Jason Collins: The first openly gay NBA player

[BanditVol]

One thing I see that is rarely discussed, is how homosexuality plays out in nature.  Are there gay animals?  Some would say yes, but let's get real....if there were gay animals, they aren't going to reproduce, right?  And if so, how long would that gene pool last?

So you can approach it from a religious angle or a natural angle, but homosexuality is not conducive to the long-term survival of the species.

Even the sexual act has to be changed.  Are there animals who practice oral sex?

Excuse me for the vulgar language....but when dogs start wearing dildoes and monkeys start munching carpet...that's when I will accecpt that it's 100% natural.

But again...hate the sin, not the sinner.  I agree with MidTNVolMurfVol...I have sinned myself, and often.  "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".  

[VinnieVOL]

Good points. IMO, claiming gays are born that way is just how an individual justifies the fact that they cannot resist that particular temptation or that they no longer want to try.  Just another means of deception one gets tangled in the web of sin.

And that of nature.  We weren't designed to operate that way!!  It's common sense!  The species will eventually cease to exist. 

Also, where does it stop?  What if a son wants to marry his mother?  If both are of legal age, why is that wrong?  And why have legal ages?  If both parties consent, why not?  After all, these are human beings and who are we to tell them they can't be with who they choose?

[101stDad]

Smart ass answers?  I've seen little else posted from you on this thread.  Later, hater.

Yes, smart ass answer.  

I made my point, and I made it well.  Just because you can't rationally and reasonable discuss the issue without being a smart ass doesn't do much for your argument, and especially with the "hater" jab.  Those who can't make their argument resort to the "hater" line. 

As I said, I don't hate anybody - except maybe Kliempsein fans.  I don't even hate smart ass libruls. 

[midtnvol]

One thing I see that is rarely discussed, is how homosexuality plays out in nature.  Are their gay animals?  Some would say yes, but let's get real....if there were gay animals, they aren't going to reproduce, right?  And if so, how long would that gene pool last?

So you can approach it from a religious angle or a natural angle, but homosexuality is not conducive to the long-term survival of the species.

Even the sexual act has to be changed.  Are their animals who practice oral sex?

Excuse me for the vulgar language....but when dogs start wearing dildoes and monkeys start munching carpet...that's when I will accecpt that it's 100% natural.

But again...hate the sin, not the sinner.  I agree with MidTNVol...I have sinned myself, and often.  "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".  

Uhh. I haven't participated in this thread. Maybe the quote is from another thread. As far as being a part of the gene pool goes, it doesn't have to be since it may be caused by a simple mispelling in the code which happens all the time. These are mutations and simple ones like this are not necessarily lethal but may cause irregularities in personality. This being said then there is no way for this trait to be weened out of the general population.

[BanditVol]

Uhh. I haven't participated in this thread. Maybe the quote is from another thread. As far as being a part of the gene pool goes, it doesn't have to be since it may be caused by a simple mispelling in the code which happens all the time. These are mutations and simple ones like this are not necessarily lethal but may cause irregularities in personality. This being said then there is no way for this trait to be weened out of the general population.

My bad. I meant MurfVol.  Easy to get your two names confused, if one is sloppy and in a hurry.

Open question as to whether homosexuality is a mutated gene....I don't think there is any proof of that.

I wouldn't deny genetic aspects of it...but for the most part, I believe it's a choice of the individuals.

And my main point is that if it is natural, it has no way to propagate itself in nature, as by it's very nature it will die out.  Genes do get passed through reproduction.

[midtnvol]

The big thing about the genetic role in this is there doesn't have to be a particular gene that says you are this way or that way. A gene or group of genes that control the endocrine system can make a person have certain tendencies though each individual may handle it differently. I think we all know males from our past that were extremely effemminate (sp?) at a very early age, much too young to make that conscious decision. I know that I knew a few and I'm not proud of the way I treated them in retrospect. Today I'm much different in the way I view them (much more tolerent). I really believe that the problem is genetic though I think some make choices and consider it "trendy" or something. I can't imagine anyone choosing that kind of lifestyle and the stigma that goes with it. That's just my opinion and I don't think there is an opinion that is 100% correct on this. As far as other species having tendencies go I can use my dog as an example. He is the alpha male of the neighborhood and he sniffs both genders, but only humps the females.

[VinnieVOL]

Some stigma.  This guy is being paraded around like a national hero.  Obama calls him, yet the White House never acknowledged Chris Kyle's heroism.  Tebow is ridiculed for his faith.  This country is an absolute disgrace sometimes.  Just shameful.

[midtnvol]

Some stigma.  This guy is being paraded around like a national hero.  Obama calls him, yet the White House never acknowledged Chris Kyle's heroism.  Tebow is ridiculed for his faith.  This country is an absolute disgrace sometimes.  Just shameful.

You think he wants to be gay? I bet not. I don't know that the White house never acknowledged Chris Kyle or not, source please. Ridiculed? Maybe he brings it on himself, http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_in_public. And please don't try to interpret it for me, I can read. This country a disgrace sometimes? I agree.

[BanditVol]

The big thing about the genetic role in this is there doesn't have to be a particular gene that says you are this way or that way. A gene or group of genes that control the endocrine system can make a person have certain tendencies though each individual may handle it differently. I think we all know males from our past that were extremely effemminate (sp?) at a very early age, much too young to make that conscious decision. I know that I knew a few and I'm not proud of the way I treated them in retrospect. Today I'm much different in the way I view them (much more tolerent). I really believe that the problem is genetic though I think some make choices and consider it "trendy" or something. I can't imagine anyone choosing that kind of lifestyle and the stigma that goes with it. That's just my opinion and I don't think there is an opinion that is 100% correct on this. As far as other species having tendencies go I can use my dog as an example. He is the alpha male of the neighborhood and he sniffs both genders, but only humps the females.

Okay...but. My main point is, does it occur with animals?  I don't think it does.  A dog may occasionally mount another male dog, but only to show dominance.  In nature, with animals, only heterosexual sex is observed.  And if homosexual sex did occur in animals, it would die out in one generation for obvious reasons.  Of course a "bi animal" could still pass the gene, but I think I already made my point.

Which is, you can say it goes against God, or you can say it goes against nature.  Both are true.  And it is most definitely NOT a survival trait.

[Jean Voljean]

anyway, reading this thread was like being transported back to 1998.

Which was pretty cool, because that was a great year to be a Vol and while this debate wasn't good for much else, IMO, it did bring back good Vol  memories.

Thanks guys.

[VinnieVOL]

quick google search:

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/chris-kyle-death-obama-ignores/2013/02/13/id/490179

[midtnvol]

quick google search:

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/chris-kyle-death-obama-ignores/2013/02/13/id/490179

Thanks for the link. The prez droped the ball on that one (my opinion).

[midtnvol]

"And if homosexual sex did occur in animals, it would die out in one generation for obvious reasons." Then you are saying that genetics play no role? Let's say that it is not caused by a mutated gene but by a single recessive gene. Then a person would have to be pure bred for that trait to appear, meaning that both parents would have to be a carrier for that allele. Neither parent would show that trait but would have a one in four chance that any offspring would have that characteristic. If it is indeed passed in the gene pool by a recessive trait it would never be removed from the population. Thus we have hemophilia and other recessive traits crop up all too often. To not consider genetics in this conversation would be a gross oversight. I have taught genetics at the HS level for many years and never underestimate the power of the human genome.

[Creek Walker]

"And if homosexual sex did occur in animals, it would die out in one generation for obvious reasons." Then you are saying that genetics play no role? Let's say that it is not caused by a mutated gene but by a single recessive gene. Then a person would have to be pure bred for that trait to appear, meaning that both parents would have to be a carrier for that allele. Neither parent would show that trait but would have a one in four chance that any offspring would have that characteristic. If it is indeed passed in the gene pool by a recessive trait it would never be removed from the population. Thus we have hemophilia and other recessive traits crop up all too often. To not consider genetics in this conversation would be a gross oversight. I have taught genetics at the HS level for many years and never underestimate the power of the human genome.

You know, I said this wasn't a part of the argument I wanted to engage in, but it's in the politics forum now, so why not?  

Remember a few years ago when a few scientists decided that there was a portion of the brain that determines whether someone believes in a divine power, thus genetics play a role in faith? As a large part of their argument, they cited examples of people who have brain tumors who suddenly "find religion" and believe in God. Then, after surgery to remove the tumor, they slowly "lose" their faith and drift away from church and religion again. Therefore, they surmised, it's logical to think that the tumor was putting pressure on the "God part" of the brain and triggering that faith. Of course, it's perfectly logical to assume that most of us who find ourselves staring death in the face are going to "find religion," and then once we are out of harm's way we're going to forget about that religion. That's happened over and over with folks who have all sorts of ailments, not just brain tumors. The theory never really caught on with mainstream scientists, and probably rightly so.

My point is that science is used in an effort to explain a lot of things. In this case, it is pretty clear why gays and gay-rights supporters grabbed hold of the genetics theory with both hands. If "being gay" isn't a choice, then it's hard for anyone to label homosexuality as immoral, right? But, at the end of the day, is there really much evidence to support it? I'm a layman, not a scientist, but to my knowledge there is very little in terms of actual proof. We know now that the entirety of the so-called "Xq28" gene study may have been based on a foundation of unethical science, and that single study comprises the bulk of the evidence for the "gay gene." A case study of identical twins and their sexuality should be more than enough to debunk the notion of a "gay gene" that makes homosexuality an inherited trait rather than a choice.

As I've said many times already in this thread, it really isn't any of my business whether someone is gay and therefore I really couldn't care less whether they are or aren't. But I do have friends who ask from time to time how the God I believe in and try to serve can condemn something that is out of the person's hands. My response is his: The Bible that is the foundation of my faith spells out clearly that mankind is inherently sinful, born with a sinful nature. Each of us have our vices. As I believe has already been pointed out in this thread, some people can have a drink of alcohol and be okay, while others will be falling over drunk if they get within 50 ft. of the stuff. There are some men (and women) who are truly addicted to sex. They become trapped in that lifestyle, with no obvious way out, and the Bible clearly says that fornication and adultery (like drunkenness) is a sinful lifestyle...it is just as sinful, in fact, as homosexuality, according to both the Old Testament writings and the teachings of the Apostle Paul who is one of the main authors of Christianity. I know I have my own vices -- tendencies towards sin...things that are just as legal and right according to man's law as homosexuality, but things that are just as sinful according to God's law as homosexuality. It's only by God's grace that I can and will win out over that sinful nature. Call me a kook if you will, but that is my belief. And please don't think I'm trying to compare the two, because clearly they're not the same and comparing them isn't my intent, but look at pedophiles. Statistics have shown that something like 80 percent of convicted pedophiles who are released from jail will be repeat offenders. That's a remarkably high rate. These are people who have seen the consequences for their actions, know that their next conviction will carry a much harsher sentence; in all likelihood they'll never be a free man again if they're busted a second time. Yet they risk it all to do it again. Again, I am NOT saying that pedophilia and homosexuality are the same. In our society, one is perfectly acceptable and perfectly legal and the other isn't, and that's as it should be. My point is simply this: there could be an argument made that pedophiles cannot change themselves. That doesn't mean we should release all of them from prison and feel sorry for them, but it lends itself to the notion of all mankind having an innate sinful nature that will consume them if they don't strive to overcome.

I have a couple of friends who are bisexual . . . and they're openly bisexual, so it isn't as though they're just using their wife/girlfriend to hide their homosexuality. And of course most people who have studied the subject much at all are aware of Stephen Bennett, the man who was once gay but is now straight. Obviously there are many others like Bennett; he's just the best-known example because he's chosen to make a ministry out of his past. If being gay was truly not a choice, how did Bennett switch lifestyles? How did the others like him?

Frankly, I think the whole "gay gene" argument is little more than a prop for the LBGT community to use to promote its agenda. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to be gay, be gay. Those people should not be discriminated against, they should not be treated as outcasts from society, and anyone who does treat them that way especially in the name of God are not just disobeying society's will, they're disobeying God's will. If a ban on same-sex marriages is truly discrimination — and I don't think it is — then here's an easy solution: stop giving married couples tax breaks. I, for one, don't think married couples should be responsible for less taxes than single taxpayers (and, of course, in many instances they aren't, but those who will push the gay rights agenda will cherry pick the data . . . and, obviously in many instances they DO pay less taxes). Bottom line: Be gay. Be happy. Live your life as you want to live it as long as you aren't hurting someone who cannot reasonably choose for themselves. You'll hear no objections from me. Unless ours is a theocratic society, and it clearly isn't, there's no need to justify the lifestyle to anyone . . . so don't try to force-feed me junk science in an effort to do so.

[midtnvol]

Creek, I took a few days to respond to this hoping not to take it the wrong way and to relax a little. A few things, you say you're a layman but then start talking about "Xq28" so I assume you googled it like I did since I've never heard of it and I'm just barely past the layman stage. I'm not a rocket scientist so I don't call rocket science junk science. If I did then I would be insulting people a lot smarter than me. I may have an opinion about things but don't pass judgement on them unless I terribly sure of it so most of the time I qualify my statements with words like "possibly" or "maybe". As I get older I've learned that nothing is impossible and I'm much dumber than I used to be since I knew everything when I was young. Later guys.

[Creek Walker]

Creek, I took a few days to respond to this hoping not to take it the wrong way and to relax a little. A few things, you say you're a layman but then start talking about "Xq28" so I assume you googled it like I did since I've never heard of it and I'm just barely past the layman stage. I'm not a rocket scientist so I don't call rocket science junk science. If I did then I would be insulting people a lot smarter than me. I may have an opinion about things but don't pass judgement on them unless I terribly sure of it so most of the time I qualify my statements with words like "possibly" or "maybe". As I get older I've learned that nothing is impossible and I'm much dumber than I used to be since I knew everything when I was young. Later guys.

I've read about the Xq28 gene for years. I may be a layman but I'm also a voracious reader. I don't have a problem with labeling it junk science because most of it was fabricated, as we now know. The problem is that while the study was debunked, the science community at large still falls back on it. Name any other issue that happens with. It happens because politics has destroyed the purity of science on this issue more than any other. That makes it junk science.

[VOLveeta]

When did you choose?

http://www.upworthy.com/watch-these-straight-people-answer-a-question-gay-people-have-been-asked-for-years-6

[BanditVol]

"And if homosexual sex did occur in animals, it would die out in one generation for obvious reasons." Then you are saying that genetics play no role? Let's say that it is not caused by a mutated gene but by a single recessive gene. Then a person would have to be pure bred for that trait to appear, meaning that both parents would have to be a carrier for that allele. Neither parent would show that trait but would have a one in four chance that any offspring would have that characteristic. If it is indeed passed in the gene pool by a recessive trait it would never be removed from the population. Thus we have hemophilia and other recessive traits crop up all too often. To not consider genetics in this conversation would be a gross oversight. I have taught genetics at the HS level for many years and never underestimate the power of the human genome.

I understand about recessive genes and I don't deny that genetics plays a role.  Certainly some people are born hermaphrodites.  I can't think of a better example of genetics having an effect on sexual preference or confusion.  Yet, who would argue that hermaphrodites are normal or that it's good to be that way?

But back to my main point....genetics no doubt plays a role, as it does in everything, but the effect has been greatly exagerated IMO.  People ultimately choose their sexual orieintation IMO. 

[BanditVol]

. The problem is that while the study was debunked, the science community at large still falls back on it. Name any other issue that happens with.

Quite a few actually....IMO.  Science is unfortunatley not as unbiased as it should be. 

[BanditVol]

When did you choose?

http://www.upworthy.com/watch-these-straight-people-answer-a-question-gay-people-have-been-asked-for-years-6

My answer..."I have always chosen not to be gay".