Ok, thanks for the info, I shall leave you be now and explore the matter more myself.

I am jewish![not that it matters]

Homosexuality is neither genetic nor inherant. If it were, then the father would be homosexual, and the grandfather, and so on. If they were homosexual then they would most likely not be having sex with women, thus not producing the father, nor his son, and so on. Your 'logic" has been permeated.




And if I remember correctly, Ive pointed out numerous times that what I say on here is my personal belief, but since I am a christian, many of you confuse what I say with the beliefs of all christians. Thats your problem if youre not smart enough to make the distinction. And I would also like to point out that I am not the one who brought religion into this, I simply gave MY OPINION and my RELIGION was soon after attacked. You people are sad excuses for human beings. You are all hypocrites and I stand by my ban-worthy post I made lastnight.




This is quite ironic. While I disagree with homosexuality, I find that the only person on here that is worthy of any respect lately is adidasss, the only g@y member (with the exception of a few of you so-called "bi" boys, which is another argument altogether).






RAR, can make as many hate threads against me as he would like, It doesnt bother me in the slightest. I have my beliefs, I defend them. End of story. You people use any and every chance you get to criticize and belittle my religion and then turn around and bitch at me for criticizing the lifestyle of someone else. Pure hypocracy.

You want us all to die in our sleep still?



Adidasss is worthy of respect because he is homosexual, and you dislike them, okay, easy enough to understand.




Your arguments are flawed.
You defend your beliefs the way a squirrel would defend itself when backed into a corner.

I defend my beliefs the way a person would when being attacked on all sides by hypocracy, liberalism, and idiocy.

Well maybe if you logically defended them, then the "aggressive liberals" wouldn't have to attack you with some goddamn intelligence.

Ethan was right, you really weren't obligated to stay in this thread yesterday, it was from feeling of losing the argument that you were forced to resort to namecalling and banned, not from the fact that the crafty hypocrites were out to get you.

You people just need an easy target, and today that seems to be christianity. I really do feel bad for all of you. So wrong. So misled. So naive. How can you all call me closed minded and force-fed? There are a dozen of you saying the same bullsh*t against one of me, and I'm the one who is brainwashed? Youre all pathetic. I pray that God will have mercy on your souls.

Christianity is an easy target, because most of it's followers aren't intelligent enough to logically defend it. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who are. But I'm done with this thread.

Why group the whole Musicbanter community like that?
I thought Kurt Cobain, Blainka, and Riseagainstrocks were Christians.
I'm almost positive Ian is Christian, and he still had an (effective) individual opinion on the matter, not just a lame excuse of personal attack.
Even if he had been against homosexuals, he sure as hell would have had a thought process behind his argument.
You continue to avoid a logical thought process and instead turn to the option that we might be wrong and misled.
That's bullshit oojay, you use zero brainpower in determining what you are believing in.
There are quite a few things you've said that contradict previous statements you've made, especially about gays.
In reality, you don't know shit.
What the fuck does God have to do with conservative politicians preaching anti-homosexuality and then gays being conveniently lynched by people like you?
If you continue to uphold these conservative Christian beliefs, which I'm almost positive you will, think about them before implementing them into your life, it will certainly give you a much more clear understanding of yourself and where you stand.

we have the same beleifs, which we are defending when you attack them. We're not force fed, nor are we naive. And please don't pray for us, If God does exist, and this higher power really DOES have such a narrow path of what is right and wrong, I want nothing to do with it/him/whatever. I'll take my chances in hell.

you can not bring your religious beliefs in a conversation such as this, soon as someone does its criticized, but as i said before, i have no problem with homosexaul marriage, i dont have any problem with them either, but i just dont think its right thats all, i just feel that their is a certain duty man and woman have to do

by a certain duty I'm assuming you mean reproduction? Don't you think with the world's population as it is, and the actual need for population control that's a bit of an outdated argument?

yes, well thats just my view, it may be out dated but its without arguement something that man and woman can only do

I agree that it is, but I'm just curious as to why that makes any difference on homosexual relations in modern society. We have no need to worry about keeping the population up, we have the opposite problem, so why is that a reason that homosexuality is wrong?

ok, maybe i worded my statement wrong, that doesnt make it wrong, you got what i was trying to say, i just dont care for it, i dont hate homosexauls, i just dont care for choice, its a personal belief that all. and there is a problem with over population, but i talking about continuing your family blood line with children

ahh, gotcha now. I can see where you're coming from, but I can't say I agree at all. I've never bought the whole "duty to your family" deal. I believe that if you live your life for anyone other than yourself, it's a waste of your free choice, and ultiamately, a waste of a life.

live your life for your self but also live for others. :)

Christ, oojay quit pretending to be victimized here. You've been spitting your gay hate here alot (which is funny because you're fine with lesbians). You can't argue intelligently, you dodged the majority of logic and are pulling all this out of your ass.

If I havn't said it before, and i'm pretty sure I have. My best friend is christian and I even go to church with her on occasions. I really don't have some passionate hate for it, Blainka is a christian and I have 0 problem with him. Its the fact you go in to debates act like an idiot, don't argue intelligently, and say all fags are going to burn in hell along with baby killers and people who aren't of your same political belief. Then call every one names and bitch about how victimized and attacked you are that pisses people off, not because you're christian I could care less.

And for the record I am not bi. I don't know where the hell you get that from. This is my problem with you, not because you're christian but you go off and assume i'm something because I defend something.

Rofl. MB lately has been so incredibly stupid. Every single thread spammed with some sh*t about g*y marriage being wrong, Oojay getting flamed etc. Guys, seriously, SHUT THE F*CK UP! Moley has been the only realistic person in this thread. This right here, is a music forum. Not a religious forum.

Oojay, I don't care how you live but you brought all this upon yourself. Leave Christianity, wrestling and your petty insults out of the goddamn forum. Now, I'm a Christian, I believe in God, try to live as sin free as I can. But I believe we were meant to have freedom as well, homosexuality is something you don't force on yourself, and it's something no one else should try to change. Marriage isn't meant to be about 2 different genders coming together, it's meant to be about 2 people who love each other coming together. So in other words, g*y marriage should be allowed.

Okay, next point. Alot of you are picking on Oojay saying he has sinned before and he's not a real Christian. Are you kidding me? Everyone has sinned before, it's basically innevitable. Whether you've shoplifted, g*y sex, who cares? Everyone has sinned, no ones perfect so once again SHUT UP!

So I think, next time Oojay, or anyone brings up this sh*t, ban them. Because when I joined, it was a music forum not a "Look at me, I'm an attention whore" forum.

Thank you for letting me rant.

That doesn't seem to be true. This thread has been spammed a lot, but people saying things like "*** marriage is wrong" in a thread which began..
Is certainly not off-topic. The thread was about people's opinions and arguments relating to *** marriage. Its in the lounge. You can't expect people to talk about music in this thread, although if there ARE any songs about *** marriage then I'd be interested to hear them.

Even if there had been cross-thread spamming about this issue beforehand, the arguments about it have all been on this thread for the last few days. If you disagree then I'm happy to view examples of where this particular argument has spread into other threads, but I don't think there is much evidence of that.

:laughing: The good old "homosexuality is a choice" theorem. By your logic only people with Downs sindrome could produce offspring with the same condition. I know nothing about genetics so I won't try to defend that theory. I can however tell you about my own experience. The most offensive thing anyone can say to me is that homosexuality is a choice, because it makes me a sadist to choose to go through what I've been through and undoubtedly will be put through by my surroundings. I've never been attracted to women, but I have been so indoctrinated about homosexuality being "wrong, unnatural and gross" that I spent a very long time trying to make sense of who I am and whether or not I'm normal. I could have spent that time much more productively and more happily if it wasn't for closed-minded, stubborn people like yourself.

But for the sake of the argument, even if one was to accept homosexuality was a choice ( which it most certainly isn't ), it still doesn't explain how and why homosexuals are denied certain inalienable human rights if ( and I'm sure even you would agree ) we are not doing society any harm.

Actually, having read most of this thread now, I would say your religion wasn't attacked, you were , however, asked on multiple occasions to explain certain inconsistencies regarding Christians and the way the choose to interpret the Bible as it suits them. One can certainly be a Christian and think homosexuality is normal, it all depends on how you want to interpret the Bible.
Great, now you don't believe bisexuals exist either? At this point I think you're just being argumentative for the sake of it. I find it hard to believe that anyone as intelligent as yourself could really be as stubborn about not accepting pure logic and reasoning. But I understand where you're coming from, I love to get in the face of anyone who says Green Day sucks just because it's the "now" thing to say. ;)

No friend, what we do ask of you is to think for yourself and question what you have undoubtedly been taught, because I doubt you came to all these conclusions on your own ( despite your parents, for instance, being liberal minded, which I'm positive they're not ). I'm positive you would have a very different mindset if some of your family members were gay, just like some of my family members have come to radically different conclusions on homosexuality when they put a face on the issue.

Liberalism yes, hypocracy and idiocy most definitely not. I repeat, you can can be a Christian and gay friendly. You chose another route. Let's not blame the world for being logical.

I presume you also think homosexuality is a choice? If so, read the above.

Sexual desires aren't a choice, although acting upon them is. In this debate I'd tend to assume there isn't the suggestion that people should act dishonestly with respects to their sexual desires (meaning to have sex with women when really they are attracted to men or vice-versa).

To believe that homosexual desires were a matter of 'choice', you'd also have to believe that heterosexual desires were a matter of 'choice', which I also find to be both ridiculous and offensive suggestion.

Although I don't believe that people are born straight, *** or bisexual outright, I'd agree with what Ian seemed to be saying, which is that your sexuality is (like everything else) a combination of your genetics and the environment in which you grew up. And both of these factors are beyond a person's control, so there is no way they had any 'choice' in the matter. Maybe if I'd born in Marijan's place I'd be just as *** as he is, maybe if he'd been born in my place he'd be just as straight as I am, or maybe genetic factors would have given a completely different result.

Whatever the case, might I suggest that anybody who proposes the 'homosexuality is choice' case in the future first takes a long, hard look at their own sexuality and considers how this opinion reflects upon them.


HETEROSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE????

I think Oojay was implying the desire itself is a choice, not acting upon it. And not acting upon our sexual desires is as unnatural as they make homosexuality seem. Very good point on heterosexuality then being a choice also, if anyone can choose who they're attracted to, I'm sure most gays would have chosen to be attracted to the opposite sex, just because life would have been much easier. And just for the sake of the argument, Oojay should try to be attracted to men, see how that goes. ;)

But I have to say, I don't see how the environment I grew up in could have had anything to do with me being gay. I should have been straight as an arrow given the general climate surrounding homosexuality in my family, village, island and country. My brother grew up in the same environment and he's as straight as they get. That's why I'm leaning more towards the theory that sexual preferences are determined at conception, and there's no amount of heterosexual indoctrination that could turn someone straight, I'm living proof of that.

I don't agree with that. The only person that can grow up in your specific environment was you. Comparison with your brother's sexuality isn't completely valid because even though he was born to the same family, in the same place, learnt the same language and all that, he wasn't born at exactly the same time (that's be true even if you had been twins), his name isn't Marijan (I assume) and he hasn't experienced anything from the exact same viewpoint that you have experienced it.

Let's just suppose that at the age of 13 you saw a really hot guy soaping himself up in some place with public showers. Your brother didn't see the same guy, at the same age and in the same place and it's from these subtle differences in your formative environment that I personally think big differences in your final sexuality can result.

Anyway, your brother's genetics should be 50% similar to yours so wouldn't that suggest that if he's 100% straight then you're 50% straight by the genetics argument?

Nope, I disagree, to play off your example, even if I had seen a really hot soapy guy at 13 and he hadn't, I believe that if I had not been gay, that event would have gone unnoticed. I understand that our lives haven't been exactly alike, but subtle differences, in my mind, could not have made us into such different people as we are. Genetics played a much more important role.

And as far as our genes being similar, if I'm not mistaken, chimpanzees have about 98% of the same DNA as we do, so a very tiny percentage is needed to make a humongous difference. I have 4 siblings, if my oldest sister has black hair, why does my youngest one have blond hair, by your logic, shouldn't she be at least 50% black haired? To use the Downs syndrome as an example again, shouldn't someone who has a brother or sister with the condition also be 50 percent afflicted? Flawed logic no?

I agree that genetics play a big role and that they predispose you to notice things which other people don't and not notice things which other people do.

Please ignore the hot soapy guy idea, because that was probably a bit silly and I'll ignore your Down's syndrome analogy, that's a chromosonal disorder man! Are you saying that you're gay due to a chromosonal disorder?? What are you proposing, they should start up gay school for gay kids to learn about things more suited to the gay learning style??!

For the record, Down's sydrome is caused by having an extra chromosome or part of an extra chromosome. This means that the chromosomes have actually moved around and says nothing about the content of those chromosomes, whereas the genetic factors in the similarities and differences between siblings which you've mentioned would be entirely to do with those chromosomes.


EDIT: I was looking up about Down's sydrome and on the 'list of famous people with downs syndrome the first time I looked I thought it said Chris De Burgh was one.

No no, I chose it as an example because it's caused by genetics. Like I said before, I know practically nothing of genetics, but it seemed loosely connected. I guess having an extra chromosome isn't the same as having a certain gene ( as some scientist are now suggesting ). Moving on.

Truth is, I have no idea why I'm gay, and I'd rather not keep talking out of my ass. There are much smarter people out there that still haven't figured it out so it's silly of us to try and act like we do. Maybe it's environmental, maybe it's genetic...I'm sure when they finally figure it out, they'll make a big fuss about it. Although an interesting dilemma would be, if they figure out the cause, would it be ethical to change the child according to the parent's preferences?

I don't know about ethical but, if there really was a 'gay gene', or combination of genes, then it would seem there would be some reason why the gene persisted (despite the fact that a 'gay gene' would tend to stop itself being passed on, by dissuading reproduction of the individual carrying it). It's been suggested in the past that this 'gay gene' also gives other people other talents which are useful for human survival which is why it is still around, so it would be a bad idea for doctors to allow people to choose against it in their children (if you assume the majority of straight parents would prefer their child to be straight than gay all other things being equal).

Having said that, I really believe there is no 'gay gene', although probably many of the factors which determine somebody's sexuality are set in place so early and can be so unpredictable that the result is not very different to if the cause had been purely genetic.

A lesson in genetics: the recessive gene.

For genes, there is almost always a recessive "opposite", for want of a better term. One example is eye colour. There's a gene for brown eyes (dominant) and a gene for blue eyes (recessive). If the gene is recessive, it won't be active unless accompanied by a similar gene.

Deeper explanation:
Humans reproduce by a process called mitosis. This is where the parents each impart half of their genetic code to the child. So, in the example of eye colour, the man has a mother with blue eyes and a father with brown. Therefore, his genetic structure contains genes for brown eyes (dominant) and blue eyes (recessive), leaving him with brown eyes. He marries a woman who has similar genetics - a genes for both blue and brown eyes, thus having brown eyes herself.

http://genetics.gsk.com/graphics/mitosis.gif

Now, each of the mans sperm contains a random organisation of half his DNA and the womans egg contains a random organisation of half her DNA. If they have 4 children, 1 will have blue eyes; 2 will carry the genes for blue eyes but have brown eyes (because blue is recessive and brown is dominant) and 1 will have purely brown eyes:

------------------Father-------
---------------Blue-----Brown-----
Mother Blue----Blue-----Carrier
Mother Brown--Carrier----Brown

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/illu...orecessive.jpg

In the same way a "***" gene may be carried on. Because it's not incredibly genetically useful at this time, it's understandably rare though for whatever reason it may have been useful at one point (in the same way as sickle cell anaemia), or may be a random genetic fault that's yet to be rooted out by sexual selection (such has huntingtons disease). The assertion that for it to be genetically carried the parents would need to display signs is not only false, but also not 100% relevant - as little as 10 years ago homosexuality was a big taboo. People have been getting married to women despite their gender preference due to social pressure (eg Freddy Mercury), and the same social pressure expects them to have sex, have kids and so they do. Just because a persons *** doesn't mean they're infertile.

Scientists have found a high connection to a specific line of chromosmes. They haven't nailed the specific one, but it would be very hard to discount the probability of it's existence out of hand. Even if it doesn't give a definite "yes you will be ***", it's likely that it will make a person more prone to having homosexuality triggered if events fall in a certain direction.

Hey buddy, you do realize that cancer is a genetic disease that is inherent to certain people, yet not every person that has prostate cancer had a father who had prostate cancer.

STOP BEING STUPID!

Plus, I'm railing against you. Not the church. That's a different topic which I'd be more than happy to pick up.


and it's really nice to be arguing on the same side as you Fal haha

It's ok, it won't last long. I'll get bored with factual debates and I'll find something to play devils advocate on, just so that I can have a good headbutting session with somebody not really asking for it. For now, Oojays doing the tallest poppy routine ...

ITA