Homosexuality is not a sin

[gfm7175]

Sybil, you are proving you are obsessive, compulsive and delusional.

You should ask IBDaMann for graphic-making tips. He's quite good at making them now.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Sybil should be more careful with her marbles then.

You can't help yourself because you are mentally ill. It's like asking a drunk if they are safe to drive; the person with the inebriated mind is the last person to ask that question.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You should ask IBDaMann for graphic-making tips. He's quite good at making them now.

Is "he"? LOL

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes. Practitioners of homosexuality, prior to 2015, had the same access to marriage as non-practitioners. The only thing standing in the way of their access to marriage was themselves (via refusing to marry).


Holy links are for non-thinkers. I have provided you with the reasoning behind my position.

You might want to reseach that better, Sybil. If a marriage isn't recognized by the government, then no rights or benefits given by the Federal government to married couples will be applied.

Example; While a LDS man may "marry" 5 wives, the US government only recognizes the rights and benefits of the first, legally-married wife. When the man dies, she is the only one to benefit from survivorship. The other four wives are left out in the cold. While a will may solve some issues, it doesn't cover all of them.

https://www.rgj.com/story/factchecker/2013/03/30/1138-federal-marriage-benefits/5680517/
“Our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights and privileges.”...

...there are significant benefits federal and state laws confer on married couples that are unavailable to same-sex couples. These include the ability to transfer property between themselves without being taxed, death benefits from Social Security and the military, and COBRA health care protections.

To be fair, Sybil, I don't expect you to comprehend these facts for previously established reasons. I post them for general knowledge.

 

[gfm7175]

You might want to reseach that better, Sybil.

You might want to read my words a bit closer, Dutch boy.

 

[Mina]

Yes it does. To put it another way, there is no such thing as a "homo gene", so homosexuality isn't an evolutionary thing to begin with. Homosexuality is behavioral, not genetic.

Homosexuality, like many traits, appears to be based in a combination of genes and environmental factors. Twins studies have confirmed at least some genetic component.

Humans are not wolves or insects

Obviously, I didn't say they were. Did you interpret something I wrote to suggest that? If so, what, specifically?

My point of bringing up other species was simply to demonstrate how genes could be selected for even when those genes would encode some individuals to be infertile. The mere fact that genes can encode for a worker ant being unable to reproduce doesn't mean that gene won't be naturally selected for. Similarly, if there are genes that contribute to homosexuality, those could be naturally selected for if they enhanced survival of kin.

Homosexuality is behavioral, not genetic.

It's a behavior that has a genetic component, according to various studies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...mponent/afb46154-faa6-45ec-9e7f-cbde5d5a1788/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26572-largest-study-of-gay-brothers-homes-in-on-gay-genes/

A human needs to reproduce to pass his/her genes along

That's consistent with the understanding of evolution that people are given in grade school. Unfortunately, many never actually get any education in the topic after that point, so they remain mired in a sixth-grade-level understanding of how it works. From a natural selection perspective, what matters is whether the gene itself becomes more common in the next generation, not whether any given individual breeds. If that weren't the case, species with infertile classes of individuals could never have evolved. Obviously.

Assuming you're one of those who didn't get past elementary-school-level biology instruction, this can get you started:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness

homosexuality is behavioral (not genetic).

I understand that you feel repeating something often enough will make it true. However, the science doesn't care about your feelings.

No it doesn't. You are not your close relatives.

My close relatives share many of my genes. If I help them breed successfully, those genes show up in the next generation, just as if I'd bred. From the perspective of natural selection, that is just as legitimate a way that a gene can get itself passed on.

You can't pass along your genes if you're dead or practicing homosexuality.

Of course you can. This is Biology 101 material. See "inclusive fitness" link above.

Your siblings are not you.

Did I say something to make you believe I was arguing they were? If so, what, specifically?

Humans are not ants.

Did I say something to make you believe I was arguing they were? If so, what, specifically?

Homosexuality is behavioral, not genetic.

Still wrong, but, yes, your repetition has underscored just how strong your emotions are on this topic. Unfortunately for you, strong emotions don't void scientific fact.

A "homosexual" (a practitioner of homosexuality) cannot reproduce. In order to reproduce, that person must first give up his/her practice of homosexuality, thus no longer being a "homosexual".

That is, of course, not true. For example, a homosexual man can have his male partner help him masturbate into a tube, and then that can be injected into a woman. At no point was that man anything other than a homosexual, and yet he could reproduce. Similarly, a lesbian woman can have her female partner inject a syringe full of sperm into her, which is a homosexual act but can result in reproduction.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You might want to read my words a bit closer, Dutch boy.

Why, Sybil? You're clearly mentally ill and a lying sock puppeteer.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

...That is, of course, not true. For example, a homosexual man can have his male partner help him masturbate into a tube, and then that can be injected into a woman. At no point was that man anything other than a homosexual, and yet he could reproduce. Similarly, a lesbian woman can have her female partner inject a syringe full of sperm into her, which is a homosexual act but can result in reproduction.

Better yet, injected into the lesbian sister of the male partner. Keep it all in the family and 100% gay. LOL

 

[Mina]

Better yet, injected into the lesbian sister of the male partner. Keep it all in the family and 100% gay. LOL

Whatever works for them.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Whatever works for them.

Agreed. God bless America and our freedom to choose.

 

[Nordberg]

Agreed. God bless America and our freedom to choose.

Choose? That is nearly the point. You do not choose to be gay. It chose you when you were born. You are acting and being as God made you. Did you choose whether to be gay or hetero? Was it a close decision? being gay was never a consideration that I had to make. It was not in my makeup. Many kids are feeling different at about 3.5 .https://www.science.org/content/article/toddler-play-may-give-clues-sexual-orientation

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Choose? That is nearly the point. You do not choose to be gay. It chose you when you were born. You are acting and being as God made you. Did you choose whether to be gay or hetero? Was it a close decision? being gay was never a consideration that I had to make. It was not in my makeup. Many kids are feeling different at about 3.5 .https://www.science.org/content/article/toddler-play-may-give-clues-sexual-orientation

Agreed about sexual preference, but what kind of fucking moron doesn't want to be free to be themselves?

 

[gfm7175]

Homosexuality, like many traits, appears to be based in a combination of genes and environmental factors. Twins studies have confirmed at least some genetic component.

Homosexuality is not genetic. There is no 'gay gene'.

Obviously, I didn't say they were. Did you interpret something I wrote to suggest that? If so, what, specifically?

Yes. You were attempting to support your position regarding humans by making statements about wolves and insects.

My point of bringing up other species was simply to demonstrate how genes could be selected for even when those genes would encode some individuals to be infertile. The mere fact that genes can encode for a worker ant being unable to reproduce doesn't mean that gene won't be naturally selected for. Similarly, if there are genes that contribute to homosexuality, those could be naturally selected for if they enhanced survival of kin.

This is all moot because homosexuality is not genetic. There is no 'gay gene'. It is a behavioral thing, not a genetic one.

It's a behavior that has a genetic component, according to various studies.

There is no genetic component regarding homosexuality (and the crappy study mentioned in the New Scientist link did not conclude any such thing btw, and I couldn't view the WashPo article due to my ad blocker). Additionally, I do not accept either the Washington Post or New Scientist as sources.

That's consistent with the understanding of evolution that people are given in grade school. Unfortunately, many never actually get any education in the topic after that point, so they remain mired in a sixth-grade-level understanding of how it works.

The "you're uneducated" mantra is dismissed on sight.

From a natural selection perspective, what matters is whether the gene itself becomes more common in the next generation, not whether any given individual breeds. If that weren't the case, species with infertile classes of individuals could never have evolved. Obviously.

You are not your siblings.

Assuming you're one of those who didn't get past elementary-school-level biology instruction, this can get you started:

The "you're uneducated" mantra, along with Wikipedia, are both dismissed on sight. I do not accept Wikipedia as a source.

I understand that you feel repeating something often enough will make it true. However, the science doesn't care about your feelings.

You are making the same claim repeatedly, so you are getting the same response to it each time you make it.

My close relatives share many of my genes.

Your close relatives are not you.

If I help them breed successfully, those genes show up in the next generation, just as if I'd bred.

Your close relatives are not you. And how do you "help them breed" exactly, especially when you're dead?

From the perspective of natural selection, that is just as legitimate a way that a gene can get itself passed on.

You were talking about YOUR genes though...

Of course you can. This is Biology 101 material. See "inclusive fitness" link above.

Your relatives' genes are not your genes.

Did I say something to make you believe I was arguing they were? If so, what, specifically?

Yes. You were attempting to support your position regarding your genes by making statements about your relatives' genes.

Did I say something to make you believe I was arguing they were? If so, what, specifically?

Yes. You were attempting to support your position regarding humans by making statements about ants.

Still wrong, but, yes, your repetition has underscored just how strong your emotions are on this topic. Unfortunately for you, strong emotions don't void scientific fact.

Projection.

That is, of course, not true.

No, it is true.

For example, a homosexual man can have his male partner help him masturbate into a tube,

Masturbation is not homosexuality.

and then that can be injected into a woman.

Artificial insemination is not homosexuality.

At no point was that man anything other than a homosexual, and yet he could reproduce.

He did not reproduce (not naturally, anyway). Artificial insemination is not homosexuality.

Similarly, a lesbian woman can have her female partner inject a syringe full of sperm into her, which is a homosexual act but can result in reproduction.

Artificial insemination is not homosexuality.

 

[gfm7175]

Better yet, injected into the lesbian sister of the male partner. Keep it all in the family and 100% gay. LOL

Artificial insemination is not homosexuality.

 

[gfm7175]

Whatever works for them.

Artificial insemination is not homosexuality.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Choose? That is nearly the point. You do not choose to be gay. It chose you when you were born. You are acting and being as God made you. Did you choose whether to be gay or hetero? Was it a close decision? being gay was never a consideration that I had to make. It was not in my makeup. Many kids are feeling different at about 3.5 .https://www.science.org/content/article/toddler-play-may-give-clues-sexual-orientation

so you must have been indoctrinated by your parents into homophobia and a plethora of cis malbeliefs undoubtedly.

 

[Phantasmal]

so you must have indoctrinated by your parents into homophobia and a plethora of cis malbeliefs undoubtedly.

Your libertarian mask falls off on this topic.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Your libertarian mask falls off on this topic.

Im not a libertarian.


libertarians are fascist now.

 

[gfm7175]

Agreed. God bless America and our freedom to choose.

... except when it comes to wearing masks or not, undergoing invasive medical procedures or not, owning guns or not, paying employees $15/hr or not, driving gasoline vehicles or not, using gasoline power tools or not, eating meat or not, keeping my same doctor or not, keeping my same healthcare plan or not, holding a peaceful protest or not, and monetarily supporting a peaceful protest or not (among many other things), right?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

... except when it comes to wearing masks or not, undergoing invasive medical procedures or not, owning guns or not, paying employees $15/hr or not, driving gasoline vehicles or not, using gasoline power tools or not, eating meat or not, keeping my same doctor or not, keeping my same healthcare plan or not, holding a peaceful protest or not, and monetarily supporting a peaceful protest or not (among many other things), right?

yes.

dutch uncle is a vacuous shill-hole.