I am sorry to hear about your past, but at least you have emerged from it a stronger person. Unfortunately, that cannot be said about others. Some find power to be able to restrain their mind from running too far, while for others it consumes them, and death feels like the only way out. It's always difficult to tell how another can react to such things, because of how different we as individuals can think. This is why it really annoys me to hear such hateful words sometimes, because I've worked with suicidal gay teens before, the results of such wishes and actions displayed by some in here. It is a cry for help that sometimes comes way too late. Nobody should feel alone.

And here we are with the crazy end of the spectrum.

Tell me, have you ever: Gotten a short haircut, played football, eaten any kind of pig product (pork, ham, bacon), read a horoscope, masturbated (including wet dreams), gotten a tatoo, worn polyester, gotten a divorce, worn any gold at all, gossiped, worked on Sunday or eaten shellfish? If you say no to all of these, I know you're lying.

The bible says a lot of things. Mostly it is Heresay, and cannot stand up as real evidence on things. However, it contains a LOT of contradictions, one of them being to love everyone, yet telling who to hate and what for. So if the bible says to love and to hate and you CHOOSE to hate, I'm afraid you're the only one with problems here....

I've seen some sick twisted hateful posts towards Christianity here, but this one easily takes the biscuit. Wow

I never said homosexuality was a gene, I actually made a point as to why it isn't a gene. I beleive what most scientists believe, and that homosexuality is a biological mutation (Many believe it to be an error occuring during pregnancy), a biological disorder, however a psychological disorder is also possible.

Autism is a genetic mutation which is random, but not uncommon. These people probably don't reproduce often, but the mutation is common enough to see it frequently. Only referencing it because it's a randomly occuring mutation.

Compare homosexuality to schizophrenea, that's more accurate. There is no schizophrenic gene, although children of schizophrenic people are less likely to carry the disorder, but that increase in frequency disappears after only 2 generations (grandchildren have normal odds ob developing the disorder).

Bold1: explain to me how that works. From what I learned in bio, fitness is the driving force behind evolution.

Bold2: 100% False, most random mutations are detremental, and usually get phased out with evolution (individuals with a lower fitness die off before they can reproduce). Very few are advantages. Mutations, are far more common then you realise.

Bold3: Exactly, the mutation is not inheritable. Do you need a reason for why it happens so regularly in humans? Here's one, it doesn't. Homosexuality rates are no higher then the non inheritable biological disorder of schizophrenea, which is about 1% the World Population, and significantly loweer then the non inheritable biological disorder of Depression, which is about 2.8%.

Now, you might want to argue that the homosexuality rate is over 3% (which it isn't, 3% is the homosexuality rate of Toronto, which has a significantly higher homosexuality rate then the rest of North America), but you should also realize that the schizophrenea and depression rates are actually significantly higher then the 1% and 2.8% I posted above. 1% is the occurance of being born with schizophrenea, but it's not impossible to develop the illness. In fact many homeless people become schizophrenic and depressed, so why can't the sexually oppressed people become homosexual?

There is absolutly no reason not to look at homosexuality as a disorder. Sure it's not as extreme as Schizophrenea (a Psychotic Disorder) or Bi Polar/Depression (Mood Disorders), or even an Eating Disorder, but it's a disorder non the less.

Are you against curing Disorders?

Your the one who asserted that Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality which is incorrect. Then you go on some rant about how irrational the bible is trying avoid the fact that your facts were wrong. If you got that point wrong maybe your wrong on your view of homosexual behavior. Think about it.

Marriage is the unique institution that unites mother and father with their biological offspring. Do we need an institution in society that unites children with their father and mother? Does the state have an public interest in promoting this type of family relationship.


What is the public interest of recognizing of a committed relationship of two people versus the assertions above? How does this unite mother and father with their biological offspring?

Jesus didn't. Kind of embarassing that you don't even understand your own religion properly. Then again if you didn't spend all your time using illogical intolerance, maybe you'd be a little more enlightened on the matter by now.

Marriage started out as a contract of sale for a father to use their daughters hand in marriage in exchange for other things. Like contracts, it was binding (hence divorce was considered a breach of contract and wrong). Your definition of marriage is a joke, since 1. Not all marriages bear children, 2.Some marriages have parents who are not the biological parents of children, 3. There are single parents out there who have kids who lives just as fulfilling of lives. Your sense of view on marriage incredibly narrow-minded. That being said, the church NOR the state has any right to say who can or cannot become one's family. 

The only thing in that list that is actually a quote of Jesus is Matthew 19, but that is just a discussion of divorce and doesn't mention homosexuality at all. In Romans 1, Paul was actually addressing a historical practice where the Romans engaged in open male prostitution, including with young boys, in worship of their fertility God... you didn't take that in context. The original greek word used in 1 Cor 6:9 comes from the greek word malakoi, which can sometimes be translated  'effeminate', which was also (possibly) incorrectly translated to 'homosexuals'. One usage of that term in the context of morality at the time it was written was to describe people who are weak-spined, lazy, decadent, seeking only their own pleasure, and/or lacking courage. It did not necessarily have a sexual connotation in that context, but could instead be describing character traits. Another possibility is that the word refers to grown men of the time who participated in the prostitution & sex-slave trade of young boys, I think we can all agree this is wrong. Many of the homosexual acts of that time were not anything like the modern gay community. Young boys were commonly used as prostitutes or sex slaves, and it would make sense to speak out against this practice. There's a passage somewhere in the book of Timothy that, if you look at the greek, seems to reference the sex-slavery aspect. Galatians 5:19 speaks of sexual immorality, but there is no specific reference to homosexuality.

Yes. But you only seem to know the individual fitness. A population has also a fitness. Both are important for evolution. So even if an individual dies for a group, this is a positive evolutionary effect if it helps that the others of the group live and it is likely the others share most of the genes the dying individual had. That is the fitness of a population, and it is of importance to evolution.

You should read 'The selfish gene' from Dawkins, he is pretty good in explaining the evolutionary forces.

I'm not a native english speaker and you only took out part of the sentence. You understand me completely wrong. I'm aware most mutation are a disadvantage. I'm aware, that these disadvantuous mutations will be removed fast from the gene-pool through selection. That's what I mean. The conclusion of it is, because we can discover homosexuality in many species it is either an evolutionary advantage or something that is not inheritable but instead produced by environment.

You are not up to date. Twin-studies show a strong indication, that homosexuality has at least a genetic component.

This is in german, sorry: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/DEUTSCH/DIAMOND.HTM#12

I don't know much about the frequency of homosexuality in humans. But neither do you. Or anyone. The data from surveys shows big variability, depending on the way the questions in the survey are asked, the cultural backgraund, laws against homosexuality and so on. We pretty much don't know how common homosexuality is under humans.

But I was talking mainly about the fact, that homosexuality occurs in many species. We discovered homosexual behaviour in over 1500 species. If it is really a disorder and has some disadvante in evolutionary terms, the evolution would have redued the chance, even if homosexuality itself wouldn't be inheritable. We don't have genes for illnesses that are infectious. But evolution gave us an immune system to defend us against such illnesses. Same would have happened for homosexuality, if it is really a disadvantage.

But as written above, there is some inheritable aspect. That pretty much guarantees, that homosexuality is an evolutionary advantage for a population.

Wait what? No, I don't want to cure brown eyes, red hair, black skin or homosexuality. Again, Homosexuality is of evolutionary advantage for a population (or saying it different: it increases the fitness of a population), so why should it be a disorder?

I'm a Christian, but it's not my job to tell other people how to live their life. That's between them and God, none of my business. One reason that Gays want to get married is for the legal benefits, including hospital visitation (though this has already been addressed in the US), the ability to make medical decisions, ineheritance, etc. Whether I believe that homosexual acts are right or wrong is irrelevant to the fact that they should have the same legal rights as me. There's no reason one should go bankrupt because the 'inheritance' of a business gets taxed as a gift, or that one should not be able to visit the other in the hospital or make medical decisions for the other even if that is their wish. That's why I'm for Civil Unions, there's no reason to deny somebody rights just because you disagree with them. The public interest of recognizing that committed relationship is for the legal benefits for those involved in that relationship.

Bold1: I didn't think of it that way. Also someone else has informed me that blood relatives to the mother of homosexuals (the Mother and her Sisters) are more fertile then most. So having a few homosexuals in the population does control population a bit.

Bold2: Ah I see, but the occurances of homosexuality are not that different from other anaomlies. Like I said above, because family members of homosexuals are more fertile, this correlating affect could be why homosexuals actively remain in our population.

Bold3: Actually I was talking to someone here call Tom3K, and he had a good explanation for homosexuality, one that's reflective of my opinion. While there is no actual gene resposnible for homosexuality, the interaction of two or more genes at locations called epi-marks, could be a cause for homosexuality. Thus it's not inheritable unless you mate with someone who also carried the genes required for homosexuality and produce a zygote with all the needed genes and epi-marks.

Bold3-2: I agree with you. A question such as "have you had a homosexual experience" will give a different result from "are you a homosexual." A single homosexual experience doesn't make you a homosexual, but such serveys would be inclided to make the homosexual population higher.

Disorder is a strong word, I've learned, but I don't think the cause of homosexuality is a gene like red hair or blue eyes are. My eyes actually change color, and are often symetrically multicolored (Half Blue, Half Green, with a straigh boudry down the middle of my eye is what they most commonly look like), but this isn't a disorder, it's a rare gene. I think Homosexuality works more like Freckles. From what I read, there is no gene that causes Freckles. It's a relationship between the skins poor ability to tan (create melatope? forget), and something with the hair type.

Should we cure freckles? Yea, but only if people want to.