Furor Over Baptist's 'Gay Baby' Article

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: mugs
<--------- My point


*Your head*


One of the key components of natural selection is that the organisms with the most favorable traits survive to reproduce. Homosexuals can't reproduce (at least through their preferred sexual activity).

Evolving doesn't always equate to a positive outcome. Your point was that homosexuality is not evolution because of their inability to reproduce, thus it should be treated as a defect. My point was that evolution doesn't always mean a positive outcome but is evolution nevertheless. I'm pretty sure we're just arguing about nothing at this point.

no, it's not evolution. Evolution is firmly rooted in passing your genetic material to the next generation. It's a defect.

actually, women who have gay male relatives are more successful in passing their genetic material to the next generation. they have more babies - they are more fertile - than women who do not have any gay men in their family. obviously these women share genes with the gay men. presumably the genes leading to homosexuality in males tend to confer greater fertility when expressed in females.

 

grrl

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
6,204
1
0
>>NEW YORK (March 15) - The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.

If it's biological AND a sin, then why did god make it that way? Seems a bit f*cked up to me, so I'll continue to believe it's not a sin.
 
Nov 3, 2004
10,491
22
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: mugs
<--------- My point


*Your head*


One of the key components of natural selection is that the organisms with the most favorable traits survive to reproduce. Homosexuals can't reproduce (at least through their preferred sexual activity).

Evolving doesn't always equate to a positive outcome. Your point was that homosexuality is not evolution because of their inability to reproduce, thus it should be treated as a defect. My point was that evolution doesn't always mean a positive outcome but is evolution nevertheless. I'm pretty sure we're just arguing about nothing at this point.

no, it's not evolution. Evolution is firmly rooted in passing your genetic material to the next generation. It's a defect.

actually, women who have gay male relatives are more successful in passing their genetic material to the next generation. they have more babies - they are more fertile - than women who do not have any gay men in their family. obviously these women share genes with the gay men. presumably the genes leading to homosexuality in males tend to confer greater fertility when expressed in females.

evolutionarily, that makes my head explode, because wouldn't gay men have to develop that inherent genetic trait of affecting women, which they wouldn't have been able to because they couldn't pass on their genes? Meh, I would like to see the article though
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: leftyman
doesnt make any difference. I meant what I said the first time.

If you had the choice of an otherwise perfect child and could chose gay or straight you would chose straight, so would I and everyone else... and probably most gay people also.

If race could be changed during the gestation period, would you do that for your children too? It's competitively easier to be born Caucasian in most of this world but are parents going to start choosing the race of their children? Since most of ATOT have a stronger affinity to the sciences, isn't most of evolution based on genetic "variations" that could have been just as easily determined to be not normal or an anomaly?

Homosexuality is not evolution unless I evolve a way to pop a child out my ass.

there is ample evidence that the genes coding for homosexuality in males also tend to confer greater fertility in women. Women with gay male relatives - uncles, etc. - have more babies than women with no gay men in the family. Thus genes coding for homosexuality in men can remain in circulation because they provides some evolutionary advantage (i.e., greater fertility leading to higher reproductive success) under some circumstances (e.g., when they are expressed in women).

there are plenty of other bits and pieces of evidence which indicate that homosexuality provides a competitive reproductive advantage to families under certain circumstances.

yes, but it if it was evolution, then it would have to be so that gay/lesbian influences make pregnant women tend to give birth to gay children more often.

it is still 'evolution' regardless of whether the effect is mediated through culture or through biology.

but it is quite likely that the relevant genes simply cause different things depending on whether they are expressed in males versus females.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
no, it's not evolution. Evolution is firmly rooted in passing your genetic material to the next generation. It's a defect.
I think this particular argument is simple semantics. Evolution by definition implies forward movement, progress. Devolving is moving backward, contrary to evolution. I think the word sought may be "mutations." Mutations always occur, just minor anomalies in genetic replication. Sometimes they allow for evolution to occur, when the mutation provides an advantage that gives the species' genes a better chance of surviving to another generation. A mutation that inhibits this would cause a species to devolve, or turn to a form that is less likely to allow for its survival.

In both cases, mutation occurred. In one, evolution resulted. In the other, the being devolved slightly.

 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: mugs
<--------- My point


*Your head*


One of the key components of natural selection is that the organisms with the most favorable traits survive to reproduce. Homosexuals can't reproduce (at least through their preferred sexual activity).

Evolving doesn't always equate to a positive outcome. Your point was that homosexuality is not evolution because of their inability to reproduce, thus it should be treated as a defect. My point was that evolution doesn't always mean a positive outcome but is evolution nevertheless. I'm pretty sure we're just arguing about nothing at this point.

no, it's not evolution. Evolution is firmly rooted in passing your genetic material to the next generation. It's a defect.

actually, women who have gay male relatives are more successful in passing their genetic material to the next generation. they have more babies - they are more fertile - than women who do not have any gay men in their family. obviously these women share genes with the gay men. presumably the genes leading to homosexuality in males tend to confer greater fertility when expressed in females.

evolutionarily, that makes my head explode, because wouldn't gay men have to develop that inherent genetic trait of affecting women, which they wouldn't have been able to because they couldn't pass on their genes? Meh, I would like to see the article though

related people (i.e., "families") share genetic material. i.e., the women and the gay men in family share DNA. however certain genes might cause different things depending on whether they are being 'expressed' in a male human versus a female human. thus a 'gay gene' in a man might increase the chances he is gay, whereas the same gene in a women might have a completely different effect such as e.g., making the women more fertile.
 
Nov 3, 2004
10,491
22
81
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
no, it's not evolution. Evolution is firmly rooted in passing your genetic material to the next generation. It's a defect.
I think this particular argument is simple semantics. Evolution by definition implies forward movement, progress. Devolving is moving backward, contrary to evolution. I think the word sought may be "mutations." Mutations always occur, just minor anomalies in genetic replication. Sometimes they allow for evolution to occur, when the mutation provides an advantage that gives the species' genes a better chance of surviving to another generation. A mutation that inhibits this would cause a species to devolve, or turn to a form that is less likely to allow for its survival.

In both cases, mutation occurred. In one, evolution resulted. In the other, the being devolved slightly.

no, because evolution refers to the population, not the individual. Even if an individual experiences a mutation that can be beneficial, if it can't pass it on to the next generation, then the population as a whole cannot be affected by it. In other words, a homosexual person has a evolutionary fitness of 0.

 
Nov 3, 2004
10,491
22
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: mugs
<--------- My point


*Your head*


One of the key components of natural selection is that the organisms with the most favorable traits survive to reproduce. Homosexuals can't reproduce (at least through their preferred sexual activity).

Evolving doesn't always equate to a positive outcome. Your point was that homosexuality is not evolution because of their inability to reproduce, thus it should be treated as a defect. My point was that evolution doesn't always mean a positive outcome but is evolution nevertheless. I'm pretty sure we're just arguing about nothing at this point.

no, it's not evolution. Evolution is firmly rooted in passing your genetic material to the next generation. It's a defect.

actually, women who have gay male relatives are more successful in passing their genetic material to the next generation. they have more babies - they are more fertile - than women who do not have any gay men in their family. obviously these women share genes with the gay men. presumably the genes leading to homosexuality in males tend to confer greater fertility when expressed in females.

evolutionarily, that makes my head explode, because wouldn't gay men have to develop that inherent genetic trait of affecting women, which they wouldn't have been able to because they couldn't pass on their genes? Meh, I would like to see the article though

related people (i.e., "families") share genetic material. i.e., the women and the gay men in family share DNA. however certain genes might cause different things depending on whether they are being 'expressed' in a male human versus a female human. thus a 'gay gene' in a man might increase the chances he is gay, whereas the same gene in a women might have a completely different effect such as e.g., making the women more fertile.

so how does the lesbian thing play into all this?
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
I love how everyone overlooks the fact that this is complete flamebait. Fact is we cannot determine the sexual orientation of a child in the womb and we cannot alter it so this is all one big fvcking moot point.

\end thread
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: leftyman
I would think that if it was detectable and possible to change, it would be an option that everyone would chose.

The Nazis called. They want their science back.

Oh man, you invoked Godwin's law already.

That's pretty lame that some people cannot express themselves in a better manner than comparing everything they don't like to the Nazis.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm

there is ample evidence that the genes coding for homosexuality in males also tend to confer greater fertility in women. Women with gay male relatives - uncles, etc. - have more babies than women with no gay men in the family. Thus genes coding for homosexuality in men can remain in circulation because they provides some evolutionary advantage (i.e., greater fertility leading to higher reproductive success) under some circumstances (e.g., when they are expressed in women).


You could also look at it another way- maybe some families' bloodlines just have high levels of estrogen, making the women more fertile and the men more feminine.
 

thecoolnessrune

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
9,671
580
126
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
Originally posted by: Citrix
what a moron. i would love to ask him when was the last time he ate pork or shellfish. after all in the eyes of God eating those things are just as unclean as gay sex.

funny how they pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow. :disgust:

Interesting, because in the words of Jesus himself:

Matthew 15:

10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

12Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?"

13He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14Leave them; they are blind guides.[e] If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

15Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."

16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

With this series of statements Jesus declared that the dietary restrictions of Israel did not apply to Christians. Yet another common flamebait argument with no basis in scripture.

show me where Jesus says that being gay is a sin.

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
 

grrl

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
6,204
1
0
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: leftyman
I would think that if it was detectable and possible to change, it would be an option that everyone would chose.

The Nazis called. They want their science back.

Oh man, you invoked Godwin's law already.

That's pretty lame that some people cannot express themselves in a better manner than comparing everything they don't like to the Nazis.

QFT.
 

Theb

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
3,533
9
76
Originally posted by: leftyman
I would think that if it was detectable and possible to change, it would be an option that everyone would chose.
I wouldln't, I'd be too concerned about unintended consequences.


Originally posted by: skace
Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
With this series of statements Jesus declared that the dietary restrictions of Israel did not apply to Christians. Yet another common flamebait argument with no basis in scripture.

Curious, where do most anti-homosexual bible references come from? New Testament or Old Testament?

Most people quote Leviticus which is Old Testament
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
Originally posted by: Citrix
what a moron. i would love to ask him when was the last time he ate pork or shellfish. after all in the eyes of God eating those things are just as unclean as gay sex.

funny how they pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow. :disgust:

Interesting, because in the words of Jesus himself:

Matthew 15:

10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

12Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?"

13He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14Leave them; they are blind guides.[e] If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

15Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."

16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

With this series of statements Jesus declared that the dietary restrictions of Israel did not apply to Christians. Yet another common flamebait argument with no basis in scripture.

show me where Jesus says that being gay is a sin.

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

You post something supposedly written about 1500 years BEFORE Jesus???

Do you know which parts of the bible are quotes of Jesus and which aren't? Can you tell the difference between the old testament and new?

Were you dropped on your head?
 
Nov 3, 2004
10,491
22
81
Originally posted by: Amused


You post something supposedly written about 1500 years BEFORE Jesus???

Do you know which parts of the bible are quotes of Jesus and which aren't? Can you tell the difference between the old teastament and new?

Were you dropped on your head?

temper, temper
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: Amused


You post something supposedly written about 1500 years BEFORE Jesus???

Do you know which parts of the bible are quotes of Jesus and which aren't? Can you tell the difference between the old testament and new?

Were you dropped on your head?

temper, temper

LOL :p

Seriously, though. Come on! Posting OT stuff when asked for quote from Jesus?
 

thecoolnessrune

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
9,671
580
126
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
Originally posted by: Citrix

show me where Jesus says that being gay is a sin.

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
That's Moses, n00b.

BTW http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html

I dont see your point.. Several other men had part in writing the Bible as well... Your point is? Moses also wrote The Decalogue from God as well.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
Originally posted by: Citrix

show me where Jesus says that being gay is a sin.

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
That's Moses, n00b.

BTW http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html

I dont see your point.. Several other men had part in writing the Bible as well... Your point is? Moses also wrote The Decalogue from God as well.

1.) Citrix asked for a citation of Jesus' words.
2.) You responded with a citation of Moses' words.
3.) You fail.
 

thecoolnessrune

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
9,671
580
126
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: Amused


You post something supposedly written about 1500 years BEFORE Jesus???

Do you know which parts of the bible are quotes of Jesus and which aren't? Can you tell the difference between the old testament and new?

Were you dropped on your head?

temper, temper

LOL :p

Seriously, though. Come on! Posting OT stuff when asked for quote from Jesus?

John 1:1-2

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

The Bible directly represents the trinity. Any portion of it was suitable. Perhaps you were dropped on your head and forgot that detail?
 

thecoolnessrune

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
9,671
580
126
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
Originally posted by: Citrix

show me where Jesus says that being gay is a sin.

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
That's Moses, n00b.

BTW http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html

I dont see your point.. Several other men had part in writing the Bible as well... Your point is? Moses also wrote The Decalogue from God as well.

1.) Citrix asked for a citation of Jesus' words.
2.) You responded with a citation of Moses' words.
3.) You fail.

1.) See above.
2.) Go directly to 3.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
Originally posted by: Citrix

show me where Jesus says that being gay is a sin.

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
That's Moses, n00b.

BTW http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html

I dont see your point.. Several other men had part in writing the Bible as well... Your point is? Moses also wrote The Decalogue from God as well.

1.) Citrix asked for a citation of Jesus' words.
2.) You responded with a citation of Moses' words.
3.) You fail.

1.) See above.
2.) Go directly to 3.

Unfortunately for you, your contention is plainly laughable because it assumes a number of things certainly not granted by myself nor likely Citrix, Amused, nor many others. All you've succeeded in doing is making yourself look silly.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I love how everyone overlooks the fact that this is complete flamebait. Fact is we cannot determine the sexual orientation of a child in the womb and we cannot alter it so this is all one big fvcking moot point.

\end thread

Well, I guess reality is no fun and pointless debating is....:roll:

I now return you to your bickering and stupid bible quotes.

Flame on knaves...