"I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"

[kirksnosehair]

Given that we have no evidence for either a person being able or unable to change sexuality, we have to rely on probability here. Most phenotypes are movable spectra. Because of this, it is likely that a phenotype we don''t have evidence for (e.g. sexuality) is a movable spectrum.

Considering the massive amounts of external, non-genetic influences on our sexuality (social pressures, relationship experience, our own chemical balance, etc), do you really think it impossible that a person's sexuality is grounded at birth?

I'm going to stick with the "probability" that most professionals who are qualified to call this one reject the idea that a gay person can become straight.

[slycordinator]

Many things are fine in normal doses, but in higher than normal doses they can cause problems. Was thinking maybe then that the testosterone present for a male child causes a different reaction in the female body than a female child.

While it's true that excess amounts of any substance can cause problems, we're talking about the immune system in particular here. The woman's immune system has encountered the testosterone molecule every day of her life and even for some time while she was in the womb. So the molecule itself would be ignored by the immune system. The only way it could possibly cause a problem would be if there was a mutation in the child's DNA for producing testosterone, which caused it to be slightly different and marked as foreign. But that doesn't make sense to me because then you'd expect the rates to increase not based on numbers of male children but based on all children (since if the woman had a daughter, that child could get the mutation) or based on an assumption that male testosterone is different from female which doesn't seem likely to me.

So it would still be related directly to male children, and not female children?

Correct. They theorize that something is attached to the Y-chromosome that allows the mother's immune system to recognize it as a foreign substance.

I read a book called Born Cannibal that talked about this. And no it wasn't using "born cannibal" in a purely metaphorical sense. It pointed out cases where twins literally tried to eat each other in the womb. If I find the book, I'll post the relevant information.

If you do find it, I welcome the information but at the moment I remain entirely skeptical, because the idea given that a twin literally attempted to eat the other twin tends to go against the idea that a baby can't eat solid foods even when it is at full-term. I've heard it reported as "one twin ate the other" in cases where what really happened is they were competing for the mother's nourishment and one died.

[Nick]

You gals all make my brain hurt.

[slycordinator]

Well, at least one of us is studying for a biochemistry final and so genetics were kind of on the brain.

[Scheavo]

Correct. They theorize that something is attached to the Y-chromosome that allows the mother's immune system to recognize it as a foreign substance.

Interesting.

[slycordinator]

Correct. They theorize that something is attached to the Y-chromosome that allows the mother's immune system to recognize it as a foreign substance.

Interesting.

Yep. There's actually research that shows that female mice reject skin grafts from male mice due to an antigen that's on the Y-chromosome. And people theorize that something similar happens in humans that results in a mutation to not allow for that same kind of reaction. But who knows.

[Nick]

North Carolina strikes again!

https://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/05/22/pastor-build-electrified-fence-for-gays-so-they-die-out/#.T7vS9MsJ2Fs.facebook

MAIDEN, N.C. (CBS Charlotte) — A North Carolina pastor has come under fire after calling for gays and lesbians to be killed off by keeping them locked up behind an electrified fence.

During his sermon at the Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, Pastor Charles Worley said he figured out a way to “get rid of all the lesbians and queers.”

“Build a great big, large fence – 100 miles long – put all the lesbians in there, fly over and drop some food,” Worley said during his May 13 sermon. “Do the same thing with the queers and homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out … and in a few years they will die out.”

Worley went out to say that gays and lesbians will die off because “they can’t reproduce.”

The Catawba Valley Citizens Against Hate posted a clip of the sermon on YouTube which has gone viral.


“I was horrified. I was shocked,” Laura Tipton, member of the group, told CBS Charlotte. “I was hurt to hear him say such horrible things about the LGBT community. Those words were absolutely horrific.”

The group will be holding a protest against the church this upcoming Sunday morning. Tipton is expecting some 250 people to show up.

“In his newest sermon, Pastor Worley invited us to come demonstrate at the church,” Tipton said. “I think the congregation will either be very shocked or very silent.”

Worley also said in the video that he will not vote for President Obama because he is a “baby killer and a homosexual lover.”

“God have mercy, it makes me puking sick,” Worley said during the sermon. “Could you imagine kissing some man?”

The church’s website says, “We offer NO apologies in believing the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.”

CBS Charlotte has reached out to Pastor Worley for comment.

And I have to say, my favorite part is actually right at the end, "The church’s website says, “We offer NO apologies in believing the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.”" I find it difficult to discuss these matters with religious folks if they decide what parts of the bible can be ignored and what parts should be followed, because at that point I believe you're kinda just making up your own rules. Old testament is pretty clear on homosexuality and Jesus never overturned it, so technically I think the church is correct in what its saying. I don't agree with it, but I like there is actually something solid to stand against in this case.

And while I don't think it's that widespread anymore, it's somewhat scary to know there is a percent of the population out there that will eat this shit up, whether religiously fueled or not.

[eric42434224]

North Caroline strikes again!

https://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/05/22/pastor-build-electrified-fence-for-gays-so-they-die-out/#.T7vS9MsJ2Fs.facebook

Put all homosexuals in one place inside an electric fence?
It would be the biggest party the world has ever seen.
Hell, they would probably create their own contry, cecede, and it would be the most tolerant and nice place to live ever.
Imagine how tastefully decorated the entire country would be?

And I love how the pastor thinks they will all die out because they cant reproduce.   

[eric42434224]

And I have to say, my favorite part is actually right at the end, "The church’s website says, “We offer NO apologies in believing the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.”" I find it difficult to discuss these matters with religious folks if they decide what parts of the bible can be ignored and what parts should be followed, because at that point I believe you're kinda just making up your own rules. Old testament is pretty clear on homosexuality and Jesus never overturned it, so technically I think the church is correct in what its saying. I don't agree with it, but I like there is actually something solid to stand against in this case.

They most certainly do ignore parts of the bible and jesus' teachings.  What about "love their neighbor", and "do unto others", and "judge not" ?

[theseoafs]

*snip*

But seriously, this really upsets me.

[Ryzee]

I like how he referenced lesbians, "queers" and homosexuals as if they are three seperate groups 

[Jaffa]

And I have to say, my favorite part is actually right at the end, "The church’s website says, “We offer NO apologies in believing the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.”" I find it difficult to discuss these matters with religious folks if they decide what parts of the bible can be ignored and what parts should be followed, because at that point I believe you're kinda just making up your own rules. Old testament is pretty clear on homosexuality and Jesus never overturned it, so technically I think the church is correct in what its saying. I don't agree with it, but I like there is actually something solid to stand against in this case.

I can understand your point, but if the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then they might want to give a glance to the bit that mentions 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' 

[kirksnosehair]

I saw the video of that pastor's sermon.  What an oxygen thief

[Nick]

And I have to say, my favorite part is actually right at the end, "The church’s website says, “We offer NO apologies in believing the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.”" I find it difficult to discuss these matters with religious folks if they decide what parts of the bible can be ignored and what parts should be followed, because at that point I believe you're kinda just making up your own rules. Old testament is pretty clear on homosexuality and Jesus never overturned it, so technically I think the church is correct in what its saying. I don't agree with it, but I like there is actually something solid to stand against in this case.

They most certainly do ignore parts of the bible and jesus' teachings.  What about "love their neighbor", and "do unto others", and "judge not" ?

Do abominations qualify for these statements? And in any case, do general vague sayings somehow overrule god's direct commands?

[Sigz]

I'm pretty sure putting gays in concentration camp was not one of god's direct commands.

[Nick]

"Homosexual acts are an abomination to God."
"If a man has sex with another man, kill them both."

Both in Leviticus,  written by Moses, and unless I'm mistaken represents the wishes of god.

[Jaffa]

"Homosexual acts are an abomination to God."
"If a man has sex with another man, kill them both."

Both in Leviticus,  written by Moses, and unless I'm mistaken represents the wishes of god.

Could I get the verse for the second quote?  Not doubting you, just curious.

[Nick]

Apparently it was modernized, old text is this:

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[Jaffa]

Ah, right, thanks.  I was trying to search for the passage but the modernization made it difficult.  Appreciate it. 

[chrisbDTM]

ive been curious about this for a while, dont take this as a shot at religion or anything, but why did God show up and talk to people in the old ages, but once we became modernized he is nowhere to be found? im sure he didnt assign some backwoods hicks to spread his word.


especially the word with electric fences for gays

[yeshaberto]

This is what I would point to as answer from Hebrew 1:1-2.
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds"

[chrisbDTM]

so what does that mean? When did Jesus last talk to humanity?

[Scheavo]

This is what I would point to as answer from Hebrew 1:1-2.
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds"

But both Muhammad and Joseph Smith came after Christ. And if you talk to a fundamentalist Mormon, they're talking with God constantly, and all the time. They'd certainly deny that God has disappeared in modern times.

That's the author trying to get you to ignore other people's idea's. It's the same thing as Fox News calling themselves "fair and balanced," and constantly attacking the "liberal" media.

[theseoafs]

Apparently it was modernized, old text is this:

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This is from Leviticus 20; it's a historical text detailing the laws of a dead civilization. The Christian God does not give its followers the right to kill people who have committed "abominations".

[snapple]

North Caroline strikes again!

https://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/05/22/pastor-build-electrified-fence-for-gays-so-they-die-out/#.T7vS9MsJ2Fs.facebook

Put all homosexuals in one place inside an electric fence?
It would be the biggest party the world has ever seen.
Hell, they would probably create their own contry, cecede, and it would be the most tolerant and nice place to live ever.
Imagine how tastefully decorated the entire country would be?

And I love how the pastor thinks they will all die out because they cant reproduce.   

I have a feeling the homosexuals would reproduce out of necessity. There are thousands of gay men who got married and had kids because it was what you did.

I almost want to see this happen just so it backfires. That isn't teaching God's love. This guy is a maroon and I feel bad for anyone who takes the nut seriously.

[The Dark Master]

You know, this whole idea of putting a group of same sex creatures in a fenced-off environment as a means of limiting reproduction reminds me of something...........

"The kind of control the you're is attempting is not possible.  If there's one thing the history of evolution has taught us, it's that life will not be contained.  Life breaks free.  It expands to new territories.  It crashes through barriers.  Painfully, maybe even..dangerously, but and...well, there it is."


 

[Ryzee]

I know and next thing you know the gays are going to get pissed, break out of their cages and eat us!

[Jaffa]

Also they're going to develop the ability to asexually reproduce via amphibian DNA splicing.  That should be pretty neat. 

[snapple]

It will be fabulous.

[Adami]

Apparently it was modernized, old text is this:

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This is from Leviticus 20; it's a historical text detailing the laws of a dead civilization. The Christian God does not give its followers the right to kill people who have committed "abominations".

Not sure my civilization is dead yet.

[Nick]

Apparently it was modernized, old text is this:

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This is from Leviticus 20; it's a historical text detailing the laws of a dead civilization. The Christian God does not give its followers the right to kill people who have committed "abominations".

Who decides that the Christian god did not give those laws to Moses to write for all his followers, both before and after Christ? And why did Jesus not rebuke such laws if they were indeed wrong?

[Jaffa]

Apparently it was modernized, old text is this:

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This is from Leviticus 20; it's a historical text detailing the laws of a dead civilization. The Christian God does not give its followers the right to kill people who have committed "abominations".

Who decides that the Christian god did not give those laws to Moses to write for all his followers, both before and after Christ? And why did Jesus not rebuke such laws if they were indeed wrong?

I still maintain that Jesus did in fact rebuke death penalty in John 8:7.  I admit that he wasn't direct about it, but he does set a precedent for 'not casting the first stone' which seems to contradict the whole 'kill all the gays' sentiment of Leviticus. 

[theseoafs]

Apparently it was modernized, old text is this:

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This is from Leviticus 20; it's a historical text detailing the laws of a dead civilization. The Christian God does not give its followers the right to kill people who have committed "abominations".

Not sure my civilization is dead yet.

did u chek pulse

[Nick]

Apparently it was modernized, old text is this:

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This is from Leviticus 20; it's a historical text detailing the laws of a dead civilization. The Christian God does not give its followers the right to kill people who have committed "abominations".

Who decides that the Christian god did not give those laws to Moses to write for all his followers, both before and after Christ? And why did Jesus not rebuke such laws if they were indeed wrong?

I still maintain that Jesus did in fact rebuke death penalty in John 8:7.  I admit that he wasn't direct about it, but he does set a precedent for 'not casting the first stone' which seems to contradict the whole 'kill all the gays' sentiment of Leviticus. 

But once again, does something vague like John 8:7 overturn something very specific like Leviticus? Frankly those vague sayings could be twisted and turned to mean anything. Hell, I could cite Leviticus and say I am loving and serving thy fellow man by trying to rid the earth of all the abominations in the eyes of god. Clearly quite a stretch, but it's not like history is without precedent of people taking vague words and twisting them to mean whatever they feel is needed.

[theseoafs]

I think John 8:7 is just as clear as it needs to be. Jesus stopped a stoning for sexual misconduct that was in progress.