if need be a civil debate. Keep all blows above the belt people.

[Tollwutig]

This makes my sick with anger, how people can be so simple minded I don't know.

The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot) I think looking up there article on wikipedia would help. I have provided the link.

I am from NC, I know a lot of Baptists in NC. I am a fairly good judge of them from experience.

[Demontestament]

The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot) I think looking up there article on wikipedia would help. I have provided the link.

I am from NC, I know a lot of Baptists in NC. I am a fairly good judge of them from experience.

Ahh thank you Toll, now I know :)

GI Joe: "And Knowings Half the Battle!"

[Ohma]

homosexuality is the only sin that has its own advocacy group.

Err...what about pedophilia? Or does that count as homosexuality as well in their book?

[Demontestament]

Err...what about pedophilia? Or does that count as homosexuality as well in their book?

That reminds me of the Bible Dude Skit on Mad Tv when after destorying a Jock sinner in the locker room for illegally Downloading MP3s from the internet the coach comes out and says "Aww I was going to watch him shower!" Bible Dude holds up his bible to smite him and the coach saves himself by saying "I am not Gay, I am a pedophile there is a difference"

[Demontestament]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/11/15/baptist.ties.severed.ap/index.html

Here is another one that happened in Atlanta, this time The Georgia Baptist Convention severed a 170 tie with Mercer University because the University supported National Coming out Day.

[kurisu7885]

Looks like that association is going to shrink, big time. I imagine some pastors may even just turn in their membership and not want to be a part of this.

[Tollwutig]

Looks like that association is going to shrink, big time. I imagine some pastors may even just turn in their membership and not want to be a part of this.

You're seriously under estimating the bigotry of this group. Baptists in NC don't even want to recognize inter-racial marriages.

[kurisu7885]

You're seriously under estimating the bigotry of this group. Baptists in NC don't even want to recognize inter-racial marriages.

My bad. I forgot that in that region was where alot of protesters were beaten and dogs were siced on them as well as fire hoses and all that stuff. Hell, some of the people doing this were problably in on it.

[Silver_Derstin]

I hope that they don't get support in what they are doing (because they'll do it, no doubt). When you start singling out a group of people like that to try and "eliminate" them, problems usually start happening.

Since being homosexual is natural, you can't just dehomosexualize yourself, and no Baptist Church group will help you do that. What are they trying to accomplish right now?

[KN]

For every group of morons like this, there is an opposite, equally moronic group. This group will have explosives and/or flamethrowers.

[Demontestament]

I hope that they don't get support in what they are doing (because they'll do it, no doubt). When you start singling out a group of people like that to try and "eliminate" them, problems usually start happening.

Since being homosexual is natural, you can't just dehomosexualize yourself, and no Baptist Church group will help you do that. What are they trying to accomplish right now?

They are trying to show everyone throught their actions that homosexuals are not human, moral, hate god and don't deserve to pray with straight people because nomatter what they do they are doomed to hell. Since they are doomed to hell they need to get them away from the "Real" baptists so their gayness doesn't spread the consume the souls of others. {/scarcasim}

[Silver_Derstin]

They are trying to show everyone throught their actions that homosexuals are not human, moral, hate god and don't deserve to pray with straight people because nomatter what they do they are doomed to hell. Since they are doomed to hell they need to get them away from the "Real" baptists so their gayness doesn't spread the consume the souls of others. {/scarcasim}

Again, I think this is a case of homosexuals having to be proactive! They should go into Baptist Churches, preach their way of life, act as good christians, convert some straight people into pseudo-homosexual lifestyles!

Come on, you faggots! Show that you can fight back against Bile (whoops, sorry Bible) Thumpers!

[kurisu7885]

They are trying to show everyone throught their actions that homosexuals are not human, moral, hate god and don't deserve to pray with straight people because nomatter what they do they are doomed to hell. Since they are doomed to hell they need to get them away from the "Real" baptists so their gayness doesn't spread the consume the souls of others. {/scarcasim}

I thought you were supposed ot beat it out of them. *looks again in his copy of Gay Bashing for dummies, holding it upside down* [sarcasm]

[Thefremen]

In before lock.I've read 5 pages, this one isn't quite to lock status.-Toll

[kurisu7885]

In before lock.

Uh oh ._.

?Short messages suck.

[Silver_Derstin]

In before lock.

Quite likely. It's always easier to evade debate then to actually HAVE a debate, is it not?

[bayushisan]

The problem is that no one actually debates in threads like this. People hurl a lot of insults at the church or people of faith in general and call it debate. There's always going to be a difference of opinion on the matter of homosexuality when it comes to the church. Accurate teaching of the Bible shows that God does not endorse such behaviour. A church that teaches otherwise can be viewed as not adhering to the proper teachings. It stands to reason then, that a convention or organization of churches has the right to cancel the membership of churches that teach an opposing message. No one is saying that anyone should be harmed, no one is saying that anyone should be called names. Its a simple matter,to me, of one group teaching a Biblically accurate message versus a group that is teaching a politically correct version.

Note my edit above. I'd call it more of a difference of opinion rather than one being accurate. If you make such a statement please make sure you state that as your opinion. Unless it is a proven fact. And no you can't just state something and say the bible says this, and consider it fact. Fact needs more than one reference point. Quote the passage and interpret that, but make sure you indicate interpretation. --Toll

[Silver_Derstin]

I am taking this first part out as it's an invite to flames. -Toll


Its a simple matter of one group teaching a Biblically accurate message versus a group that is teaching a politically correct version.

It's simply a matter of one group teaching an outdated, 3000 years old message compared to groups that would understand the modern reality in which the Churches are supposed to evolve.

Oh wait... Evolution doesn't exist, I forgot. Silly me.

[Demontestament]

In before lock.

Haven't seen anything yet that would constitue a lock, but the day is still young :D

[kurisu7885]

God may not endorse such behavior, but not endorsing isn't the same as absolutely forbidding it.

[bayushisan]

It's simply a matter of one group teaching an outdated, 3000 years old message compared to groups that would understand the modern reality in which the Churches are supposed to evolve.

Oh wait... Evolution doesn't exist, I forgot. Silly me.

It is indeed true that the message is old. That doesn't mean its not relevant. In point of fact with everything going on in the world the message is more relevant now than it was 20 years ago. To me, the Church isn't supposed to evolve; its supposed to stand as an example and hold the light of God's Law and the redemptive message of Christ to the world. You can't exactly do that if you're constantly saying that certain behaviors are ok when, your interpretation of the Bible says that they're not.

To the point of the article however, as the organization is a private one they do in fact have the right to remove the membership of any church within their organization that fails to uphold the ideals of the group. If the churches that are removed want to form their own politically correct group they have every right to do so as well.

Again simple word choice here would not invite flames as the one you originally used. Your second paragraph is excellent. Bayushisan, I don't want to censor your opinion, but please understand when you are writing an opinion, even though you consider it to be completely true is to most of the world just an opinion. One fact you MUST be clear on is that there ARE other interpretations of the Bible, and even though you don't agree with them, respect that they exist and state what you believe as just that BELIEF. -Toll

[Silver_Derstin]

It is indeed true that the message is old. That doesn't mean its not relevant. In point of fact with everything going on in the world the message is more relevant now than it was 20 years ago. The Church isn't supposed to evolve. Its supposed to stand as an example and hold the light of God's Law and the redemptive message of Christ to the world. You can't exactly do that if you're constantly saying that certain behaviours are ok when the Bible says that they're not.

The message of the Old Testament is rendered pretty much completely irrelevant by the New Testament, if you are a true Christian. As such, all the pre-New Testament commandments should be invalid. Same with the letters of Paul, who can easily be called the greatest opportunist of all times. As I have yet to read a quote from Jesus himself that says that homosexuals should burn in Hell for their sins (after he's saved everyone from Hell that'd be weird of him to say, but nevermind that).

The Bible says that some things are okay that are now illegal. And it says that some things that are quite legal (money lending, amongst other things) now are illegal and will make you burn in hell. Really, what's the deal with that?


To the point of the article however, as the organization is a private one they do in fact have the right to remove the membership of any church within their organization that fails to uphold the ideals of the group. If the churches that are removed want to form their own politically correct group they have every right to do so as well.

We also have the right to say that they are ****ing idiots for doing so. Even though they are wonderful Baptist Churches who are OH so perfect in the light of God and everything. In Quebec (Catholic stronghold in the north of America, really), homosexuals are less and less shunned by the Church, and while they are not being supported in the issue of marriage, many priests and even some bishops have taken steps to understand homosexual groups and gladly accept them into their Church to preach the word of God to them.

But since Catholics are not Christians (they worship Cathol or something, I think), I guess they don't really count as an evolving Church that wants to meet the needs of the people within it. A church exists for its constituent, just like a government. If the constituents cannot relate to a church, that's that many followers that leave the said church, and many more will also leave because of it.

[bayushisan]

Actually the Old Testament is just as important as the New. You can't explain the New Testament without the old, as many of the prophecies concerning Christ are in the Old Testament.

However, back on topic, yes you do have the right to call the Baptist group every name you want. Its not terribly mature mind you, but you do have the right to do so.

Keep in mind, I've never said any group of people were perfect. Since we're human we can make the same mistakes and sin like anyone else. This does not, however, negate my earlier comments about the organization and their right to govern their membership according to the teachings of the Bible.


You see a good post, you could have just made this one in the beginning and I wouldn't be editing at 2 AM.. -Toll

[Demontestament]

I always wondered why they would try and chase out/shun those who don't fit in with the grand ideals. I mean hell they still believe in god and the bible, they attend mass every sunday along with everyone else. They read their bible and they pray to God and worship him everdy damn day. So why chase then away? Why shun them? They believe and honor god just like you do so why does it matter where one puts their penis when having sex? Ok maybe the book says it is bad but if it is so damn bad let God tell them that when they meet the boss himself. But as humans we are doomed to be imperfect, we are doomed to make mistakes and repeat them until our dull little brains say to us "Oh yeah jumping off the cliff like the rest of the people is pretty stupid" and since we are not perfect I have always asked myself "How can the words of a perfect God be written down by his imperfect creation?" There is bound to be mistakes made.

[Silver_Derstin]

Actually the Old Testament is just as important as the New. You can't explain the New Testament without the old, as many of the prophecies concerning Christ are in the Old Testament.


You can explain most of the New Testament without the Old, actually, and that's usually how it was presented to nations that were being colonized by Christianity. A Son of God has come to Earth and decided to save us all from eternal suffering and he will return soon to save us all. Many Igbo in Nigeria (I was gonna say were tricked) decided to follow this ideology, which uses nothing of the Old Testament. The Old Testament can be used as a document (an highly edited one, where a lot of books were removed or modified) to explain the coming of Christ, yes, but also to explain what law the new commandments of Jesus were supposed to replace, as his death changed the balance of life and death for all of mankind.

Yes, the Baptist Church can decide to remove all the homosexual accomodating people from their reach. All the better for the people who actually understand the message of Christ and the message of peace which this world truly need at the moment.

[bayushisan]

The thing is, we have free will. We can choose to do right or we can choose to do wrong. A church is supposed to teach God's Law. the redemptive message of Christ and how one comes to know God. The church therefore has the responsibility to tell people the Truth. Whether or not someone wants to believe it is up to the individual.

The Bible speaks against homosexualityto some, therefore those churches have an obligation to speak out against the action. Those that choose to take a different approach are not in obediance to that groups interpretation Groups of churches, be they Baptist, Pentecostal, or whatever have an obligation to remove the membership of any church that does not comply with their teachings of the Bible.

People can feel free to harangue them over it, but it doesn't change that simple fact.

Again with the interpretation thing. Stating what you believe is the correct interpretation is not in fact, fact. That's the funny thing about faith, you can't prove it. Above you see a little editing to make your post less offensive. It's a skill that I behoove everyone on this forum to learn then I wouldn't be editing at 2:15 AM. -Toll

[Demontestament]

The Bible speaks against homosexuality, ... blah blah blah, you can all read the altered text above, and I just removed the quote so its consistent. -Toll

But doesn't the bible also teach "Judge not less ye be Judged?" or what about "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And if anyone of them says they have never sinned in their lives they are a damned liar.

[Silver_Derstin]

The thing is, we have free will.

Let us fight faith with faith, shall we?

No, we do not have free will. We are destined to live our lives, who are mesured and controlled by the Norns, servants of Odin. If we perform well enough in this world, we shall be granted admittance within the Golden Halls of Valhalla, and if not, we are bound to live another life on this Earth. In the worst case (betraying one's lord or acting against the Will of the Gods (necromancy, allying with the Jotun), we are sent to Nifleheim to cleanse our sins with time and penitence.

But all of this is fated, and will end at Ragnarok.

[bayushisan]

But doesn't the bible also teach "Judge not less ye be Judged?" or what about "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And if anyone of them says they have never sinned in their lives they are a damned liar.


Yes it does indeed say Judge not less ye be Judged. Saying an action is right or wrong however is not judging someone. Condemning a person is Judging them. It can't be wrong to say that homosexuality is against the Will of God because God Himself says it in the Bible, according to my interpretation. Its the teaching that such behviour is ok that is against church Law and Biblical Law.


See a little prepositional phrase added to the end of the sentence, and you remove the controversy, and make this thread less flame worthy. Then at 2:17 I am not editing posts. -Toll

[Demontestament]

Let us fight faith with faith, shall we?

No, we do not have free will. We are destined to live our lives, who are mesured and controlled by the Norns, servants of Odin. If we perform well enough in this world, we shall be granted admittance within the Golden Halls of Valhalla, and if not, we are bound to live another life on this Earth. In the worst case (betraying one's lord or acting against the Will of the Gods (necromancy, allying with the Jotun), we are sent to Nifleheim to cleanse our sins with time and penitence.

But all of this is fated, and will end at Ragnarok.

Hopefully one day I will be allowed into Valhalla :D

[Silver_Derstin]

Hopefully one day I will be allowed into Valhalla :D

You should, unless you're fated to be a servant of the Jotun.

Or a servant of the Trickster, of course....

[Silver_Derstin]

Saying an action is right or wrong however is not judging someone.

8. to form a judgment or opinion of; decide upon critically: You can't judge a book by its cover.
9. to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge: The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.
10. to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess: He judged her to be correct.
11. to make a careful guess about; estimate: We judged the distance to be about four miles.

Actually, it is. Imagine that...

[bayushisan]

:rolleyes:

Within that same statement I pointed out the difference between judging a person and dertermining the rightness or wrongness of an action committed by that person.

For your edification however here it is again.

Actions can be determined to be right or wrong, from myChristian perspective, based upon, interpreting God's Law and His Commandments. Condemning a person, i.e. telling them to go to Hell, is the judgment spoken of within the context of the verse Judge not lest ye be Judged.

Now a preacher, when teaching about Christ, will mention the consequences of making the wrong choice. This is not judgment, in the sense that he is not condemning a person; rather he is making known what God says will happen to those who actively choose to forsake Him.

Hope that clears things up.

Change a indefinate article to a possessive preposition and boom less offensive to other members. Oh and I also corrected some spelling, not highlighted in blue. -Toll

[Yukimura]

:rolleyes:

Within that same statement I pointed , etc etc etc. I removed the quote cause I changed the original text. -Toll.


This gets to one of the fundemental problems I have with organized religeon, and why I do not belong to any church. Anyone, who has ever looked into it, knows that different religeons have wildly different views and intrupritations of the bible, and in fact, much in the bible itself contradicts.

Yet at the same time, organized religion would like you to belive that the Bible is LAW! And they attack anyone who doesn't accept it as such, like myself.

I don't belive that the bible is absolute, cause far to much in it is open to reinterptation. So, I belive that NO religion has it right, and therefore, not one of them knows the actuall will of god, and therefor, none of them have any right or justification for telling me how to live.

As you can imagine, religious nuts love me. /sarcasam.

But in all truth, I accept no churchs word, up to and including that of the pope or the christian church.

The way I see it, theres only one way we will even truly know. Death.

When we die, thats when we'll know if god exsists or not.

But thats just me. I'm in the minority. :D

Full Disclouse: No, I am not gay. I'm a straight man. However, I do not begrudge gay people there choice of life style, even though I do not agree with it. Just so long as they leave me be, there free to do as they like.

[Silver_Derstin]

Actions can be determined to be right or wrong, .

So, basically, all the preachers who preach against homosexuality are performing such an action, because they are telling homosexual that they are going to hell. Also, we can judge God, because he's judging all of us, and quite frankly, I find him guilty of genocide, amongst other things.



Now a preacher,

Tell me, who is "actively choose to forsake (him)" (I will edit the capital here, because your God is no God of mine)? Most homosexuals in the US, as pointed out earlier, are actively Christians, praying, paying their tithe, buying their way to paradise like any good old Christian out there. If they were psychotic idol worshippers (like the followers of Cathol and Ortho (God of all the EVIL Orthodox)), then I would understand them forsaking a God. But they're not, they're just doing something perfectly natural which was banned by an ancient group of desert dwelling nomads who feared they'd be out of people to serve them if they allowed homosexuality.


Hope that clears things up.

Nothing you say clear anything up. You contradict yourself at every post, and every time someone comes up with a valid counter-argument (even a ****ing linguistic one), you just deny their existence or try to get the thread locked, which you probably see as a great victory for your God, because you have silenced all of the EVIL infidels.

You'd make Loki very proud, if you were not so irrational.

Removed some quotes just to keep things consistent at 2:22 AM -Toll

[nightwng2000]

It is said that Man is made in the image of God.

The truth is, and is proven by the various religions as well as the various variants within any particular religion, that any particular God is made in the image of the individual believer.

Any particular believer will find a God that just so happens to believe EXACTLY what their God believes. But in truth, it is that the believer translates and interprets the religious writings to magically agree with the believers belief.

I truly shake my head at those who make claims that some other believer isn't interpreting their religious text properly simply because the interpretation doesn't match what the first believer... believes.

The initial believer will always declare someone else who doesn't follow their beiefs to be going against the will of God. But in point of fact, no religious text is right or wrong. It will always be right for the believer and wrong for those who don't agree.

And in so doing, any believer will be able to justify any belief they want, because it will always match their interpretation. They can hate any group of humans, can teach hate to anyone, and can justify any act on any group they hate simply because, lo and behold, their God says it's ok and anyone who doesn't intrepret the religious text the exact same way is interpreting it wrong.

This, therefore, makes ALL Gods simultaneously Good and Bad at the same time because everyone who agrees precisely with a particular God is worshipping a Good God and everyone one else's version of God is Bad.

This is why I choose to be non-religious agnostic. Because no one else's God is appropriate for me and I choose not to create my own God to believe in since I believe myself to be truly imprefect and therefore incompetent to create God in my own image. The unknown is simply that, the unknown. Science hasn't answered every question, especially the metaphysical. So I am not pure science.

But since I cannot align bigotry and hate as being an ideal of a Good God, then I choose not to follow any of the religions around me.

[bayushisan]

Derstin I haven't changed a thing I've said. I've repeatedly said the same thing over and over again. I may have used different examples, but the content has been the same. I've never talked poorly about anyone else and you know it. Each post has been concise and rational; civil in tone and wording.

The discussion was about a Baptist organization's decision to revoke membership of those churches that said homosexuality was ok. There were quite a few responses condemning the group for doing so, my response was to explain why they were obligated to. You don't have to agree with me.

To answer your question about what it means to willingly forsake God; well you answered it yourself within the content of your post. I've already explained about preachers and certain messages. If you wish to twist what I said to suit your own hate filled vision be my guest.

You were doing good until you used the words in Silver. I just lightened them up. -Toll

[Hank the Tank]

Bayu, could you give me some exerpts from the Bible denouncing homosexuality? Give me something other than the story of Sodom and Gomorrah or exerpts from Levitcus. I got the lessons "don't rape your guests" and "health tips for the stupid ages" from those respectively.

[Silver_Derstin]

Bayu, could you give me some exerpts from the Bible denouncing homosexuality? Give me something other than the story of Sodom and Gomorrah or exerpts from Levitcus. I got the lessons "don't rape your guests" and "health tips for the stupid ages" from those respectively.

Paul talks about it in the Letters to the Romans, but let's face it, he's not that great of a source... Belinda Stronach is less of an opportunist then this crook.

Edit: Paul actually wrote quite a bit on the subject. Makes one wonder what his sexual orientation actually was, really... Also, "The hundred and forty and four thousand ... which were not defiled with women" will be saved. Which means homosexual are not accepted in heaven prior to Revelation, then, at the end of days, they're the only ones saved. Biblical Accuracy wins again.

It's so much easier in the Norse religion: all sex is bad, but you can do it as long as you're not a complete pervert that would flaunt it. Reproduction is also part of Fate anyways...

[Grahamr]

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d56/Trent957/where_is_your_god.jpg

Adressed towards teh church, not bayu.

[nightwng2000]

Adressed towards teh church, not bayu.

Awww look, dinner. :)

Anybody got any Cats-up? :)

[wxDiva]

Since I’ve been busy most of the day, I didn’t get the chance to respond until just now. If it seems like I’m picking on you, Bayu, I apologize, but your side seems to be the main part of the opposition to my opinion. Too avoid a lot of re-reading by other posters, I shortened the quotes.

The problem is that no one actually debates in threads like this. People hurl a lot of insults at the church or people of faith in general and call it debate.

Most of what I’ve seen, at least in this thread, is that most of the insults are due to the stupidity of the actions of the church, not to Christianity or any person who worships it. In fact, most of the people you accuse of being libelous toward Christians are either Christians themselves or formerly so. They usually support their opinions with actual reasons about why they dislike some Christians’ ways.

There's always going to be a...

What’s considered proper in terms of teaching is all up to one’s interpretation of the Bible. If you go by what the bible says, we should execute all homosexuals (amongst many other biblical laws that people can’t blow off with a simple “It’s a hygiene thing”). I highly doubt any sane individual would agree with that. Now for an example of your contradiction:

It stands to reason then…

And

The Bible speaks against homosexuality...

Also…

It is indeed true that the message is old…

If they are indeed a private organization, then political correctness shouldn’t even be an issue here. You know, separation of church and state and all. You defend the Baptists for revoking these churches, yet you defend the churches for their views. Christian or no, I can understand why someone feels homosexuality shouldn’t be a reason to hate someone. I’ve seen plenty of cases where straight, professedly religious individuals have done heinous acts, yet are wholeheartedly supported by their church even though they broke religious doctrine. Who has the right to shun people who are actually good Christians just because of something written several millennia ago? I’ve always heard defense of the Bible, saying that some of the teachings and rules are archaic, but then when this debate comes up with equally archaic writings, you can’t get people to budge from it. Perhaps the politically correct way is the correct means of interpreting things, if it leads to lessened hatred, loving thy neighbor, etc. You can’t make a half-assed interpretation of the bible and keep your credibility.

If the churches…

Which I hope those churches do. That’s what brings change to this world. People getting tired of the bs and forming what they feel is right. Remember Reformation?

The thing is, we have free will…

Who is truly to say that these churches aren’t teaching the truth? That as long as you’re a good person, it shouldn’t matter who you love as long as you’re dedicated to them?

Yes it does indeed say...

It’s wrong to judge a church for going with what they feel is right. What if the Baptist church is wrong for promoting hatred? Would you feel that they were being unfairly judged? Looking at your prior posts, probably.


You see people this is an example of a good post. Everyone take notes, wxDiva is calm, does not hurl insults and takes each point and responds. In this case she is responding with questions asking Bayushisan to elaborate. By doing so wxDiva can then counter the elaborations by pointing out more specific flaws in the argument or by conceding well argued points, but hopefully not at 2:27 AM Kudos to wxDiva -Toll

[Ohma]

Gorramit, why am I always either absent/late to/from these flame wars, or too incoherent for my point to be read?

Ah well, at least most people make the points I'd try to make...

And that all this strife will be rendered moot once the old one awakes from his long slumber beneath the waves.

Actually this one has stayed just o the civil side of a flame war, so I did some selective editing to make it a good bit less offensive-Toll

[Tollwutig]

Okay people let me turn on my Mod voice....

Now I didn't close this thread at 2:30 in the morning because so far it has remained just inside the line of civility. However I did do some selective editing to make it less flame worthy.
Now that being said, yes a lot of the edits were to Bayu's posts, but that was only because most of the fuel you guys were trying to ignite was coming from them. Basically I made the gasoline less flammable.

Now people are invited to continue this discussion BUT, you are to go back and REread every post and take it in it's new form. Also take notes, as to how to post in a way that doesn't invite so many flames.

Also remember EVERYONE is ENTITLED to their OWN OPINION, you may not agree with it. If you don't state that, and be done, you aren't likely to change someone's opinion on an Internet Forum.

Also remember Fact is Fact, Opinion is Opinion. Facts have verifiable data to them. Opinion occurs when interpretation of writings happens.

Fact fish have fins..
Opinion... Moses was circumsized.

You see I can PROVE fish have fins. But while I believe it is likely that Moses was circumsized, at this point in time I do not have a time machine handily available to go back and double check just to make sure. Thus the status of Moses foreskin is an opinion.

Toll

[KN]

Toll's edits rule.

[Fury1671]

Bayu, could you give me some exerpts from the Bible denouncing homosexuality? Give me something other than the story of Sodom and Gomorrah or exerpts from Levitcus. I got the lessons "don't rape your guests" and "health tips for the stupid ages" from those respectively.

Oh, great flame worthy fact to point out about Levitcus. Those laws also state don't eat dirty animals. Funny how you can just CHOOSE the biblical laws you want to follow right? This is a little off-topic, but doesn't Jesus teach you to love the sinner, hate the sin? If so, then why such the overall hatred of anything.

EDIT:
Toll, why were you even ON here at 2:33 AM, let alone trying to mod this.

[Demontestament]

I must honestly say I had fears that would log on this morning and find that this thread was taken out back and put down like Ol' Yeller. I am happy that the discussions for the most part have remaind civil, and thanks to toll for keeping things on the civil side when they seemed like they were heading off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings. Toll I applaud you for staying up til 2:33am modding all this stuff, but at the same time I am now a little scared that you were up til 2:33 in the ****ing am using you Mod powers.

Sometimes I wonder about the lengths I go through to make sure you guys stay civil. Actually I was at the time so pissed at my soon to be ex-roommate that I couldn't sleep. So I checked in and went over the thread. -Toll

[Grahamr]

I do belive that homosexuality is abnormal and maybe not what god/evolution(insert beliefs here) intended, but if they love each other, let them love each other. we don't have the right to interfere with things like that.

BTW, Toll roxxors.

[Tollwutig]

I do belive that homosexuality is abnormal and maybe not what god/evolution(insert beliefs here) intended, but if they love each other, let them love each other. we don't have the right to interfere with things like that.

BTW, Toll roxxors.

Unfortunately the abnormal issue is kinda out the window since over 1500 species have demonstrated homosexual behavior. So if it was mix up by God, all creation would cease to exist as creation is based on God being infallible.

Evolution would eventually weed out any traits in a species that did not somehow favor the species in some way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality

Abnormality does not occur in 1500 species (500 well documented) by pure chance. Either a) God put it there for a reason b) God did not put it there, and since Animals do not share free will, Creation is about to cease to exist because I just proved God wrong c) It evolved as a trait which assists the species.

[John]

You know what I hope comes out of this?

Bad publicity for the BSC and all those churches that got cut to form their own gay-friendly convention.

At least, that's what I hope those churches do, and not pull a Haggard and ban the gay people from attending just to stay part of the BSC.

[PyroHazard]

Thing is, if we are created in God's image, then why do homosexuals and homosexual activity exist? For what I have known, people become homosexual by choice but also from birth while in utero. Besides, passages in the Bible say that we adultery should be an executable offense and that thieves should have their hands cut off. (Or is that Islam?)

Obligatory mod edit po...
What the **** are you doing in here?
I..uh..
Don't uh or I me, boy. What grounds do you have to edit my posts?
To make it civil?
I was being civil until you decided to barge into my post and rape it of it's dignity..
Hey, don't make me report you to Dennis!
Report me then.
I will!
DO IT!
I WILL! :mad:
That red in your face puts a lot of contrast in your Dark Slate Blue posts. :cool:
Dennis here, what in Jack B Thompson is going on?
PyroHazard is being a meanie face :(
He started it...
Did not...
Did too...
DID NOT!
Pyro, you're grounded and Toll, go to your room. We'll talk about this when your mother gets home. -GP


:D

[nightwng2000]

maybe not what god/evolution(insert beliefs here) intended,

Ok, freeze! Hold on just a moment.
Intent implies a plan implies sentience. Right?

IF God exists, ok, that works.

But are you implying that "evolution" is sentient?

Nothing in evolution is "abnormal" if it continues because what doesn't work ceases to exist through evolution.

And frankly, let's add the opinion that a God had some hand in describing their intent through their religious text. God itself dictated their intent, man interprets it, but God dictated it.

When it comes to evolution, man wrote their theories, but if evolution is sentient, where did it write it's intent which would show that anything is "abnormal" in its plan?

[Tollwutig]

Ok, freeze! Hold on just a moment.
Intent implies a plan implies sentience. Right?

IF God exists, ok, that works.

But are you implying that "evolution" is sentient?

Nothing in evolution is "abnormal" if it continues because what doesn't work ceases to exist through evolution.

And frankly, let's add the opinion that a God had some hand in describing their intent through their religious text. God itself dictated their intent, man interprets it, but God dictated it.

When it comes to evolution, man wrote their theories, but if evolution is sentient, where did it write it's intent which would show that anything is "abnormal" in its plan?

Ouch, good point there.

[Thefremen]

Unfortunately the abnormal issue is kinda out the window since over 1500 species have demonstrated homosexual behavior. So if it was mix up by God, all creation would cease to exist as creation is based on God being infallible.

Evolution would eventually weed out any traits in a species that did not somehow favor the species in some way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality

Abnormality does not occur in 1500 species (500 well documented) by pure chance. Either a) God put it there for a reason b) God did not put it there, and since Animals do not share free will, Creation is about to cease to exist because I just proved God wrong c) It evolved as a trait which assists the species.

Evolution is not done, there are still many traits floating around which are not beneficial like the tendency to post in /b/.

At any rate, keep in mind that although the fittest survive, they aren't perfect. The Dinosaurs, in example, were too dependant on fossil fuels and smoked too much. As far as human go, we voted for George Bush....TWICE. All living things are works in progress.

That being said, there are many many examples of gayness in nature and even in technology (ps3 is gay for Orlando Bloom) which leads one to believe there may be something beneficial about the trait. Perhaps gay or bi-sexual cave people were the best painters. I mean, a lot of those early cave paintings were done in France which is where gays immigrated from. (Family guy reference)

[Tollwutig]

Evolution is not done, there are still many traits floating around which are not beneficial like the tendency to post in /b/.

At any rate, keep in mind that although the fittest survive, they aren't perfect. The Dinosaurs, in example, were too dependant on fossil fuels and smoked too much. As far as human go, we voted for George Bush....TWICE. All living things are works in progress.

That being said, there are many many examples of gayness in nature and even in technology (ps3 is gay for Orlando Bloom) which leads one to believe there may be something beneficial about the trait. Perhaps gay or bi-sexual cave people were the best painters. I mean, a lot of those early cave paintings were done in France which is where gays immigrated from. (Family guy reference)

Oh I know Evolution is not done was mainly arguing the fact that homosexuality is not abnormal behavior in humans as it occurs in other species.
There would be plenty of uses for homosexuality in the animal kingdom, for one it could be a means of population control, esp in species who communally raise young, as non-reproducing adults that assist in raising off spring increase that off-spring's chances of survival.

[KN]

Thing is, if we are created in God's image, then why do homosexuals and homosexual activity exist? For what I have known, people become homosexual by choice but also from birth while in utero. Besides, passages in the Bible say that we adultery should be an executable offense and that thieves should have their hands cut off. (Or is that Islam?)

Obligatory mod edit po...
What the **** are you doing in here?
I..uh..
Don't uh or I me, boy. What grounds do you have to edit my posts?
To make it civil?
I was being civil until you decided to barge into my post and rape it of it's dignity..
Hey, don't make me report you to Dennis!
Report me then.
I will!
DO IT!
I WILL! :mad:
That red in your face puts a lot of contrast in your Dark Slate Blue posts. :cool:
Dennis here, what in Jack B Thompson is going on?
PyroHazard is being a meanie face :(
He started it...
Did not...
Did too...
DID NOT!
Pyro, you're grounded and Toll, go to your room. We'll talk about this when your mother gets home. -GP


:D

Holy **** that wins so hard.

[Thefremen]

Oh I know Evolution is not done was mainly arguing the fact that homosexuality is not abnormal behavior in humans as it occurs in other species.
There would be plenty of uses for homosexuality in the animal kingdom, for one it could be a means of population control, esp in species who communally raise young, as non-reproducing adults that assist in raising off spring increase that off-spring's chances of survival.

I would say that in each respective species homosexuality is abnormal. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I mean, big ol' titties and a small waist on the same woman are abnormal but you don't see me complaining.

What was I talking about?

Oh yeah. I wonder how much longer folks like BSC can keep their heads in the sand? Probably at least 10,000 years more.

[Tollwutig]

I would say that in each respective species homosexuality is abnormal. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I mean, big ol' titties and a small waist on the same woman are abnormal but you don't see me complaining.

What was I talking about?

Oh yeah. I wonder how much longer folks like BSC can keep their heads in the sand? Probably at least 10,000 years more.

I'd say it has a purpose to the species, or else the species would breed it out. For one, in Dolphins they think homosexual behavior reduces male aggression which helps keep Dolphins social, and thus able to better protect the young.

[KN]

That is correct. As it is highly unlikely homosexual specimens of a species actually procreate, it should be out of the gene pool pretty fast if it wasn't necessary in some way.

Damn you and your facts, reality! ;p

[Silver_Derstin]

That is correct. As it is highly unlikely homosexual specimens of a species actually procreate, it should be out of the gene pool pretty fast if it wasn't necessary in some way.

Damn you and your facts, reality! ;p

Then, one can argue, homosexuality is not something which is genetic, but rather a behaviour that is naturally reproduced over time for one reason or another (unspent sexual energy could be one explanation amonst many). Or then homosexuality IS necessary to the gene pool, which is quite a weird affirmation.

[Dagrak]

Or then homosexuality IS necessary to the gene pool, which is quite a weird affirmation.

Well if you think about it mankind has broken many of the laws which nature has set down. In our society thanks to various medical breakthroughs more people surive that really (don't hate me for this I'm just stating theories) shouldn't, such as those unable to fend for themselves. This means that whilst we have fewer deaths we also have far too many people. Homosexuality therefore becomes extremely useful in reducing the number of births whilst at the same time satisfying that fundamental desire everyone has to mate. Therefore homosexuality is an essential trait to reduce overpopulation.

[kurisu7885]

Well if you think about it mankind has broken many of the laws which nature has set down. In our society thanks to various medical breakthroughs more people surive that really (don't hate me for this I'm just stating theories) shouldn't, such as those unable to fend for themselves. This means that whilst we have fewer deaths we also have far too many people. Homosexuality therefore becomes extremely useful in reducing the number of births whilst at the same time satisfying that fundamental desire everyone has to mate. Therefore homosexuality is an essential trait to reduce overpopulation.

Not to mention that homosexuality also leads to cohabitation, whic halso means less homes being built.

[KN]

Which, humourously, might force the religious right to embrace birth control and abortion in order to reduce the gay.

Irony is so sweet.

[Tollwutig]

Then, one can argue, homosexuality is not something which is genetic, but rather a behaviour that is naturally reproduced over time for one reason or another (unspent sexual energy could be one explanation amonst many). Or then homosexuality IS necessary to the gene pool, which is quite a weird affirmation.

Actually no, because genetics doesn't always work in a straight forward way. There are any number of alleles that can be present yet not expressed in parents which become expressed in the offspring.

A common and easy to see example of this are those 2 dark headed parents who end up with the blond haired blue eyed kid. If you look at the family history of the parents you'll typically find the traits expressed elsewhere. In this case the genes for Darker hair and eyes (melatonin) are dominant over the lighter colored genes. Both parents can carry the genes but neither express them, thanks to genetic recombination though, a child can end up with both recessive genes and turn out with lighter pigmentation.


Also some genes have environmental factors which cause expression. A good example of these genes are those that give sexual characteristics, particularly the genes which cause the formation of male genitals. Many of these genes are also found in females, but do not get expressed. These genes are activated by higher levels of testosterone, which gets produced when the gonads differentiate, and in the case of males become testes.

A very rare genetic defect actually breaks the receptor for Testosterone, which means the individual does not react to testosterone.
This means that the individual ends up developing complete female sexual organs, and is essentially female. The only issue is the "woman" has testes that have not dropped out of the body, and actually has a Y chromosome.


Also it has been shown that a significantly high percentage of gay men are 2nd or 3rd sons. In the same study it was statistically shown that the more older brothers a boy has the statistically more likely he is to be gay.
The theory behind this is that the fetus is exposed to higher levels of Testosterone caused by the previous pregnancies with male children.

So in summary, a trait could be useful to keep in the genome and not breed out because of certain environmental conditions cause the trait to be expressed and increase the genomes chance of survival under those conditions.

[Silver_Derstin]

Well if you think about it mankind has broken many of the laws which nature has set down.

Mother Nature started the fight for survival and now that she's losing, she wants to BACK OUT? I say we destroy her COMPLETELY.

Is there anything a quote from the Simpsons can't explain?

[PyroHazard]

I would say that in each respective species homosexuality is abnormal. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I mean, big ol' titties and a small waist on the same woman are abnormal but you don't see me complaining.

What was I talking about?

Oh yeah. I wonder how much longer folks like BSC can keep their heads in the sand? Probably at least 10,000 years more.

Thing is, we are ALL abnormal in some way, shape, or form. That is what makes our species so diverse because evolutionary traits abstain from the norm and end up producing something new whether it be big boobs, curled toes, or a 200+ IQ in mathematics.

I don't see why homosexuality should be taken out in the equation.

[nightwng2000]

Mother Nature started the fight for survival and now that she's losing, she wants to BACK OUT? I say we destroy her COMPLETELY.

Is there anything a quote from the Simpsons can't explain?

Rule #1: Never, ever, piss off Mother Nature.

Make her mad. Challenge her to a rousing debate. Even tick her off a bit.

But never, ever, piss her off.

[Thefremen]

That is correct. As it is highly unlikely homosexual specimens of a species actually procreate, it should be out of the gene pool pretty fast if it wasn't necessary in some way.

Damn you and your facts, reality! ;p

Not as unlikely as you'd probably think. After all, society in general and specifically the "I hate gays" crowd goes around shoving people into closets and forces them to breed whether they like it or not.

EDIT: Pyro, I'm talking about one specific trait that most humans share, and some don't. Sure there is no "normal human" but there are traits which it can be said that most share and a small minority do not. For example, most people have 2 lungs but there are a few klingon hybrids who have three.

[MisterS]

i think the church has every right to get rid of homosexuals in their church. but if homosexuals start their own church and the catholics start trying to get rid of that one, that's when they need to shovel this homo=sin crap up their asses. if a homo wants to start a church, he has every God-giving freakin right to! and if God really hated homos, why wouldn't he just make them straight himself?

[ZippyDSMlee]

nothing like tatleing taleing to god....I mean he already knows..I bet they will be some confused looks when they are in the last in line to be juded with the killers rapists and demons *L*

[SlyFox]

"Dear zealots and bigots who can't tolerate others' preferences,

I'm sorry. I can't hear you, as there's too much stupid on your side of the room. Maybe you would like to come over to the smart side and grow up a little."

[KN]

"Dear zealots and bigots who can't tolerate others' preferences,

I'm sorry. I can't hear you, as there's too much stupid on your side of the room. Maybe you would like to come over to the smart side and grow up a little."

Nice. But how about this?

"I'm sorry, I'm afraid I subscribe to the theory of intellectual osmosis. As such, I must now cease our conversation and move away from you before my intelligence begins to drop. Good day."

[PyroHazard]

Pyro, I'm talking about one specific trait that most humans share, and some don't. Sure there is no "normal human" but there are traits which it can be said that most share and a small minority do not. For example, most people have 2 lungs but there are a few klingon hybrids who have three.

That may be the case but there are a minority of left-handed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_handed#Demographics) people too. Doesn't mean society as of now is ostracizing them as harshly as homosexuals. (Even though in biblical Christian-Greek scripture, it was frowned upon to use your left hand for tasks. Should this mean that southpaws shouldn't be allowed to marry in a church?)

Oh, and having 3 lungs would be ****ing awesome.

[Thefremen]

That may be the case but there are a minority of left-handed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_handed#Demographics) people too. Doesn't mean society as of now is ostracizing them as harshly as homosexuals. (Even though in biblical Christian-Greek scripture, it was frowned upon to use your left hand for tasks. Should this mean that southpaws shouldn't be allowed to marry in a church?)

Oh, and having 3 lungs would be ****ing awesome.

Hey I'm not saying that just because a trait is outside of the majority everyone with that trait should be ostracized. I think quite the opposite, that lefties and righties and homo and hetero sexual peeps should all have equal footing. But **** those green eyed people.

Oh yeah, and F.R.I.E.N.D.S. Take on this:

Joey: "If homo sapien was really....ya know, HOMO sapien, is that why they're extinct?"

[nightwng2000]

Wow, it's still open. I liiiiike it. :)

Ok, so if evolution isn't sentient, can it still be manipulated?

There have been alterations over time that humans have attempted to treat as "abnormal" and worked to change one way or another.

Six fingers on one hand for example. Such an alteration has been occuring for a very long time. It's happened in a portion of the population that, without interference, could have spread further than what it has. But humans treat it as an "abnormality" and surgically remove the additional finger. Natural evolution wasn't given the opportunity to allow that additional finger to become "normal".

How many other alterations to humanity have been prevented by human manipulation rather than the natural events of evolution?

[KN]

Wow, it's still open.

You've cursed it now =/

[Theory?]

Hey I'm not saying that just because a trait is outside of the majority everyone with that trait should be ostracized. I think quite the opposite, that lefties and righties and homo and hetero sexual peeps should all have equal footing. But **** those green eyed people.

Oh yeah, and F.R.I.E.N.D.S. Take on this:

Joey: "If homo sapien was really....ya know, HOMO sapien, is that why they're extinct?"

Why on earth would you admit to watching Friends? And on top of that, you went through the effort of typing it "F.R.I.E.N.D.S.".

Losers. All of you!

[Thefremen]

Why on earth would you admit to watching Friends? And on top of that, you went through the effort of typing it "F.R.I.E.N.D.S.".

Losers. All of you!

It has to do with /tv/ but I digress. Although you can say "omg hax" because humans say "oh I'd rather not mate with that six fingered person" that's part of evolution. Survival of the fittest and those with attractive features get to mate. On average, women have bigger boobs and men have bigger penises than in previous generations.

It's like how giraffe's fight for dominance with their necks so the long necked ones tend to mate, big horned sheep butt heads, and rednecks shoot at each other.

[Tollwutig]

Wow, it's still open. I liiiiike it. :)

Ok, so if evolution isn't sentient, can it still be manipulated?

There have been alterations over time that humans have attempted to treat as "abnormal" and worked to change one way or another.

Six fingers on one hand for example. Such an alteration has been occuring for a very long time. It's happened in a portion of the population that, without interference, could have spread further than what it has. But humans treat it as an "abnormality" and surgically remove the additional finger. Natural evolution wasn't given the opportunity to allow that additional finger to become "normal".

How many other alterations to humanity have been prevented by human manipulation rather than the natural events of evolution?

The flaw in your argument is that, cutting off the 6th finger does NOT remove the genetics for the 6th finger. Thus someone who had a 6 finger cut off is likely to reproduce and have children with 6 fingers.
Now if the person who has 6 fingers kept them all and wasn't allowed to reproduce, THAT would remove the 6th finger from the gene pool.

[nightwng2000]

The flaw in your argument is that, cutting off the 6th finger does NOT remove the genetics for the 6th finger. Thus someone who had a 6 finger cut off is likely to reproduce and have children with 6 fingers.
Now if the person who has 6 fingers kept them all and wasn't allowed to reproduce, THAT would remove the 6th finger from the gene pool.

But isn't a true that by not allowing any particular feature to be used and strengthened over generations means that the feature will not evolve further, weeding out the weakness in the feature while keeping the strength of the feature?

Take the feature of walking bent over versus walking upright. An "abnormality" that allowed the species to begin walking upright was introduced. The entire species didn't change all at once. And since the feature was allowed to be "normal", not only were those who were already physically predisposed to walking upright doing it, but those who were not physically presidposed were doing it, thereby, over time, allowing their own physical structure to change to accept later generations walking upright.

It may have been a genetic "abnormality", but it was manipulation that allows a feature to spread or not spread. Perhaps a form of "genetic memory" that found it's way into the gene pool by doing something, even if it weren't "natural", making that feature stronger, and slowly altering what was "normal" and what wasn't.

Suppose that the majority felt that walking upright was "abnormal" and those who could walk upright were still made to walk bent over, would we be walking bent over today? And would, after all this time, the feature of being able to walk upright still be there, or would it no longer exist simply because the feature wasn't used and evolution worked with what it had?

[Ohma]

*snip*

Um...that's not how evolution works...

We walk upright because our mutant ancestors developed bone and muscle structures that made walking mostly upright, as opposed to dragging their knuckles, a more comfortable/efficient mode of locomotion. NOT because we spontaneously decided that walking upright was the best way to walk.

[nightwng2000]

Um...that's not how evolution works...

We walk upright because our mutant ancestors developed bone and muscle structures that made walking mostly upright, as opposed to dragging their knuckles, a more comfortable/efficient mode of locomotion. NOT because we spontaneously decided that walking upright was the best way to walk.

Actually, I'm suggesting a combination of genetic feature as well as acceptance both by the individual as well as the community (including parents) of the change. After all, if one or two in the village started walking upright, but the rest placed restrictions on doing so (any number of ways to place restrictions), couldn't that have an effect on the new feature if it wasn't used?

[Tollwutig]

Actually, I'm suggesting a combination of genetic feature as well as acceptance both by the individual as well as the community (including parents) of the change. After all, if one or two in the village started walking upright, but the rest placed restrictions on doing so (any number of ways to place restrictions), couldn't that have an effect on the new feature if it wasn't used?

Actually walking upright is a bad example, as it was more likely due to the fact that being upright made sex for females more pleasurable. Of course the fact that they were upright also meant they chose males with larger penises..... anyways...

As for six fingers no, the only reason a 6th finger would become genetically more desirable if it gave some advantage to the one with the extra finger.... not through acceptance, now in modern society acceptability MAY play a factor, but in most species viability is the deciding factor.
Now if the 6th finger added to sexual prowess, females could then begin to choose males with a 6th finger thus promoting the alleles coding for the extra finger.

If a mutation gives neither an advantage or disadvantage its kind of random chance to its survival. Sometimes though a mutation which doesn't have an advantage suddenly has one due to an environmental change.

[Thefremen]

Actually walking upright is a bad example, as it was more likely due to the fact that being upright made sex for females more pleasurable. Of course the fact that they were upright also meant they chose males with larger penises..... anyways...

As for six fingers no, the only reason a 6th finger would become genetically more desirable if it gave some advantage to the one with the extra finger.... not through acceptance, now in modern society acceptability MAY play a factor, but in most species viability is the deciding factor.
Now if the 6th finger added to sexual prowess, females could then begin to choose males with a 6th finger thus promoting the alleles coding for the extra finger.

If a mutation gives neither an advantage or disadvantage its kind of random chance to its survival. Sometimes though a mutation which doesn't have an advantage suddenly has one due to an environmental change.

Thank you for that. The best reply I had was "So help me I will bring Stephen J Gould back to life just so he can shove his foot up your ass!".

Actually, is it steven? He is my favorite expert live or dead on the subject of evolution.

[nightwng2000]

Actually walking upright is a bad example, as it was more likely due to the fact that being upright made sex for females more pleasurable. Of course the fact that they were upright also meant they chose males with larger penises..... anyways...

As for six fingers no, the only reason a 6th finger would become genetically more desirable if it gave some advantage to the one with the extra finger.... not through acceptance, now in modern society acceptability MAY play a factor, but in most species viability is the deciding factor.
Now if the 6th finger added to sexual prowess, females could then begin to choose males with a 6th finger thus promoting the alleles coding for the extra finger.

If a mutation gives neither an advantage or disadvantage its kind of random chance to its survival. Sometimes though a mutation which doesn't have an advantage suddenly has one due to an environmental change.

As you say "more likely" since we can't be certain of any claim why it was accepted or why it wouldn't have been in an alternate existance.

But, in this reality, the 6th finger is automatically determined by society to not give an advantage, without allowing it the opportunity to be developed. Even if, all of a sudden, the 6th finger were allowed to remain, society would have to allow adaptation of current human made devices to accept the additional digit.

Also, 6 finger humans don't have to be the entire species. It could merely be a seperate subset of the species. But even that isn't allowed because the "majority" determines that the 6th finger subset is "abnormal" and must be abolished, without the opportunity of that subset to prove itself. "Be like us" is very easy when you can cut away the difference.

[nightwng2000]

Thank you for that. The best reply I had was "So help me I will bring Stephen J Gould back to life just so he can shove his foot up your ass!".

Actually, is it steven? He is my favorite expert live or dead on the subject of evolution.

If a violent response is the best defense you have to the argument...

Personally, I prefer to discuss probabilities.

[Thefremen]

If a violent response is the best defense you have to the argument...

Personally, I prefer to discuss probabilities.

Well it wasn't an arguement so much as...well, you know how your brain hurts when some Anonymous on the main page says "But why so bad to maek gamez illegalz that's haow moviez r lolrotfl!!!!!!1111!!!!!one!!!!". Yeah.

[nightwng2000]

Well it wasn't an arguement so much as...well, you know how your brain hurts when some Anonymous on the main page says "But why so bad to maek gamez illegalz that's haow moviez r lolrotfl!!!!!!1111!!!!!one!!!!". Yeah.

And then someone comes back with "games are interactive" and I come back with "so is playing cops and robbers (SOMEONE has to play the robber and win once and awhile, of course, they could mimic real life...)". Or I make reference to legal sports with violent illegal acts, either by players or coaches or spectators or all of the above. Doesn't hurt my brain. Some folks write weird, and not just Zippy... ahem, but their argument is actually valid. It's if they can carry through to the next step as to whether they can argue rationally, even if they can't write rationally.

[Tollwutig]

As you say "more likely" since we can't be certain of any claim why it was accepted or why it wouldn't have been in an alternate existance.

But, in this reality, the 6th finger is automatically determined by society to not give an advantage, without allowing it the opportunity to be developed. Even if, all of a sudden, the 6th finger were allowed to remain, society would have to allow adaptation of current human made devices to accept the additional digit.

Also, 6 finger humans don't have to be the entire species. It could merely be a seperate subset of the species. But even that isn't allowed because the "majority" determines that the 6th finger subset is "abnormal" and must be abolished, without the opportunity of that subset to prove itself. "Be like us" is very easy when you can cut away the difference.


You're missing the point here, the 6th finger has no genetic advantage or disadvantage. Survival wise there is no disadvantage to having a 6th finger.

You are confusing selective breeding with natural evolution, where an intelligent source selects which traits are being bred for or against.

Society not desiring is a form of selective breeding.

[ZippyDSMlee]

You're missing the point here, the 6th finger has no genetic advantage or disadvantage. Survival wise there is no disadvantage to having a 6th finger.

You are confusing selective breeding with natural evolution, where an intelligent source selects which traits are being bread for or against.

Society not desiring is a form of selective breeding.

Wouldn't having that extra "appendage" raise your food and energy needs by 0.01% thus making it a slight disanvantage?
altho....really..if its under 1.0% why are we even talkign about it 0-o

[Demontestament]

Wouldn't having that extra "appendage" raise your food and energy needs by 0.01% thus making it a slight disanvantage?
altho....really..if its under 1.0% why are we even talkign about it 0-o

Man a 6th finger? you would be able to hit every cord on Guitar Hero with ease :D

[ZippyDSMlee]

Man a 6th finger? you would be able to hit every cord on Guitar Hero with ease :D

I have seen enough reg and manx cross breed cats to see that you have 3 choices with genetics 1 prefect,3fcked up 4 slightly wrong,you don't want a 6th finger to be stiff and unusable.....

[Demontestament]

I have seen enough reg and manx cross breed cats to see that you have 3 choices with genetics 1 prefect,3fcked up 4 slightly wrong,you don't want a 6th finger to be stiff and unusable.....

You could poke stuff with it.

[Tollwutig]

Wouldn't having that extra "appendage" raise your food and energy needs by 0.01% thus making it a slight disanvantage?
altho....really..if its under 1.0% why are we even talkign about it 0-o

Not really, also it could in today's society be an advantage to burn more energy.

I have seen enough reg and manx cross breed cats to see that you have 3 choices with genetics 1 prefect,3fcked up 4 slightly wrong,you don't want a 6th finger to be stiff and unusable.....

Really it depends on the number of Alleles you're dealing with. Hmmmmmmm..... I think this may be the mid week debate change.

[ZippyDSMlee]

You could poke stuff with it.

A 2nd pinky aint big enough to poke things wif 0-o

[Tollwutig]

A 2nd pinky aint big enough to poke things wif 0-o

You never know where that extra finger could be an advantage. As I pointed out earlier it could assist with sexual stimulation of females which means females would tend to breed with those males with the extra digit.

[Demontestament]

You never know where that extra finger could be an advantage. As I pointed out earlier it could assist with sexual stimulation of females which means females would tend to breed with those males with the extra digit.

exactly my thought.

[Thefremen]

And then someone comes back with "games are interactive" and I come back with "so is playing cops and robbers (SOMEONE has to play the robber and win once and awhile, of course, they could mimic real life...)". Or I make reference to legal sports with violent illegal acts, either by players or coaches or spectators or all of the above. Doesn't hurt my brain. Some folks write weird, and not just Zippy... ahem, but their argument is actually valid. It's if they can carry through to the next step as to whether they can argue rationally, even if they can't write rationally.

Yeah, zippy writes as well as Bush speaks, but at least he knows his **** and doesn't build his arguements based on a false premise, which is what the arguement I hate to have to refute so often is. There is no legal consequence for letting a minor buy an R rated film so the arguement that it the same should apply to games is not valid.

Anyways. Failure of the School System. It's no wonder people put so much faith in intelligent design and creationism when people think Darwin spouted the same retarded **** that his peers spouted (that traits used more are passed on to children). Darwin's theory is the bomb because it has stood up to all these years of peer review, unlike the theories of his peers.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Yeah, zippy writes as well as Bush speaks, but at least he knows his **** and doesn't build his arguements based on a false premise, which is what the arguement I hate to have to refute so often is. There is no legal consequence for letting a minor buy an R rated film so the arguement that it the same should apply to games is not valid.

Anyways. Failure of the School System. It's no wonder people put so much faith in intelligent design and creationism when people think Darwin spouted the same retarded **** that his peers spouted (that traits used more are passed on to children). Darwin's theory is the bomb because it has stood up to all these years of peer review, unlike the theories of his peers.

Of corse without popper schoolings people become dumb and can be lead easier ><

you know I am goign to sooo stalk you if I ever find my way out of this paper bag! :P

oh wait...you live on a island...I hate water 0-o
*falls in another paper bag* 0_o

:eek: :D :p

[ZippyDSMlee]

And then someone comes back with "games are interactive" and I come back with "so is playing cops and robbers (SOMEONE has to play the robber and win once and awhile, of course, they could mimic real life...)". Or I make reference to legal sports with violent illegal acts, either by players or coaches or spectators or all of the above. Doesn't hurt my brain. Some folks write weird, and not just Zippy... ahem, but their argument is actually valid. It's if they can carry through to the next step as to whether they can argue rationally, even if they can't write rationally.

I shall naw hole sin all urrr shores >>
once I get out of this papper bag....

*bag and kat get tossed in garbage,garbage goes to a barge floating on the river gets lost and wind sup floating aimlessly at sea*
>>

[Darth_Toxic]

HOLY CRAP....

I'm IN Greensboro right now! I used to live here, and just recently moved to Asheboro... But anyway, I'm visiting here, and I can't believe this crap is going on in my back yard!

Garrr...

[Tollwutig]

HOLY CRAP....

I'm IN Greensboro right now! I used to live here, and just recently moved to Asheboro... But anyway, I'm visiting here, and I can't believe this crap is going on in my back yard!

Garrr...


Darth if you are from NC you should know what the Baptists are like here.

[KN]

You see, homosexuality is evolution happening before it's too late. My sources tell me that in roughly 150 years, gamma rays will strike earth, changing the way human reproduction works. After this change, only two people of the same sex can procreate. Without people attracted to those of the same sex, this would doom humanity.

[Sprngpilot]

You see, homosexuality is evolution happening before it's too late. My sources tell me that in roughly 150 years, gamma rays will strike earth, changing the way human reproduction works. After this change, only two people of the same sex can procreate. Without people attracted to those of the same sex, this would doom humanity.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y134/Sprngpilot/eyebrow.gif

But, I thought gamma rays made us all large, green, and super-strong?

Oh, I get it. The Hulk is gay. It all makes perfect sense now.

[MachShot]

I can sum up the disjustification of this Church's actions in four words.

What Would Jesus Do?

It's funny how they say homosexuality is a sin as if heterosexuality is completely ok. Show me a person who has any form of sexuality and I'll show you a person who has comited countless sexual sins. This is an insult against baptists in general. I have baptist friends and yes, they are against gay mariage, but they don't try to purge homosexuality.

Keep in mind that before you read a rule or fact of morality in the Bible keep those four words in mind so you are not mislead.

You see, homosexuality is evolution happening before it's too late. My sources tell me that in roughly 150 years, gamma rays will strike earth, changing the way human reproduction works. After this change, only two people of the same sex can procreate. Without people attracted to those of the same sex, this would doom humanity.

:confused:

Uh... Now I was always the type of person to question evolution but that sounds somewhere along the lines of radical to me. Could you reference these sources of Gayma rays and how scientists have found out that they will specificaly make homosexuality a necesity? And how are we able to subliminaly tell that such an even is rising that make some of us gay?

[KN]

The Gayma rays move in mysterious ways.

[Grahamr]

Gayma rays are being researched by the U.N as a Weapon. When fired on enemy positions, they transform people into homosexuals on contact. Mostly, they are mounted on sattiliates, but one person is capable of using a Personal Gayma ray.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_%28Guilty_Gear%29

[nightwng2000]

Why is BiSexuality so often overlooked?

So what is a bisexual in the eyes of religious bigots? Sinner and Saint in one package?

And what asexuals (not counting Michael Jackson)? Can asexuals get married? If they get married for reasons other than love or procreation, are they living in sin?

Can a hermaphrodite be homosexual?
What about someone without sexual organs?

[kurisu7885]

Why is BiSexuality so often overlooked?

So what is a bisexual in the eyes of religious bigots? Sinner and Saint in one package?

And what asexuals (not counting Michael Jackson)? Can asexuals get married? If they get married for reasons other than love or procreation, are they living in sin?

Can a hermaphrodite be homosexual?
What about someone without sexual organs?

My guess is on bisexuality that runs with the mindset of absolutes, you are or you aren't, there is no in between

[Silver_Derstin]

Why is BiSexuality so often overlooked?


Because bisexuality is often a thing people say because they are "open-minded" or know they can't get any booty, so try to get some lovin' from his own team?

I'm sick of the quantity of bisexuals that suddenly spring up... Let's face it, most bisexuals are poseurs.

[Thefremen]

Because bisexuality is often a thing people say because they are "open-minded" or know they can't get any booty, so try to get some lovin' from his own team?

I'm sick of the quantity of bisexuals that suddenly spring up... Let's face it, most bisexuals are poseurs.

Kinsey had a scale of 1-10 where (iirc) 1 was totally gay and 10 was totally straight. Very very few people were 1s or 10s iirc.

[Silver_Derstin]

Kinsey had a scale of 1-10 where (iirc) 1 was totally gay and 10 was totally straight. Very very few people were 1s or 10s iirc.

But I'm fairly sure nobody were 1 AND 10.

[Darth_Toxic]

Darth if you are from NC you should know what the Baptists are like here.

Actually, I don't - I haven't been to church in years, and I usually actively try to ignore them - in the words of Grandpa Simpson, "It angries up the blood!"


On a related note, the other day, I was readin' my local paper and saw a letter-to-the-editor about Elton John's religion comments. As I expected, it offered nothing new, and didn't have a single brain cell to its name - it was the basic "You are wrong, homosexuality is the ultimate sin, and if you accept it, you WILL rot in hell!" The best part was at the end, and I quote: "Mr. John should be careful what he wishes for, or he just might get it; for the Rapture is coming fast." Heh.

Reminds me of this Family Guy bit:

Brian: How very Christian; 'believe what I say or I'll hurt you.'

Peter's Dad: Now you're getting it! *Hits Brian over the head with the Bible*

Just about sums up every quibble anyone's ever had with religious folk.

[Thefremen]

But I'm fairly sure nobody were 1 AND 10.

I guess you mean 5s....yeah, usually people do prefer one sex over the other even if its by a small margin.

[ZippyDSMlee]

I guess you mean 5s....yeah, usually people do prefer one sex over the other even if its by a small margin.

Mabye I have gotten old and jaded and lonely but guys are looking better and better 0-o
altho still a 15% to the 80% attraction to females leavening 5% to becoming a hermit mew =0_o=

[Tollwutig]

O "You are wrong, homosexuality is the ultimate sin, and if you accept it, you WILL rot in hell!" The best part was at the end, and I quote: "Mr. John should be careful what he wishes for, or he just might get it; for the Rapture .


I love how people can't read the bible but must follow like bleating sheep. For one there is no Ultimate sin in the bible, there was an original sin, and a lot of other Sins, but then Christ got rid of most of those when he broke the original Covenant.

Not to mention the term Rapture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture#History) a non-biblical term coined in the 1800's by an American, but yet there is a large following that thinks it's the word of God.

[ZippyDSMlee]

I love how people can't read the bible but must follow like bleating sheep. For one there is no Ultimate sin in the bible, there was an original sin, and a lot of other Sins, but then Christ got rid of most of those when he broke the original Covenant.

Not to mention the term Rapture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture#History) a non-biblical term coined in the 1800's by an American, but yet there is a large following that thinks it's the word of God.

dont forget
there is no hell only grave pits :P

http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/jesus_hell.php

[Ohma]

Because bisexuality is often a thing people say because they are "open-minded" or know they can't get any booty, so try to get some lovin' from his own team?

I'm sick of the quantity of bisexuals that suddenly spring up... Let's face it, most bisexuals are poseurs.

Yes, and it's annoying as frell that they color everyone's opinion of us.

EDIT: just to clarify, I meant the poseurs