 |
Yeah he may be the ultimate outsider .$ 6 billion + net worth .He can get the name recognition soon enough (if people can spell and pronounce his name .)
The New American Dream - YouTube
Maybe because he isn't a pol ,he can speak hard truths . Whether the nation listens is another story .
Very true in both regards. It was certainly true with Trump. Enough listened to get him elected at any rate.Quote:
Maybe because he isn't a pol ,he can speak hard truths . Whether the nation listens is another story .
I did. I'm a career librarian but you always spit on the links I post. I found several valid, scientific ones and know that, with your sharp mind and inquisitive nature, you'd find them too -- all by yourself!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Jesus changes hearts but He doesn't change who we are biologically.
Just be aware that I'm not going to accept that childish nonsense. If you have something, then post it. Otherwise, please stop this silliness of wanting me to do what you evidently cannot do.Quote:
know that, with your sharp mind and inquisitive nature, you'd find them too -- all by yourself!!!
I don't think you have found any links to begin with, but I'm also convinced that your grasp of science is not sufficient to allow you make a judgment about a link that is scientifically "valid". I don't intend that to be mean, but just base it on past experience. But I invite you to show me that my opinion is not correct.Quote:
I found several valid, scientific ones
Except that, again, there is no evidence for that. None, or at least none that I've ever seen.Quote:
who we are biologically.
I actually thanked you for your quote from yesterday. It was very useful.Quote:
you always spit on the links I post
Here's one to chew on:
Evidence for Neurohormonal Etiology
A neurohormonal etiology of homosexuality is based on the reasoning that homosexuality (and sexual orientation in general) depends on the early sexual differentiation of hypothalamic brain structures. The differentiation of these brain structures depends on prenatal androgen action.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...rogen%20action.
Here's another:
The hunt for ‘gay genes’
The new finding is consistent with multiple earlier studies of twins that indicated same-sex attraction is a heritable trait.
https://images.theconversation.com/f...w=237&fit=clip
A new study suggests that genes are responsible for between 8% and 25% of same-sex preference. Guru 3DThe 2019 study is the latest in a hunt for “gay genes” that began in 1993, when Dean Hamer linked male homosexuality to a section of the X chromosome. As the ease and affordability of genome sequencing increased, additional gene candidates have emerged with potential links to homosexual behavior. So-called genome-wide association studies identified a gene called SLITRK6, which is active in a brain region called the diencephalon that differs in size between people who are homosexual or heterosexual.
https://theconversation.com/stop-cal...xuality-122764
The first study fails when they assume the answer before beginning. They do this by basing the study on an unproven hypothesis, that sexual orientation, "depends on the early sexual differentiation of hypothalamic brain structures." Rather than proving that to be true, they simply assume it is true.Quote:
A neurohormonal etiology of homosexuality is based on the reasoning that homosexuality (and sexual orientation in general) depends on the early sexual differentiation of hypothalamic brain structures.
And then as the article progresses, the one glaring omission is any evidence that this statement is true. " Therefore, homosexual men and heterosexual women have neural sexual orientation centers that are similar to each other and different from those of heterosexual men and homosexual women." It seems to be simply an assumption made by the author to back up his approach.
Are we really supposed to have confidence in a statement like this? First of all, the range is quite wide. Even worse, the study only "suggests" that range to begin with. But let's suppose that it's 10%. Then that means that the other 90% is non-genetic, in other words environmental. So that would not agree at all with your statement about, "who we are biologically." So your own article has worked against you, has it not?Quote:
A new study suggests that genes are responsible for between 8% and 25% of same-sex preference.
Now I am not "spitting on" your articles; I am questioning them. It is up to your now to respond academically.
Get to know people in the LGBTQ+ community. Talk with them honestly. Become friends with some of them.
Those two links are your opportunities to do further research. Now you have new terminology and reasoning you aren't familiar with. And you want to DISCUSS?! We've been down that very bumpy road in the recent past.
Too late. I've already done that.Quote:
Get to know people in the LGBTQ+ community. Talk with them honestly. Become friends with some of them
This was part of your article. It sure works against your idea that sexual orientation is purely a biological construct.Now to be clear, I have no doubt that same-sex attraction is not merely a choice. I don't think it has a biological link, or at least not a predominant one, but there plainly seems to be a cause of some sort. I'm with you on that, but I'm not with you in suggesting that there is nothing to be done for it or in believing that we should regard it as normal.Quote:
There is no reliable way to predict an individual's sexual orientation. Identical twins (even twins raised in separate families) show a higher concordance rate for sexual orientation than would be expected by chance alone, but nowhere near 100%, as would be expected if genetics were the sole determinant. Attempts to correlate brain imaging or levels of androgens and estrogens with sexual orientation have thus far been inconsistent at best. Although it is well established that parents tend to treat boys and girls differently, there is no evidence that parental behavior alters the developmental trajectory towards a particular sexual orientation.
What's normal? Even the plant (https://www.sdlgbtn.com/can-plants-b...they-might-be/)
and animal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...exual_behavior)
kingdoms aren't "normal".
So nothing is abnormal? Sex with children? Sex with animals? Rape?
I think there are a lot of behaviors that are "normal". Eating, for instance, is normal. Drinking is normal. Self-preservation is normal. And yes, men and women having sex is normal.
And are you REALLY putting this forward as an argument that same-sex attraction is normal??? OK, I'll admit to spitting on this. It's just sillliness.
Note the uncertain modifiers I underlined. Those words are used to indicate that there is absolutely no certainty in what is being said. In other words, it is conjecture.Quote:
Although the concept of plants being gay may seem far-fetched, there is actually some evidence to suggest that plants may indeed have homosexual tendencies. For example, certain species of plants have been found to produce more flowers when they are growing near other members of the same species, regardless of whether those plants are male or female.
Some scientists believe that this may be an evolutionary strategy on the part of the plants, as it ensures that a greater number of their pollen grains will come into contact with other members of their species (and thus increase the chances of reproduction). However, others have suggested that this behaviour may simply be a result of the plants’ attraction to members of their own species, regardless of gender.
Sex with children, with animals??? Boy, did you misread! No more links posted for your perusal!
Read something last night that intrigued me. There was a book published several decades ago titled Evidence Which Demands a Verdict. The author suggested that the opposite has now become vogue. "A Verdict Which Demands Evidence".
Please think more accurately. MUCH more accurately. My comment (So nothing is abnormal?) did not come from your links.Quote:
Sex with children, with animals??? Boy, did you misread! No more links posted for your perusal!
What's wrong with being gay or lesbian? Or fat or ugly? (as per Roald Dahl books in Post #1)
Being fat is, at the very least, physically an indicator of poor self-control and poor health. Being ugly is not wrong in any way. Many "ugly" people are beautiful in God's sight. Same-gender sex is spoken of as a moral wrong in many places in the Bible.
I have no intention of rehashing, for the umpteenth time, the morality of same-gender sex. It has been talked to death here. Suffice it to say that when the Bible speaks of it, it is ALWAYS in the negative and NEVER in the positive. And marriage is ALWAYS between a man and a woman, and NEVER between two people of the same gender.
The point with Dahl's books is that while people are free to simply not purchase or read them, they cross the line when they change the text to meet some supposed moral standard they profess.
Not true. Plus the word word “homosexual” was accidentally inserted into the Bible back in 1946.
God doesn't forbid honest and giving love between two adults, no matter their gender.
Same with the Bible as with Dahl's books, "[people] cross the line when they change the text to meet some supposed moral standard they profess."
A completely absurd allegation for which you, as usual, have not one shred of documentation other than, in all likelihood, a ridiculous movie that claims it is so. It is a farce. "Accidentally inserted"??? It's lunacy. And I should add that the NIV translates the word as, "men who have sex with men," though they doubtless did so accidentally. The word accidentally used prior to 46 was "sodomites", and that helps your cause none at all.Quote:
Not true. Plus the word word “homosexual” was accidentally inserted into the Bible back in 1946.
I completely agree with that, but he does forbid sex outside of marriage between a man and woman.Quote:
God doesn't forbid honest and giving love between two adults, no matter their gender.
Look it up, buddy! You're wrong about the translation. The word was used in 1946 in lieu of the Greek words “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai,” which actually translate to “effeminate” and “sexual pervert” — not “homosexual.”
God forbids sex outside of marriage. Period. He doesn't tell us who we can love.
God forbids sex outside of marriage? Well, Jesus described marriage as between a man and a woman. Thank you for that concession.Quote:
Look it up, buddy!
I did so as I have done several times before. I doubt it will have much impact, but we'll see. So as to looking it up, how's this?Quote:
Look it up, buddy!
1. Here are all of the major English translations of 1 Cor. 6:9. Note the overwhelming trend of translating arsenokoitai as "homosexual" or words that mean homosexual.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/e...inthians%206:9
2. Arsenokoitai clearly means homosexual. It comes from two Greek words which mean "men" and "bed". The meaning is clear.
https://www.crossway.org/articles/wh...nokoitai-mean/
3. The movie you are banking on describes an absurd fantasy where several dozen very serious, very highly-educated scholars look at a key word in the Greek NT and "accidentally" render it as homosexual. Then a grad student writes them to let them know of said mistake, but the letter arrives too late to make the change. It's a ridiculous story that is embarrassing to see you actually believe.
4. Strong's online concordance renders it as, " a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast."
https://biblehub.com/greek/733.htm
5. There is, in all the Bible, not a single positive comment made regarding same-gender sex. It is described as outside the will of God on every occasion.
6. I don't believe malakoi is ever translated "homosexual". Not sure why you would mention that.
7. Even a cursory examination of male and female sex organs makes it clear that men and women are intended to be together and not male/male.
Now I'm not doing this for WG. Her mind is made up with no regard for evidence and no amount of information will change it. Perhaps others will see this and gain some knowledge.
I'm done with this. I should never have started it for the 27th (or whatever) time. The practice of making up the mind and then looking for evidence has led WG to this place.
I'll call in dwashbur for help in understanding the Greek.
Back to the topic, perhaps there is still some hope.
European publishers refuse to change Roald Dahl's works: 'His humor is second to none' | Fox NewsQuote:
European publishers said they will not make changes to Roald Dahl's books, arguing that his stories will "lose all their power" after a U.K. publishing company revealed it had rewritten some of the late author's work to remove potentially offensive language.
Puffin Books, which published Dahl's classic works, hired sensitivity readers to update portions of the author's wording in the U.K. editions to ensure the books "can continue to be enjoyed by all today." The edits include new gender-neutral language and altered descriptions of certain physical appearances and were reportedly approved by Dahl's estate.
In one example, the word "fat" has been replaced with "enormous" in reference to Augustus Gloop, the chubby character featured in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:29 PM. |