The Origins of Homosexuality

Status
Not open for further replies.
The point was PEOPLE also used "science" and 'media'
Jillo said:
to oppress, exclude, judge, and pormote hatred of differences. It has happened throughout history and continues to happen today.
Click to expand...

PEOPLE would use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to remain the dominant/privileged group.

Have you ever looked back at the phenotype/"genotype" arguments back then? (ape-black man comparison, skull studies, 'savage', black man, and monkey/ape comparison, forehead height and intelligence... hair color and desirable traits)

Did you read what Mendel's lab assistants had for lunch every day? (hint: peas)

Religion and Science both have the tendency to conform to social pressure- its a shame too-
 
Last edited:
Sunshine said:
Am I only one not understand what this mean?
Click to expand...

No, you are the only one brave enough to ask.

Mendel was a scientist at the very beginning of our understanding of genetics.

Basic Principles of Genetics: Mendel's Genetics

He found (often) when he bred two types of peas together he could predict the offspring. this happened because in this type of pea one trait is caused by only one gene (usually for this type of pea, not normal for animals- example skin color is decided by no fewer then 8 genes)

When he was repeatedly very wrong (due to more then one gene causing the trait) he reportedly ate those peas and stopped looking at that trait.
 
FireTiger said:
The point was PEOPLE also used "science" and 'media'

PEOPLE would use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to remain the dominant/privileged group.

Have you ever looked back at the phenotype/"genotype" arguments back then? (ape-black man comparison, skull studies, 'savage', black man, and monkey/ape comparison, forehead height and intelligence... hair color and desirable traits)

Did you read what Mendel's lab assistants had for lunch every day? (hint: peas)

Religion and Science both have the tendency to conform to social pressure- its a shame too-
Click to expand...

Actually, phenotypes and genotypes are very valid medical/scientific concepts are are still widely used today to explain genetic predispositions to various disorders.

Religion conform to social pressures? Elaborate on that please.
 
Sunshine said:
Oh! Thank you :ty:

Mendel like Mendelian inheritance?
Click to expand...

Medelian inheritance is a pattern of dominant genetic transmission. Still widely used in genetic research on disease and predisposition today.

But Mendelian inheritance has virtually nothing to do with homosexuality. Or, for that matter, does religious theory.
 
Sunshine said:
Oh! Thank you :ty:

Mendel like Mendelian inheritance?
Click to expand...

jillio said:
Actually, phenotypes and genotypes are very valid medical/scientific concepts are are still widely used today to explain genetic predispositions to various disorders.

Religion conform to social pressures? Elaborate on that please.
Click to expand...


@Sunshine- Yes.

@Jillo- not the way they were using them, I'm talking about skewing data or not reporting non conforming data. I'm talking about the head size/shape and intelligence 'papers' I gave a whole list of stupid things science was being used for.

Religion- (approx 12th C) social/governmental pressure caused the celibacy of the priesthood of the Catholic church- not YET revoked.

Current examples science:

Talking about blue eyes are smarter then brown eyes, and head shape confers intelligence, etc...

The original studies were
a) biased, (run by the dominant group)
b) poorly constructed,
c) lacked a control,
d) Lacked a statically large enough experimental and control
e) tested more then one variable at a time
f) all of the above

AIDS spread unchecked due to social pressure it was a 'disease' liked to both religion and a minority group...

I've been looking for the original published articles but they aren't in the 'scholarly' article search anymore or possible ever.

Here's an Example: "How to lie with statistics" Dimes cause cancer.
(can't find the online article- not my day today, *sigh*)

In a study two groups of rats were used.

100 rats underwent a cut through the peritoneal membrane of the abdomen and cotton stitches as suture

100 rats underwent a cut through the peritoneal wall of the abdomen and cotton stitches as suture, but a dime was placed in the cut between the wall of the stomach and the peritoneal membrane.

1.5 years later all remaining rats were euthanized. (see below, 10 lost in the study 8 experimental, 2 control)

100 of the 'dime' rats had cancer.

Therefore dimes cause cancer...

oh... by the way 87 of the non dime rats also had cancer... 2 (control) died of unexplained causes(no cancer), 8 experimental died of unexplained causes (but still had cancer).

WHOOPS!
Click to expand...
:hmm:
 
Last edited:
@Jillo- not a religious debate but there are several times the churches or synagog or masque has publicly retracted a view because the view was unpopular, not because it was right or wrong.

That sounds like a different thread- humans are fallible and changeable would be the ultimate outcome of it however,
 
Last edited:
FireTiger said:
@Sunshine- Yes.

@Jillo- not the way they were using them, I'm talking about skewing data or not reporting non conforming data. I'm talking about the head size/shape and intelligence 'papers' I gave a whole list of stupid things science was being used for.

Religion- (approx 12th C) social/governmental pressure caused the celibacy of the priesthood of the Catholic church- not YET revoked.

Current examples science:

Talking about blue eyes are smarter then brown eyes, and head shape confers intelligence, etc...

The original studies were
a) biased, (run by the dominant group)
b) poorly constructed,
c) lacked a control,
d) Lacked a statically large enough experimental and control
e) tested more then one variable at a time
f) all of the above

AIDS spread unchecked due to social pressure it was a 'disease' liked to both religion and a minority group...

I've been looking for the original published articles but they aren't in the 'scholarly' article search anymore or possible ever.

Here's an Example: "How to lie with statistics" Dimes cause cancer.
(can't find the online article- not my day today, *sigh*)

:hmm:
Click to expand...

You are seriously rambling.
 
FireTiger said:
@Jillo- not a religious debate but there are several times the churches or synagog or masque has publicly retracted a view because the view was unpopular, not because it was right or wrong.

That sounds like a different thread- humans are fallible and changeable would be the ultimate outcome of it however,
Click to expand...
That's why those religions that don't change their doctrines to fit every changing wind of political correctness are criticized as being backward or uninformed or rigid. It's really the religions who are constantly changing in order to keep up with current societal trends that don't even know what they believe.
 
It is usually religious reasons for people's ignorance against gay people.
 
Reba said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Then you must agree that interpretation must be made in light of context of the time in which it was written, not in context of today.

In which case, the Bible contains no statements regarding homosexuality.

And, the Bible cannot be used to determine the rightness or wrongness of an individual's biological condition.
 
Religion aside, if homosexuality is a "choice," why do people feel the need to control that choice? It's control-freakiness that makes some people butt into another person's sex life. Obsession with other people's sex life is just creepy. People need to learn appropriate boundaries and respect other people's decisions about their own lives. Don't use dear gawd what about the children. Children are accepting unless adults teach them to hate and be prejudiced.
 
sallylou said:
Religion aside, if homosexuality is a "choice," why do people feel the need to control that choice? It's control-freakiness that makes some people butt into another person's sex life. Obsession with other people's sex life is just creepy. People need to learn appropriate boundaries and respect other people's decisions about their own lives. Don't use dear gawd what about the children. Children are accepting unless adults teach them to hate and be prejudiced.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. It seems the only thing people can focus on is the sex that may be occuring between 2 homosexuals. They can't see past that to the fact that it is a loving relationship that includes so much more than just sex. the same as a heterosexual relationship does.
 
sallylou said:
Religion aside, if homosexuality is a "choice," why do people feel the need to control that choice? It's control-freakiness that makes some people butt into another person's sex life. Obsession with other people's sex life is just creepy. People need to learn appropriate boundaries and respect other people's decisions about their own lives. Don't use dear gawd what about the children. Children are accepting unless adults teach them to hate and be prejudiced.
Click to expand...

Oh wow...love this post!!!
 
jillio said:
Then you must agree that interpretation must be made in light of context of the time in which it was written, not in context of today.
Click to expand...
People may change their interpretation but that doesn't change the original content or intent. That is, the Author and His Word don't change even if societies change.

In which case, the Bible contains no statements regarding homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. Just because you say so doesn't change it.

And, the Bible cannot be used to determine the rightness or wrongness of an individual's biological condition.
Click to expand...
Homosexual acts are not a biological condition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top