I went to look up some research citations and up popped up that the article I wanted to read was not available because of the U. S. embargo against China. It is a governmental website for medical research papers. This is really wrong. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677918/
Use Tor web browser instead. it goes around those blocks.
@crazy8000 I made a mistake on it any way. It wasn't a block on a chinese article. i think I was out of it. There must have been an embargo block for another reason. Thanks for the info on the web browser. It's called Tor?
To a ordinary computer yes. they call it something else to android devices.They uses some kind of VPN and some other features in the browser to make us anonymous but don't use Google since they track you with everything you use. use Duck duck go instead. works in a similar way without funny filters to restrict users or tracking.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
and i bet my ass that there's no scientifical peer reviewed paper that says "you are not born gay because it's not in the genes", cause that would be quite unscientific and dumb.
You're pretty much Master Yoda of this site right?
@Jesse0 I have been here for 4 1/2 years. Others, such as @JimRSmith, have been here much longer. I would like to think that my advice is generally respected and I do have a number of people contact me via PMs for advice. However, this site cannot exist with just one or two people serving in a "leadership" role. This site works because of many people all contributing, trying to help those who need help, and ignoring those who are here only to cause mischief. I am one part of a good team!
And that's why I like that about your comments 👍. Same goal here but I'm not a people pleaser.
Okay, ignoring the fact that God is just Santa Claus for grownups, the bible is very specific that the only problem it has is "When a man sleeps with another man as he would a woman." It doesn't say "when a mans sleeps with another man", it ALSO doesn't say, "When a man sleeps with a woman", it specifically says, "When a man sleeps with another man as he would a woman." AKA, if you're going to sleep with both men and women, you gotta do it different ways. In other words, if you're doing anal with the guy, you don't do it with the girl. That's ALL the bible has to say on that topic.
Santa Claus is not God. Jesus is God.
I assume you're referencing the "Trinity" idea that the catholic church came up to convert western pagans that worshiped the Pagan Trinity family of "Father, Mother, and child". An interesting note: The word "Trinity" doesn't appear anywhere in the bible. And the verses that do have Jesus saying that he's in god, are actually more reflective of panentheism (the belief that God is in all things), as that ALSO correlates with other comments Jesus has about accepting God in their hearts, and Romans 8:29 violates the concept of Trinity by saying Jesus is the firstborn of many brethren (but it DOESN'T violate panentheism.) But my comment about God being Santa Claus was pointing out that the religion is just a feel-good story (well, only feel-good if you ignore 4/5ths of the bible, which most Christians do) that actually has little basis in reality, and God is just a fairy tale. Nearly all of the claims the bible has made, once we got to the point we could actually test them, turned out to be false. There is no firm cement (aka firmament) dome that covers the earth, stars are not lanterns hanging from that dome, there are trees and sex toys older than how old the bible says the Earth is, not to mention there's a plethora of logical and timeline flaws with the bible (such as how each gospel has Jesus having a different colored robe during the crucifixion, having different last words, contradictions like "saved by faith"(Ephesians) vs "saved by works"(James), the claim that Jesus can forgive all sins vs the claim of an unforgivable sin, etc.)
The word isn't there but the concept is. Many words are not listed but their concepts are.
No, the concept really isn't there. Like I said, the way it's described, it fits more with panentheism than it does with trinity. The vast majority of "traditional Christian beliefs" are just the result of various propaganda techniques by Catholics in ancient times. It's not the bible, it's social momentum. Most Christian beliefs are actually contrary to the bible, and the Trinity is one of them. Kind of a pity, original Christianity actually has some pretty neat mythology and ideas to it, but most Christians don't even know it nowadays (heck, most Christians don't even know the significance of Mary being told by God to name her kid "Immanuel" and her turning around and naming him "Jesus" instead.)
No sense in even pointing out things. You'd claim it is a myth and I'd claim it is a fact.The Bible doesn't claim an age the earth is anyways. It is inferred by scholars.
@Holy_Ghost_Fire Ah yes, the whole, "You don't believe it's real, so you can't talk about it" defense. Sounds slightly convincing until you realize people often have discussions on topics they don't believe all the time:Who shot first, Han or Greedo?Which side was the 'goodguys', the Stormcloaks or the Imperial Legion?Who should have sat on the Iron throne, Bran, John, or Sanza?Who's the best WWF wrestler? Was Ursula related to Ariel?Why didn't Gandalf just fly the ring into Mordor when he had no problem flying them out?etc. etc.
I don't think there is a such thing as an atheist. God made it very clear that those who claim they are are warring against their spirit.
Okay, ignoring the silliness of outright just claiming a category of people don't exist; I'm a Neophist, so a different category.
I trust God over man.
All Gods are inherently un-trustworthy. They value being worshiped more than they value the truth, and will bend or break whatever truth they come across for those ends.
To put it bluntly, Gods are parasites.
Are not* “the truth”
I heard somewhere that the likelihood for being homosexual rises with the number of older siblings.
Do you think that's true?
@Amanda269 That's due to a quirk of mathematics and confirmation bias. The more children a person has, the more chances there are for the dice are to roll for them to be gay. There's plenty of first-born kids who are gay too. It's like that myth about wolves howling at the moon. They howl a lot of the time, and it just so happens that sometimes the moon is out when they do it, but it actually has no bearing on how often they howl... we just watch for it when the moon's out, and are like, "Cool".
The scientists also stated there's no cure for being gay. It's as intrinsic to them as people being heterosexual.
They've become so depraved and desperate now that in some places they've taken to "teaching" kids in school "lgbt lessons" ( no doubt, a pretty thinly veiled attempt at harassing said kids to recruit them into their cult).
yep exactly they want to perverse peoples minds so you can't defend yourself.
Well it is genetic. Read the study. It states multiple genes make someone gay, not just one.
@Bavhroul I'm not convinced.
That's the great thing about science. It doesn't care what you think.
@Bavhroul Evidently not, because the study doesn't say what you want it to and yet you disagree.
No, the study actually says that not one Gene, but multiple genes contribute to homosexuality. Which also explains why gay parents can have hetero offspring, and vice versa, with gay parents having gay offspring being highly rare.
All good 👍
@Bavhroul I dunno what else you expected me to say - I disagree with what you extrapolated from the study. You say X, I say not X. We're done here.
The study itself says that using genetic determinism (so whether LGBT is linked to genome) to predict, intervene or “cure” LGBT behaviour is impossible
Replying to you here instead.I'm not seeing anything that determines it is genetic. Any particular line or paragraph?
@Celtero The study in question here is actually just an article that references another study (Ganna et al). However, the very first sentence of this article reads:"Studies have indicated that same-sex orientation and behavior has a genetic basis and runs in families, yet specific genetic variants have not been isolated"That is, we know it's partially genetic, but we don't know which genes exactly yet.The rest of the article goes on to illustrate that there isn't just one gene involved - there are many. between 5-13 genes have been identified that influence same-sex behavior, but they only account for 1% of the gay population. So:- we know it's (partially) genetic- we know some of the genes involved- there are other genes we don't know about yetGoing back to the original study that this article references, which is here:science.sciencemag.org/.../eaat7693You'll note the first sentence of the conclusion, which reads:"Same-sex sexual behavior is influenced by not one or a few genes but many."Both this article and the study it's based on point to the fact that the diversity of genes that influence homosexuality is much greater than we thought. Not that it isn't influenced by genetics.
I dunno man, the data isn't making a whole lot of sense to me. Like... saying that 5-13 genes that influence homosexuality are only in 1% of studied homosexual DNA... that just seems to be arguing the opposite. What % of those genes are in the heterosexual population? And the biggest argument against homosexuality being genetic... Shouldn't identical twins always have the same sexuality?
@Celtero The study says that there are 5-13 genes that are positively correlated with homosexuality, but only 1% of the sample *share all 5-13 genes and only those genes*. That means there are other genes out there that have an effect on sexual orientation that we haven't found yet. If there were no genetic influence on homosexuality, then we would not have found a positive correlation.Insofar as twins go - remember that nobody is saying homosexuality is 100% controlled by genetics. It is *always* a result of some (unknown) combination of genetics and environmental factors. That said, several empirical studies have shown that twins are significantly more likely to have the same sexual orientation than non-twin siblings. Basically, your chances of being gay are around 5-10%. If you've got a gay identical twin, that likelihood goes up to around 67%.
I suppose that makes more sense; and ~67% does seem very significant. Thanks for clearing that up.
I don't think they're blaming other things, they're fighting the idea that it is just a choice. It isn't.
I know. And that's great. Took me a long time to come to terms with being bi. That it was something I could just choose to not be.I'm simply saying. It doesn't need an excuse. Genetic or otherwise. You simply are what you are.
Edit:Thats was something i COULDN'T just choose not to be
I didn't see that typo.
*Let people just bum who they want who cares"I do when it involves children
Well of course between two consenting adults
That's fine then yes
This is the single best sentence I've ever seen in my life.