- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Need an explanation on homosexuality
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:13 pm to Crimson1st
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:13 pm to Crimson1st
quote:
quote:
Not really worth the time debating with.
No, it is just easy for you to use this mindset to be dismissive of the subject because it is so much easier to use name-calling, shouting down, and sophomoric tactics than actually debate the topic.
My point in the comparison I made was that so called evidence can be fleeting thus to call someone out as a simpleton because they happen to have a different view than those of evolutionists is rather simple minded as well. But you already had in mind what you wanted to say to insult me so I suppose I shouldn't have expected you to get the point.
Its easy to dismiss when you understand the science. This debate has been hashed out too many times here to count, but any questions you have Id be glad to answer. There is nothing fleeting about the evidence, as even those with a basic education in biology should understand.
0
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:14 pm to Revelator
quote:
It's sort of like when someone uses the word," homophobe" huh?
Not at all comparable. Homophobia is a pretty good description of the anti-gay sentiment in the US these days.
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:15 pm to Revelator
quote:
quote:
This is one of those words that tells everyone you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about.
It's sort of like when someone uses the word," homophobe" huh?
Thats actually a good comparison. The only difference I would say is that those who use homophobe flippantly are being intentionally obtuse, whereas those who throw around the term evolutionist are just genuinely ignorant of that which they speak.
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:16 pm to Crimson1st
quote:
No, it is just easy for you to use this mindset to be dismissive of the subject because it is so much easier to use name-calling, shouting down, and sophomoric tactics than actually debate the topic. My point in the comparison I made was that so called evidence can be fleeting thus to call someone out as a simpleton because they happen to have a different view than those of evolutionists is rather simple minded as well. But you already had in mind what you wanted to say to insult me so I suppose I shouldn't have expected you to get the point.
Ok. Explain to me your qualifications as to why I should respect your interpretation of the evidence as opposed to the entire scientific community on both sides of the political aisle?
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:17 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
No evidence of either one. When you run across a ling to man get back with me.
My friend I guess we should just choose to be simple minded ignoramuses because we would rather believe we had an omnipotent and omniscient creator rather than come from an ape lineage.
I am wondering how evolution allowed for some apes to become humans and gave the finger to the other apes to be stuck as apes?
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:18 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Not at all comparable. Homophobia is a pretty good description of the anti-gay sentiment in the US these days.
Yes for those who consider all forms of differing opinions on homosexuality to be invalid. Kind of puts you in the same category as you were accusing him of being in.
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:20 pm to Revelator
quote:
Yes for those who consider all forms of differing opinions on homosexuality to be invalid. Kind of puts you in the same category as you were accusing him of being in.
Not at all. He's disregarding literal mountains of evidence in the service of misguided ideology, and I'm pointing out that recent opposition to lgbt people from the right seems to have an underlying fear or uneasiness to it.
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:22 pm to BamaAtl
dude on dude buttsex is icky so therefore my god is not for it so therefore it is my religious beliefs that gays are bad so therefore you have to respect it because it's my religion
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:23 pm to Crimson1st
quote:
I am wondering how evolution allowed for some apes to become humans and gave the finger to the other apes to be stuck as apes?
Well there's that
Wonder no more:
LINK
quote:
Firstly, man did not evolve from modern apes. Man and modern apes share a common ancestor, which is extinct. However, the question comes from a flawed understanding of how evolution works. Evolution is not a straight line, where entire populations change into new species all at the same time. Often times, a small group breaks away from a population and begins to evolve independently of the source group. The source group does not need to go extinct, and is generally unaffected by the development of the smaller group. This is called "Allopatric Speciation," and it is just one of many ways that new species can evolve. There is nothing in evolutionary theory which states a source population must go extinct in order for new species to evolve.
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:26 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
dude on dude buttsex is icky so therefore my god is not for it so therefore it is my religious beliefs that gays are bad so therefore you have to respect it because it's my religion
Why shouldn't his opinion of homosexuality, whether based in religion or not, be as valid as yours?
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:28 pm to Revelator
quote:
Why shouldn't his opinion of homosexuality, whether based in religion or not, be as valid as yours?
Because his is depriving people of their rights and wealth, based only on his religion. That's not legal under our Constitution.
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:28 pm to Revelator
Valid is a subjective term. It's valid in that he believes it and he puts his words together in such a way as to convey a coherent thought.
I don't believe it should be given any weight as to what public policy should be, but that's because I disagree with the logic and fundamentals of his argument.
However, that doesn't make his argument invalid. It just means I disagree with it and would rather not see it implemented.
I don't believe it should be given any weight as to what public policy should be, but that's because I disagree with the logic and fundamentals of his argument.
However, that doesn't make his argument invalid. It just means I disagree with it and would rather not see it implemented.
This post was edited on 12/15/14 at 10:29 pm
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:28 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Meh. I always thought she was overrated. No booty.
Heh, I'm an arse man right now, but growing up as a kid to a preteen, I thought she was gorgeous and I fapped to her with some semblance of a regularity.
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:29 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
quote: Firstly, man did not evolve from modern apes. Man and modern apes share a common ancestor, which is extinct. However, the question comes from a flawed understanding of how evolution works. Evolution is not a straight line, where entire populations change into new species all at the same time. Often times, a small group breaks away from a population and begins to evolve independently of the source group. The source group does not need to go extinct, and is generally unaffected by the development of the smaller group. This is called "Allopatric Speciation," and it is just one of many ways that new species can evolve. There is nothing in evolutionary theory which states a source population must go extinct in order for new species to evolve.
Roger, how recent is this theory or explanation because it wasn't so when I took science 30 something years ago?
Why does science have to periodically change their views of what happened if the Science is as settled as you make it out to be?
This post was edited on 12/15/14 at 10:31 pm
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:29 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Ok. Explain to me your qualifications as to why I should respect your interpretation of the evidence as opposed to the entire scientific community on both sides of the political aisle?
I never claimed to have a list of qualifications that you would accept as bona fides. Fact is I could have a list a mile long and you would pay no attention to my arguments. Your mind is made up. Honestly, my mind is made up as well by and large, but I don't ask for your credentials to debate nor do I call your intelligence into question like you did. I just pointed out that you didn't want to debate the subject, you just wanted to be dismissive. I am about to sign off due to the hour but we can pick this argument up again soon if you would like to point/counterpoint the subject?
By the way, there are plenty of scientists who dispute evolution...Google is your friend!
This post was edited on 12/15/14 at 10:31 pm
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:30 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Because his is depriving people of their rights and wealth, based only on his religion. That's not legal under our Constitution.
So he should be denied his right to hold that opinion constitutionally?
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:31 pm to Revelator
quote:
Why shouldn't his opinion of homosexuality, whether based in religion or not, be as valid as yours?
It isn't about which opinion is more valid, it's about what we should do if we fancy ourselves a free and progressive society. I don't smoke weed, but I acknowledge that the responsible use of marijuana should be the right of any American who chooses to partake. Even if one believes homosexuality is wrong, they can still recognize the distinction between their religious beliefs and the law of the land.
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:32 pm to Revelator
quote:
Why shouldn't his opinion of homosexuality, whether based in religion or not, be as valid as yours?
If you don´t want to have bum sex because the bible or the cleaning up involved then don´t. That´s great. But the problem comes when you use your source of morality/disgust to make decisions about what other people can do privately or use it as a logical underpinning for public policy direction.
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:32 pm to Crimson1st
quote:
By the way, there are plenty of scientists who dispute evolution...Google is your friend!
None who dispute evolution in the manner in which you mean and work in a field for which evolution is necessary. There are disagreements about the speed, punctuated equilibrium vs steady change, about the precise mechanisms and frequencies of mutations, but no valid biologist disputes the fundamental theory of natural selection as a guiding force for the origin of species.
Unless they're experiencing dementia.
Posted on 12/15/14 at 10:33 pm to Revelator
quote:
So he should be denied his right to hold that opinion constitutionally?
Of course not, he's free to think whatever he likes.
What he is not free to do, however, is use his purely religious opinion to change laws that deprive others of rights, regardless of their belief in his religion.
Page 21 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News