Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It does not stand up because you provide nothing to support it except surmise. I provided you with other theories just as plausible. It's not even a theory - just an untested hypothesis.
The support is in the fact that if a species suddenly went 100% homosexual, it would die out in a generation. Even a large portion of said population doing so would cause the population to dip below the replacement value needed for survival of the species.
If the object of an organism is to procreate, to continue its DNA to the next generation, homosexual desires are an impediment to this. This isn't making any moral judgments, its purely observations of fact.
You continue to provide surmise instead of evidence. An untested hypothesis is nothing but an untested hypothesis.
and your hypothesis that it is biologically normal is "just because I say so?"
This is a message board, not a sociology research journal.You are applying a higher standard to my opinion because you don't like it, nothing more, nothing less.
I can't have the standard "just because I say so" but you can? You are attempting to support an argument on the basis of science. If you want to do that, then you should use science and not unsupported opinion. If all you are doing is stating your opinion, that is fine. My opinion is your opinion is wrong. I need provide no evidence if you think you don't.
Lets go over the facts. Sexual organisms reproduce sexually, via two sexes, male and female. Since life wants to propagate itself (I don't think they have discovered a life form that through natural processes, seeks to eliminate itself) in behooves said organisms to have some mechanism that promotes sexual reproduction. That mechanism is an attraction between opposite sexes, thus promoting sexual intercourse, and thus promoting the continuation of the individuals DNA and the overall species. Removing sexual desire towards opposite sex partners inhibits sexual intercourse between said organisms, thus inhibiting promotion of the individuals DNA, and possibly the promotion of the entire species though lack of genetic diversity.
This is based on observation of how biology works, not morality, not supposition, but established observations. If you can find some persistent homosexual tendencies in other species that are NOT due to 1)lack of mating partners, and thus an outlet for sexual energy or 2) sexual imbalance where the sex of the organism actually changes, then I have established a logical chain of showing homosexual activity is not a biological norm.
That's your belief.The support is in the fact that if a species suddenly went 100% homosexual, it would die out in a generation. Even a large portion of said population doing so would cause the population to dip below the replacement value needed for survival of the species.
If the object of an organism is to procreate, to continue its DNA to the next generation, homosexual desires are an impediment to this. This isn't making any moral judgments, its purely observations of fact.
You continue to provide surmise instead of evidence. An untested hypothesis is nothing but an untested hypothesis.
and your hypothesis that it is biologically normal is "just because I say so?"
This is a message board, not a sociology research journal.You are applying a higher standard to my opinion because you don't like it, nothing more, nothing less.
I can't have the standard "just because I say so" but you can? You are attempting to support an argument on the basis of science. If you want to do that, then you should use science and not unsupported opinion. If all you are doing is stating your opinion, that is fine. My opinion is your opinion is wrong. I need provide no evidence if you think you don't.
Lets go over the facts. Sexual organisms reproduce sexually, via two sexes, male and female. Since life wants to propagate itself (I don't think they have discovered a life form that through natural processes, seeks to eliminate itself) in behooves said organisms to have some mechanism that promotes sexual reproduction. That mechanism is an attraction between opposite sexes, thus promoting sexual intercourse, and thus promoting the continuation of the individuals DNA and the overall species. Removing sexual desire towards opposite sex partners inhibits sexual intercourse between said organisms, thus inhibiting promotion of the individuals DNA, and possibly the promotion of the entire species though lack of genetic diversity.
This is based on observation of how biology works, not morality, not supposition, but established observations. If you can find some persistent homosexual tendencies in other species that are NOT due to 1)lack of mating partners, and thus an outlet for sexual energy or 2) sexual imbalance where the sex of the organism actually changes, then I have established a logical chain of showing homosexual activity is not a biological norm.
You have presented a brief, generalized and totally superficial overview which does not constitute anything even slightly approaching a scientific study. What actual studies do you have to back up your position? Without this, it is opinion.
That's your belief.You continue to provide surmise instead of evidence. An untested hypothesis is nothing but an untested hypothesis.
and your hypothesis that it is biologically normal is "just because I say so?"
This is a message board, not a sociology research journal.You are applying a higher standard to my opinion because you don't like it, nothing more, nothing less.
I can't have the standard "just because I say so" but you can? You are attempting to support an argument on the basis of science. If you want to do that, then you should use science and not unsupported opinion. If all you are doing is stating your opinion, that is fine. My opinion is your opinion is wrong. I need provide no evidence if you think you don't.
Lets go over the facts. Sexual organisms reproduce sexually, via two sexes, male and female. Since life wants to propagate itself (I don't think they have discovered a life form that through natural processes, seeks to eliminate itself) in behooves said organisms to have some mechanism that promotes sexual reproduction. That mechanism is an attraction between opposite sexes, thus promoting sexual intercourse, and thus promoting the continuation of the individuals DNA and the overall species. Removing sexual desire towards opposite sex partners inhibits sexual intercourse between said organisms, thus inhibiting promotion of the individuals DNA, and possibly the promotion of the entire species though lack of genetic diversity.
This is based on observation of how biology works, not morality, not supposition, but established observations. If you can find some persistent homosexual tendencies in other species that are NOT due to 1)lack of mating partners, and thus an outlet for sexual energy or 2) sexual imbalance where the sex of the organism actually changes, then I have established a logical chain of showing homosexual activity is not a biological norm.
You have presented a brief, generalized and totally superficial overview which does not constitute anything even slightly approaching a scientific study. What actual studies do you have to back up your position? Without this, it is opinion.
And where does abortion fit into this calculation?1 Corinthians 11:11
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
The reason homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God is because God's purpose for mankind was that the man be joined together with the woman to multiply and replenish the earth.
Genesis 2:24
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Genesis 1:28
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
In the LDS faith we believe that man and woman can be joined together and spend eternity as husband and wife. They can eventually have spirit children like our Father in heaven. This we believe is one of the purposes of life and the will of God. Homosexuality is a perversion of the plan that God has prepared for us. For this reason it is considered an abomination.
Leviticus 18:22
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Romans 1:27
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Good discussion. It's not true that same sex marriage doesn't harm anyone.
This says something about you by where your eyes lead you and I don't think I want to know what. By the way the alien is a toy walkie talkie used as a prop to reference an abstract philosophical view.Dude, I'm not the guy with an avatar of a guy in tights and a crotch bulge.
Good discussion. It's not true that same sex marriage doesn't harm anyone.
The support is in the fact that if a species suddenly went 100% homosexual, it would die out in a generation. Even a large portion of said population doing so would cause the population to dip below the replacement value needed for survival of the species.
If the object of an organism is to procreate, to continue its DNA to the next generation, homosexual desires are an impediment to this. This isn't making any moral judgments, its purely observations of fact.
You continue to provide surmise instead of evidence. An untested hypothesis is nothing but an untested hypothesis.
and your hypothesis that it is biologically normal is "just because I say so?"
This is a message board, not a sociology research journal.You are applying a higher standard to my opinion because you don't like it, nothing more, nothing less.
I can't have the standard "just because I say so" but you can? You are attempting to support an argument on the basis of science. If you want to do that, then you should use science and not unsupported opinion. If all you are doing is stating your opinion, that is fine. My opinion is your opinion is wrong. I need provide no evidence if you think you don't.
Lets go over the facts. Sexual organisms reproduce sexually, via two sexes, male and female. Since life wants to propagate itself (I don't think they have discovered a life form that through natural processes, seeks to eliminate itself) in behooves said organisms to have some mechanism that promotes sexual reproduction. That mechanism is an attraction between opposite sexes, thus promoting sexual intercourse, and thus promoting the continuation of the individuals DNA and the overall species. Removing sexual desire towards opposite sex partners inhibits sexual intercourse between said organisms, thus inhibiting promotion of the individuals DNA, and possibly the promotion of the entire species though lack of genetic diversity.
This is based on observation of how biology works, not morality, not supposition, but established observations. If you can find some persistent homosexual tendencies in other species that are NOT due to 1)lack of mating partners, and thus an outlet for sexual energy or 2) sexual imbalance where the sex of the organism actually changes, then I have established a logical chain of showing homosexual activity is not a biological norm.
You have presented a brief, generalized and totally superficial overview which does not constitute anything even slightly approaching a scientific study. What actual studies do you have to back up your position? Without this, it is opinion.
You continue to provide surmise instead of evidence. An untested hypothesis is nothing but an untested hypothesis.
and your hypothesis that it is biologically normal is "just because I say so?"
This is a message board, not a sociology research journal.You are applying a higher standard to my opinion because you don't like it, nothing more, nothing less.
I can't have the standard "just because I say so" but you can? You are attempting to support an argument on the basis of science. If you want to do that, then you should use science and not unsupported opinion. If all you are doing is stating your opinion, that is fine. My opinion is your opinion is wrong. I need provide no evidence if you think you don't.
Lets go over the facts. Sexual organisms reproduce sexually, via two sexes, male and female. Since life wants to propagate itself (I don't think they have discovered a life form that through natural processes, seeks to eliminate itself) in behooves said organisms to have some mechanism that promotes sexual reproduction. That mechanism is an attraction between opposite sexes, thus promoting sexual intercourse, and thus promoting the continuation of the individuals DNA and the overall species. Removing sexual desire towards opposite sex partners inhibits sexual intercourse between said organisms, thus inhibiting promotion of the individuals DNA, and possibly the promotion of the entire species though lack of genetic diversity.
This is based on observation of how biology works, not morality, not supposition, but established observations. If you can find some persistent homosexual tendencies in other species that are NOT due to 1)lack of mating partners, and thus an outlet for sexual energy or 2) sexual imbalance where the sex of the organism actually changes, then I have established a logical chain of showing homosexual activity is not a biological norm.
You have presented a brief, generalized and totally superficial overview which does not constitute anything even slightly approaching a scientific study. What actual studies do you have to back up your position? Without this, it is opinion.
I never claimed otherwise, however it is an opinion with a logical thought out progression, which each individual part an observation made by countless people before me.
Why does one need a study for this stuff? Its pretty obvious to those that do not have an overriding political agenda.
and your hypothesis that it is biologically normal is "just because I say so?"
This is a message board, not a sociology research journal.You are applying a higher standard to my opinion because you don't like it, nothing more, nothing less.
I can't have the standard "just because I say so" but you can? You are attempting to support an argument on the basis of science. If you want to do that, then you should use science and not unsupported opinion. If all you are doing is stating your opinion, that is fine. My opinion is your opinion is wrong. I need provide no evidence if you think you don't.
Lets go over the facts. Sexual organisms reproduce sexually, via two sexes, male and female. Since life wants to propagate itself (I don't think they have discovered a life form that through natural processes, seeks to eliminate itself) in behooves said organisms to have some mechanism that promotes sexual reproduction. That mechanism is an attraction between opposite sexes, thus promoting sexual intercourse, and thus promoting the continuation of the individuals DNA and the overall species. Removing sexual desire towards opposite sex partners inhibits sexual intercourse between said organisms, thus inhibiting promotion of the individuals DNA, and possibly the promotion of the entire species though lack of genetic diversity.
This is based on observation of how biology works, not morality, not supposition, but established observations. If you can find some persistent homosexual tendencies in other species that are NOT due to 1)lack of mating partners, and thus an outlet for sexual energy or 2) sexual imbalance where the sex of the organism actually changes, then I have established a logical chain of showing homosexual activity is not a biological norm.
You have presented a brief, generalized and totally superficial overview which does not constitute anything even slightly approaching a scientific study. What actual studies do you have to back up your position? Without this, it is opinion.
I never claimed otherwise, however it is an opinion with a logical thought out progression, which each individual part an observation made by countless people before me.
Why does one need a study for this stuff? Its pretty obvious to those that do not have an overriding political agenda.
I gave you other potential hypotheses and you rejected them out of hand, although they were at least as valid as yours. I am not buying that you have no agenda here.
Homosexuality is biological. There is no right or wrong to it. It just is. If you want to make some claim based upon science rather than a political or moral agenda, then use science. Don't simply invoke science as if that removes the requirement for evidentiary support.
Good discussion. It's not true that same sex marriage doesn't harm anyone.
I can't have the standard "just because I say so" but you can? You are attempting to support an argument on the basis of science. If you want to do that, then you should use science and not unsupported opinion. If all you are doing is stating your opinion, that is fine. My opinion is your opinion is wrong. I need provide no evidence if you think you don't.
Lets go over the facts. Sexual organisms reproduce sexually, via two sexes, male and female. Since life wants to propagate itself (I don't think they have discovered a life form that through natural processes, seeks to eliminate itself) in behooves said organisms to have some mechanism that promotes sexual reproduction. That mechanism is an attraction between opposite sexes, thus promoting sexual intercourse, and thus promoting the continuation of the individuals DNA and the overall species. Removing sexual desire towards opposite sex partners inhibits sexual intercourse between said organisms, thus inhibiting promotion of the individuals DNA, and possibly the promotion of the entire species though lack of genetic diversity.
This is based on observation of how biology works, not morality, not supposition, but established observations. If you can find some persistent homosexual tendencies in other species that are NOT due to 1)lack of mating partners, and thus an outlet for sexual energy or 2) sexual imbalance where the sex of the organism actually changes, then I have established a logical chain of showing homosexual activity is not a biological norm.
You have presented a brief, generalized and totally superficial overview which does not constitute anything even slightly approaching a scientific study. What actual studies do you have to back up your position? Without this, it is opinion.
I never claimed otherwise, however it is an opinion with a logical thought out progression, which each individual part an observation made by countless people before me.
Why does one need a study for this stuff? Its pretty obvious to those that do not have an overriding political agenda.
I gave you other potential hypotheses and you rejected them out of hand, although they were at least as valid as yours. I am not buying that you have no agenda here.
Homosexuality is biological. There is no right or wrong to it. It just is. If you want to make some claim based upon science rather than a political or moral agenda, then use science. Don't simply invoke science as if that removes the requirement for evidentiary support.
It is a biological dead end. I answered your other potential hypotheses, and asked for proof of them outside of periods of stress to the species.
I understand you would rather debate one of the "God Wills it" people, because to you, their opinions don't matter. However the chain I have shown is indicative of homosexual urges being detrimental to the continuation of a species in general, and to the specific DNA line in detail.
Good discussion. It's not true that same sex marriage doesn't harm anyone.
Homosexuality can only be wrong. When it becomes something normal, then soon enough, for example, beating up someone because one is angry becomes normal. The law will have to make it legal.
Marriage is considered a religious thing. If homosexuals want to marry they ought to find a religion that tolerates homosexuality.
Lets go over the facts. Sexual organisms reproduce sexually, via two sexes, male and female. Since life wants to propagate itself (I don't think they have discovered a life form that through natural processes, seeks to eliminate itself) in behooves said organisms to have some mechanism that promotes sexual reproduction. That mechanism is an attraction between opposite sexes, thus promoting sexual intercourse, and thus promoting the continuation of the individuals DNA and the overall species. Removing sexual desire towards opposite sex partners inhibits sexual intercourse between said organisms, thus inhibiting promotion of the individuals DNA, and possibly the promotion of the entire species though lack of genetic diversity.
This is based on observation of how biology works, not morality, not supposition, but established observations. If you can find some persistent homosexual tendencies in other species that are NOT due to 1)lack of mating partners, and thus an outlet for sexual energy or 2) sexual imbalance where the sex of the organism actually changes, then I have established a logical chain of showing homosexual activity is not a biological norm.
You have presented a brief, generalized and totally superficial overview which does not constitute anything even slightly approaching a scientific study. What actual studies do you have to back up your position? Without this, it is opinion.
I never claimed otherwise, however it is an opinion with a logical thought out progression, which each individual part an observation made by countless people before me.
Why does one need a study for this stuff? Its pretty obvious to those that do not have an overriding political agenda.
I gave you other potential hypotheses and you rejected them out of hand, although they were at least as valid as yours. I am not buying that you have no agenda here.
Homosexuality is biological. There is no right or wrong to it. It just is. If you want to make some claim based upon science rather than a political or moral agenda, then use science. Don't simply invoke science as if that removes the requirement for evidentiary support.
It is a biological dead end. I answered your other potential hypotheses, and asked for proof of them outside of periods of stress to the species.
I understand you would rather debate one of the "God Wills it" people, because to you, their opinions don't matter. However the chain I have shown is indicative of homosexual urges being detrimental to the continuation of a species in general, and to the specific DNA line in detail.
You have shown no such thing. If what you are arguing is true, then we would have no homosexuals because it is a "biological dead end." Or the human race would have died out because it is a "biological dead end." Neither of these is the case, so your premise is obviously false. The human race is expanding and homosexuality is having no impact upon that.
If you want me to consider an hypothesis that is in direct conflict with the facts, you are going to need more than the insistence that it is true.
You have presented a brief, generalized and totally superficial overview which does not constitute anything even slightly approaching a scientific study. What actual studies do you have to back up your position? Without this, it is opinion.
I never claimed otherwise, however it is an opinion with a logical thought out progression, which each individual part an observation made by countless people before me.
Why does one need a study for this stuff? Its pretty obvious to those that do not have an overriding political agenda.
I gave you other potential hypotheses and you rejected them out of hand, although they were at least as valid as yours. I am not buying that you have no agenda here.
Homosexuality is biological. There is no right or wrong to it. It just is. If you want to make some claim based upon science rather than a political or moral agenda, then use science. Don't simply invoke science as if that removes the requirement for evidentiary support.
It is a biological dead end. I answered your other potential hypotheses, and asked for proof of them outside of periods of stress to the species.
I understand you would rather debate one of the "God Wills it" people, because to you, their opinions don't matter. However the chain I have shown is indicative of homosexual urges being detrimental to the continuation of a species in general, and to the specific DNA line in detail.
You have shown no such thing. If what you are arguing is true, then we would have no homosexuals because it is a "biological dead end." Or the human race would have died out because it is a "biological dead end." Neither of these is the case, so your premise is obviously false. The human race is expanding and homosexuality is having no impact upon that.
If you want me to consider an hypothesis that is in direct conflict with the facts, you are going to need more than the insistence that it is true.
Does homosexuality mean you are less likely to pass on your own DNA to a next generation? Yes or No. Also remove sentience from the equation as well as technology.
Would excessive amounts of homosexuality in a population cause issues with the survival, or at best, the genetic diversity of said species?
Is the whole purpose of our sex drive from a biological standpoint the continuation of our line of DNA and the furtherance of our species?
In sexual organisms, isn't the way it is supposed to work is a males has sex with a female, and creates more organisms?
I never claimed otherwise, however it is an opinion with a logical thought out progression, which each individual part an observation made by countless people before me.
Why does one need a study for this stuff? Its pretty obvious to those that do not have an overriding political agenda.
I gave you other potential hypotheses and you rejected them out of hand, although they were at least as valid as yours. I am not buying that you have no agenda here.
Homosexuality is biological. There is no right or wrong to it. It just is. If you want to make some claim based upon science rather than a political or moral agenda, then use science. Don't simply invoke science as if that removes the requirement for evidentiary support.
It is a biological dead end. I answered your other potential hypotheses, and asked for proof of them outside of periods of stress to the species.
I understand you would rather debate one of the "God Wills it" people, because to you, their opinions don't matter. However the chain I have shown is indicative of homosexual urges being detrimental to the continuation of a species in general, and to the specific DNA line in detail.
You have shown no such thing. If what you are arguing is true, then we would have no homosexuals because it is a "biological dead end." Or the human race would have died out because it is a "biological dead end." Neither of these is the case, so your premise is obviously false. The human race is expanding and homosexuality is having no impact upon that.
If you want me to consider an hypothesis that is in direct conflict with the facts, you are going to need more than the insistence that it is true.
Does homosexuality mean you are less likely to pass on your own DNA to a next generation? Yes or No. Also remove sentience from the equation as well as technology.
Would excessive amounts of homosexuality in a population cause issues with the survival, or at best, the genetic diversity of said species?
Is the whole purpose of our sex drive from a biological standpoint the continuation of our line of DNA and the furtherance of our species?
In sexual organisms, isn't the way it is supposed to work is a males has sex with a female, and creates more organisms?
You are the one making the claim. Show me the impact.
Marriage is not a religious thing. It is a legal contract under the control of the state. You can have all of the church weddings you like, but if you don't have a state issued license you get no legal benefits from it. A couple married by a justice of the peace is just as married as a couple married by a priest. The priest marries you under the authority of the state. Without that authority, that marriage has no standing of any kind.
