What happened to voltmoie?
258 RepliesJump to last post
I'm trying to work and do this at the same time. Cut me some slack. I don't have any problem at all answering direct questions.Spiff, you seem to have trouble answering any direct questions on this issue. Is there a reason for that?
Spiff, as a parent, what is it that you are going to do that will cause your child to be sexually attracted to someone of the opposite sex?
Let me make a suggestion to you. Talk to someone who is gay. Ask them if there is something that their parents could have done differently that would have caused them to be straight instead. As a parent, I would love it if there was a way to make sure that my kids turned out to be straight.Good post Anon.
I have been conducting an "observation" over the last 12 or so years. I have a sister who has 5 sons. All of them are probably within 8 years of eachother. When they were younger, they visited my parents for a week. I came over and used the restroom where I found their toothbrushes all in a line. If I remember correctly the toothbrushes were kids' ones with different themes: there were 2 jet airplanes, 1 tank, a race car, and a pink telephone. The one nephew that had the pink telephone I swear is gay - even though he is still young (I believe middle school by now). Ever since he was really young, he always struck me as that way. One Christmas, I bought the boys gifts. While the brothers were all playing with their tanks, this particular nephew was in the other room with the girls doing Karoke. Choice? I think not. In a couple of years, when he comes out of the closet, I'll let you know.[quote=Primo] Just as there is nothing preventing a parade on private property. Streets are publically funded.
[/quote]
Too tired to continue this one… and need to finish off some work… but one point I want to ask… you consider the use of public streets a subsidy? We are talking the First Amendment here… Freedom of Assembly. If a private organization wants to have a protest, or parade, in a peaceful manner, you would deny them that right? You have completely missed the point. I consider a public street and a public school public places. It doesn’t cost the school one dime to allow the Pledge (unless you count the lawsuits). I think this falls more directly under Freedom of Speech in my analogy. I don’t want to deny either group, however one group is denied. They happen to be the majority. If you denied the other group, lawsuits would be filed and won.
There is nothing stop a gay parade, or a parade in support of reinstating the Pledge in Schools, it is an equal and comparable playing field.
There is nothing stopping anyone in our society from sending their kids to a private school, which better reflects their religious values. Obviously this is a costly alternative, but our society should not be in the business of subsidizing religious education.
Spiff-
Your posts regarding your feelings regarding people who think differently than you tells me one thing; EDJ made the right hire. And if your definition of being Christian is that you can't or won't accept other peoples behaviors, you shouldn't accept the RL position on either coast. What do you do when an FA introduces his or her partner at the next trip...walk over to the other side of the room. If a gay prospect comes to you do you run them over to the next FA who isn't as bigoted as you? I wouldn't want my kid to be gay? Well Spiff, I wouldn't want my kid to live in a world where they would be judged not for the content of their character but their preference in the bedroom. Dude you need to review your perfect life and stop being so damn critical. Keep your feelings to yourself. You should repeat your tagline ten times before you post. There may not be any intelligence between your ears...Calvin is definitely twisting right now.Here is a thought on gays and evolution:
If homosexuality is genetic, why is that gene still expressed? Homosexuals can’t procreate. The gene would have died out.
Which is correct, homosexuality being genetic, or evolution?
Also, if you are going to argue genetic mutation, what is the reason for a gay mutation?
Btw - I am genuinely asking, not mocking anybody or taking a position. Probably should have posted it in the lounge
Gays are not sterile. Someone brought up the point earlier that gay men specifically may marry and have kids early in life (to fit in or various other reasons), then come out later in life. My father in law did exactly that. I really have no idea what causes it, I just have a strong feeling that it is not a choice. I don't say I know for sure, because I'm not gay. Regarding genetic mutation, you are starting on the faulty premise that genetic mutation is done for a reason. Evolution is just a series of completely random mutuations. The ones that benefit the species usually stick. Here is an example. The almond. The wild almond contains cyanide, enough to kill you if you eat a handful of them. How exactly did we domestic them? Every so often a gene presents itself that creates cyanide-free almonds - a genetic mutation from long ago. These tastey almonds are usually eaten up by wildlife, because they don't taste bitter - so they didn't thrive until humans started cultivating them. What is the biological purpose of non-poisonous almonds? Absolutely nothing. Lots of domesticated foods are results of genetic mutations that did little to actually benefit the plant: corn, and peas are a couple more.Here is a thought on gays and evolution:
If homosexuality is genetic, why is that gene still expressed? Homosexuals can’t procreate. The gene would have died out.
Which is correct, homosexuality being genetic, or evolution?
Also, if you are going to argue genetic mutation, what is the reason for a gay mutation?
Btw - I am genuinely asking, not mocking anybody or taking a position. Probably should have posted it in the lounge
[quote=Wet_Blanket]
Lots of domesticated foods are results of genetic mutations that did little to actually benefit the plant: corn, and peas are a couple more.[/quote]
Just FYI. This is completely true. A true almond, will kill you within minutes. Another plant that has the same mutation is the Yam. It in it’s true form is poisonous.
I wouldn’t, however, say that EVERY mutation is TOTALLY random. Alot of mutation’s happen, as a survival tool. For example: Bat’s as well as other cave dwelling animals, that have eyes, but lose those functions because it isn’t useful anymore and their other senses develop 10 fold. Flying fish developed fins which act as wings when they leap out of the water for up to 45 seconds, to escape predators. There are many other examples, but it’s not totally random. As the animals find uses for different things, mutations occur. Just as if we were to start walking on our hands, more than likely our arms would become huge, our joints would mutate and we would look much different. Sometimes mutations are caused by the environment, and the actions over time of an animal. Anyway, i pretty much agree. I just don’t think EVERY mutation is random.
[quote=Ronnie Dobbs] [quote=Wet_Blanket]
Lots of domesticated foods are results of genetic mutations that did little to actually benefit the plant: corn, and peas are a couple more.[/quote]
Just FYI. This is completely true. A true almond, will kill you within minutes. Another plant that has the same mutation is the Yam. It in it's true form is poisonous.
I wouldn't, however, say that EVERY mutation is TOTALLY random. Alot of mutation's happen, as a survival tool. For example: Bat's as well as other cave dwelling animals, that have eyes, but lose those functions because it isn't useful anymore and their other senses develop 10 fold. Flying fish developed fins which act as wings when they leap out of the water for up to 45 seconds, to escape predators. There are many other examples, but it's not totally random. As the animals find uses for different things, mutations occur. Just as if we were to start walking on our hands, more than likely our arms would become huge, our joints would mutate and we would look much different. Sometimes mutations are caused by the environment, and the actions over time of an animal. Anyway, i pretty much agree. I just don't think EVERY mutation is random.[/quote] If you are a true believer in evolution, you would say it is completely random (at least that was the way it was when I was in college) - it is inevitable that the random mutations that benefit the animal will be the ones to stick / it is inevitable that limbs that have no use disappear over time. If you are religious, you would say that it happens with purpose (if you acknowledge evolution at all) - ie. intelligent design, evolution happens in spurts and at the direction of the Maker. Moving on, I guess that the arguement concerning Choice v. Nature boils down to a philosophical question concerning religion. If you believe in God, and God created everything with purpose, then why did he create people who are gay? I see that it is easier to say it was a choice and gay people are acting on God's gift of free will, but I also believe that is doing a diservice to one's relationship with God.
] If you believe in God, and God created everything with purpose, then why did he create people who are gay? I see that it is easier to say it was a choice and gay people are acting on God’s gift of free will, but I also believe that is doing a diservice to one’s relationship with God.
I'm not religious, but......
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Doesn't sound like God forgives or tolerates gays either lol......
Gays are not sterile. Someone brought up the point earlier that gay men specifically may marry and have kids early in life (to fit in or various other reasons), then come out later in life. My father in law did exactly that. I really have no idea what causes it, I just have a strong feeling that it is not a choice. I don't say I know for sure, because I'm not gay. Regarding genetic mutation, you are starting on the faulty premise that genetic mutation is done for a reason. Evolution is just a series of completely random mutuations. The ones that benefit the species usually stick. Here is an example. The almond. The wild almond contains cyanide, enough to kill you if you eat a handful of them. How exactly did we domestic them? Every so often a gene presents itself that creates cyanide-free almonds - a genetic mutation from long ago. These tastey almonds are usually eaten up by wildlife, because they don't taste bitter - so they didn't thrive until humans started cultivating them. What is the biological purpose of non-poisonous almonds? Absolutely nothing. Lots of domesticated foods are results of genetic mutations that did little to actually benefit the plant: corn, and peas are a couple more.[/quote][quote=Moraen]Here is a thought on gays and evolution:
If homosexuality is genetic, why is that gene still expressed? Homosexuals can’t procreate. The gene would have died out.
Which is correct, homosexuality being genetic, or evolution?
Also, if you are going to argue genetic mutation, what is the reason for a gay mutation?
Btw - I am genuinely asking, not mocking anybody or taking a position. Probably should have posted it in the lounge
The whole premise of natural selection is predicated upon need. Giraffes come to mind. We are supposedly biologically programmed (I believe this) to continue our species.
Homesexuals can't procreate. When your father-in-law had children, he committed (Hah!) a heterosexual act. He is NOW a homosexual. Now, his sexual actions will not produce children.
The reason almonds have cyanide in them is that they evolved from peaches. Peach pits have trace amounts of cyanide in them. Grind enough of them up, and you can kill yourself.
However, almonds were easy to cultivate even 4,000 years ago.
As for why? My guess is you would have to map the genome to determine that. One possible theory is that the cyanide contained in almonds can be used to erode certain metals that were found in their original mountain habitat. This would allow the almond trees roots to gain footholds in the mountains.
When the almonds were removed to more fertile areas, the almond no longer had need to use cyanide in order to root. In fact, depending on the richness of the soil, the cyanide could in fact hurt it's chances of taking root. Thus, the cyanide is no longer needed and possibly would be bred out.
[quote=Wet_Blanket] ] If you believe in God, and God created everything with purpose, then why did he create people who are gay? I see that it is easier to say it was a choice and gay people are acting on God’s gift of free will, but I also believe that is doing a diservice to one’s relationship with God.
I'm not religious, but......
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Doesn't sound like God forgives or tolerates gays either lol......[/quote]
Why do you lie to us? To yourself? Why do you tell us you'll never come back and you do? Why do you say you are done posting on this topic and post? Why do you tell us you are straight and you "experimented" with boys?
Finally, why is your YEARS of experience dealing with children not on your broker check report? Hopefully you are not basing your opinions on a three month, 4 hour a week internship during a semester.
And I thought this was a registered rep. forum.
[quote=Ronnie Dobbs] [quote=Wet_Blanket] ] If you believe in God, and God created everything with purpose, then why did he create people who are gay? I see that it is easier to say it was a choice and gay people are acting on God’s gift of free will, but I also believe that is doing a diservice to one’s relationship with God.
[/quote]I'm not religious, but......
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Doesn't sound like God forgives or tolerates gays either lol......[/quote] I'm Catholic, but not that religious - however the bible does has its limitations - mainly being that it was written by man, and further edited by man. If you read the bible from begining to end, you will witness a growth in philosophical thought. Someone before in this thread pointed out the differences between the Old and New Testaments, but the difference is largely caused by the development of thought and philosophy. One of the biggest differences is in the Old Testament, one main lesson was "an eye for an eye." The target audience of the Old Testament (and creators) where the Hebrews, a people who did not know justice, only retribution. Face forward a couple thousands of years, and you get "turn the other cheek," which is surely an advancement in philosophy. So basically, we are limited by what we can comprehend (you don't have to be religious to agree with that).
Gays are not sterile. Someone brought up the point earlier that gay men specifically may marry and have kids early in life (to fit in or various other reasons), then come out later in life. My father in law did exactly that. I really have no idea what causes it, I just have a strong feeling that it is not a choice. I don't say I know for sure, because I'm not gay. Regarding genetic mutation, you are starting on the faulty premise that genetic mutation is done for a reason. Evolution is just a series of completely random mutuations. The ones that benefit the species usually stick. Here is an example. The almond. The wild almond contains cyanide, enough to kill you if you eat a handful of them. How exactly did we domestic them? Every so often a gene presents itself that creates cyanide-free almonds - a genetic mutation from long ago. These tastey almonds are usually eaten up by wildlife, because they don't taste bitter - so they didn't thrive until humans started cultivating them. What is the biological purpose of non-poisonous almonds? Absolutely nothing. Lots of domesticated foods are results of genetic mutations that did little to actually benefit the plant: corn, and peas are a couple more.[/quote][quote=Wet_Blanket][quote=Moraen]Here is a thought on gays and evolution:
If homosexuality is genetic, why is that gene still expressed? Homosexuals can’t procreate. The gene would have died out.
Which is correct, homosexuality being genetic, or evolution?
Also, if you are going to argue genetic mutation, what is the reason for a gay mutation?
Btw - I am genuinely asking, not mocking anybody or taking a position. Probably should have posted it in the lounge
The whole premise of natural selection is predicated upon need. Giraffes come to mind. We are supposedly biologically programmed (I believe this) to continue our species.
Homesexuals can't procreate. When your father-in-law had children, he committed (Hah!) a heterosexual act. He is NOW a homosexual. Now, his sexual actions will not produce children.
The reason almonds have cyanide in them is that they evolved from peaches. Peach pits have trace amounts of cyanide in them. Grind enough of them up, and you can kill yourself.
However, almonds were easy to cultivate even 4,000 years ago.
As for why? My guess is you would have to map the genome to determine that. One possible theory is that the cyanide contained in almonds can be used to erode certain metals that were found in their original mountain habitat. This would allow the almond trees roots to gain footholds in the mountains.
When the almonds were removed to more fertile areas, the almond no longer had need to use cyanide in order to root. In fact, depending on the richness of the soil, the cyanide could in fact hurt it's chances of taking root. Thus, the cyanide is no longer needed and possibly would be bred out.
[/quote] If you ask him, he'll say he was gay when he got married. Choose marriage and family because it was the "right thing to do" in his blue collar neighborhood. He is a little unbalanced though, he thinks everyone is secretly gay. The day I married his daughter, he took me aside and told me to do the "father thing" for about 15 years then I can "come out" and enjoy my life. Haha. Interesting theory on the almond. I may dig deeper into that. I guess the only obvious problem I have with it is that the cyanid would be eating away at the rocks under an already taken-root tree, so why erode it more? Unless almond trees have a tendancy to throw the almonds around the area.
[quote=Wet_Blanket]Unless almond trees have a tendancy to throw the almonds around the area.[/quote]
I believe this is the case.
Okay, now it has peaked my interest. If your theory is true, then that’s impressive.
[quote=Wet_Blanket]Okay, now it has peaked my interest. If your theory is true, then that’s impressive.[/quote]
Question: What does your tagline mean? Nice avatar by the way.