bell reavue Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 The only thing threatening humanity's future in this case is ignorance and intolerance. 1
Strobel Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 They accept homosexuality as a concept, but not as an act, they will not allow any gay priests either. And that's where they aren't tolerant at all. If you're accepting one thing you should accept it on every hand and not only in the way it suits you.
WeetBix KiD Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Homosexuality isnt a new thing. Thats what I dont get. Its been around for as long as humans have been. The only difference between then and now is its more openly talked about and more accepted. Just like pedofillia and Child abuse (these two are not accepted but we are more aware of them) Gay people dont choose to be gay, just as straight people dont choose to be straight. The human population wont drop because a few people are gay. Its not a disease that is caught, or an illness. Its just a different sexual preference. I dislike the Pope and alot of his "teachings and beliefs"
darkfang77 Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 And that's where they aren't tolerant at all. If you're accepting one thing you should accept it on every hand and not only in the way it suits you. Imo, religions are in a mindset of their own. So it doesn't really surprise me if you look at the history of most religions. @Alex Only 2 words, respect and tolerance. I don't care if you're not catholic or buddhist, just learn to respect. 10 yearsaftergaymarriage, the populationwill be reduced, howhomosexualscan have children?, no offense,but graduallythe population will beaffected by this,I imagine thatis whatthe Popeis concerned. Trololol, Papito, you need to take the whole story into account, this guy is the same person who suggests that it is "immoral" to provide contraceptive advice to African countries on the basis that it promotes promiscuity at the compromise at HIV cases. 2.) The only thing the pope is worried about is the declining proportion of the Catholic community, so population would come into it. 3.) The pope is hardly a modern day Gregor Mendel, to be sure, I'm not even sure the Pope has any degree which isn't honorary. Homosexuality is not a dependent genetic factor, if it were, then the allele for homosexuality would be extinct ages ago, this proves that homosexuality is at best a WEAKLY correlative genetic allele, ask any gay people, were their parents gay? Or any relatives gay? The "gay gene" is BS, and shame on anyone who believes otherwise without a chi-squared test. To all other readers, it should also be mentioned that the Church DOES NOT allow contraception other than "natural methods", so population is the last thing on the pope's mind Papito, sir. AFAIK, marriage is dependent on the Church, the phrase you are looking for is "civil partnership".
docwarren Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Hate religiosity topics. Someone's feeling always get hurt. As above, I too have studied (informally) many religions. It's an athiest's best way to fend off those who want to tell you that you are not a good person, because you don't believe in an imaginary higher power. On topic, however, homosexuality will lead to a decline in population in the long term, I believe. But is that such a bad thing? Heterosexual relationships are already having fewer children than previous generations. Maybe he should be stressing the "be fruitful" text instead of being the "voice of God here on earth" and dictating what followers should not only practice, but force on others. My belief is religion(s) will destroy us all before homosexuality will. Warring followers of opposing beliefs have fought for ages for "their God" and the weapons are only getting more lethal and readily available day by day.
Jefke Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 well, it isn't the first time that CEO of the company :"the church" says this kind of shit... But really first he have to check on his own "employees" and there preference for little boys (=> shoot them or let other shoot them, don't defend them) btw... even if gaymarriage have an effect on total human population, don't see the problem there: aren't we already with too many people on this planet so maybe being straight is the real threat for humanity.
kami Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 ... 3.) The pope is hardly a modern day Gregor Mendel, to be sure, I'm not even sure the Pope has any degree which isn't honorary. Homosexuality is not a dependent genetic factor, if it were, then the allele for homosexuality would be extinct ages ago, this proves that homosexuality is at best a WEAKLY correlative genetic allele, ask any gay people, were their parents gay? Or any relatives gay? The "gay gene" is BS, and shame on anyone who believes otherwise without a chi-squared test. ... May i ask you where you got your information from? As far as i know, being homosexual is a polygenetic trait, that means, that multiple genes are responsible to have that "trait". Similar to eye colour. For example your mom has green eyes and your father has brown eyes you could have blue because some relative of yours has those too. Furthermore according to studies, woman with close gay relative tend to have more children. Which also contributes to not loosing that genetical information. So, why again should I be ashamed? Happy *in'
ecLipse~ Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 If the pope told you to jump off a cliff because it's his religion and beliefs, would you do it? no ofc not, so he cannot tell people which sex to marry.
TulsaGeoff Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Well if eveyone is gay than the future of humanity is threatened. Makes sense.
hobbit Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 The only good to have come out of homosexual relationships is lesbian porn. 2
Wifestein Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 The only good to have come out of homosexual relationships is lesbian porn.
darkfang77 Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 May i ask you where you got your information from? As far as i know, being homosexual is a polygenetic trait, that means, that multiple genes are responsible to have that "trait". Similar to eye colour. For example your mom has green eyes and your father has brown eyes you could have blue because some relative of yours has those too. Furthermore according to studies, woman with close gay relative tend to have more children. Which also contributes to not loosing that genetical information. So, why again should I be ashamed? Happy *in' I do not believe this is the case, there is far too little proof for this. if we consider a polygenic trait, we could then consider that since homosexuality is a qualitative factor, then by most textbooks, (the one I am reading now), homosexuality is determined by genetics more as a whole - this would complicate the proofing extremely. We might also have to consider whether homosexuality trait is exhibited through a standard dominant-recessive scenario or a codominant basis, excluding further complications such as epistasis caused by interactions between gene loci, it is still insubstantial that homosexuality causes a significant effect on human population. Furthermore, polygenic traits are usually on the autosomes, which makes tracking down the gene difficult to say the least, eye colour is usually two alleles as you have said, the homosexuality gene could be linked to far more. So I would say that the eye colour study does not cut this level of analysis. I did not understand your last two questions. But, I would argue that since homosexuals do not readily engage in heterosexual sex to produce offspring, their genes would naturally be excluded from the gene pool. Thus, if homosexuality is genetic, and we also know the proportion of homosexuals could be rising, then it is unlikely that homosexuality is genetic. Do you know this? I based my last paragraph on the Mendelian ratios, we consider that it is a 9:3:3:1 scenario, taking homosexuality to be the 1. then we could consider that your child has a 1/16 chance of being gay in the event of having two heterozygous parents, this suggests that there is a 1/16 chance per child that the gene will be removed from the population. Over multiple generations, we would expect a decreasing frequency of the "gay" allele within the human population, save for random mutations. To simplify the argument further, this suggests that there is a 9:7 chance that the gay "gene" will be passed on from parents, 9 being straight.b This proves that homosexuality is not gene-linked, ignoring social/human factors. If you would REALLY like to press the subject, we will also consider the Hardy-Weinberg principle. But at this stage, we have not agreed mutually that homosexuality is a dominant-recessive scenario, and homosexual statistics are difficult, so it would not be accurate. With regards to effect on human population, this is entirely negligible. For the sake of simplifying the argument, consider that 1% of the population is gay, we will consider that 1% of the resources are used by the gay people. Since the number can only decrease, given this is a genetic factor, then we may consider the non-reproducing members of the population may be "drains on resources", currently this is my only way of thinking of how other members have suggested that homosexuals are -ative to human population. Have I missed anything else? No, I do not think so, if you have a counter-argument, reply me, and I will be happy to debate, public or pm. EDIT: To other members who think homosexual is "spreading" or w/e that makes you think the whole world will be populated by homosexuals, please do put your thinking caps on and use common sense, the Pope is clearly wrong here. EDIT 2: Kami, where did you read/see that homosexuality is polygenic? I've seen some rumours in the mill, but no articles suggesting a correlative link between them.
Antichrist Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Other than there being no proof (LOL) This is another reason I don't believe in this religion/god BS. 1: GOD LOVES EVERYONE 2: Oh except if you're gay.... Seriously. My cousin is gay. It's who he is. It's not his choice. People need to get a clue. It's 2012 FFS. This isn't how we should be thinking as modern humans. Until these god/religion people can accept people for who they are, they can all go F themselves. And I mean that in a nice way. Well no.. I don't. I mean it in a painful prison rape sort of way... 1
Jefke Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 3.) Homosexuality is not a dependent genetic factor, if it were, then the allele for homosexuality would be extinct ages ago, this proves that homosexuality is at best a WEAKLY correlative genetic allele, ask any gay people, were their parents gay? Or any relatives gay? The "gay gene" is BS, and shame on anyone who believes otherwise without a chi-squared test. to be honest: I know a dude who's father is gay, don't ask me if he's gay because I'm not sure about that. So it's still a possibility some gay people can't accept they are gay.
General Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 No, its pretty new. I studied Religious education for 3 years. The catholic view is that its OK as long as you don't do homosexual activities, b/c of quotes taken out of context. They accept homosexuality as a concept, but not as an act, they will not allow any gay priests either. Now... When in get into evangelical territory, that's a different story altogether ("burn all heretics" sound familiar?" But liberal prots. are the most liberal. Um, No. Have you ever even read the bible? Anyway -- This is a religious leader, and Religion does NOT belong on the forums, and this is pretty religious, from all the comments and the article, So this shouldnt even be on the forums. --
Recommended Posts