masturbation makes you gay

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, maybe i should simply go and do something more constructive instead or remonstrating here.

That's the first thing you have said in this thread that I agree with 😉

I should do the same 🙂

Originally posted by wolfgang59
http://www.scq.ubc.ca/angry-words-from-a-gnome-who-to-this-day-continues-to-think-the-human-genome-project-was-actually-the-human-gnome-project/

Enjoyed the gnome project then followed a link onwards to find this:

Tyrannosaurus
Is a bitch for a haiku
Too many sybbles

Originally posted by stellspalfie
maybe we are, but we just dont know it. im gonna go and have some adult time with the wife, close my eyes and think of dudes, maybe ask her to put on a fake beard and talk in a deep voice, see how i get on. its the only way to break this illusion of heterosexuality ive become trapped in.

My wife is always asking me to improve my dress sense and personal grooming.

Next time she catches me having a cheeky one, I will just say I was obeying orders.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
My wife is always asking me to improve my dress sense and personal grooming.

Next time she catches me having a cheeky one, I will just say I was obeying orders.

well it ended in failure. my wife said me calling her 'big frank' and demanding she strap a sausage to her inner thigh was putting her off..........the search for my inner gay continues.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
we are Christians, we are under duress help people overcome sinful tendencies which they may or may not act upon.

This is why it is important that you continue to have nothing to do with the legislative process, which also means it is important that you remain a small organization. If you get too big, your stand-apart policy will be challenged by politicians who will want to get your votes by promising to turn your moral code into law. It is unlikely that European countries will go down this road, but the US is a different story.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its not news to me, you asked the question, you got the answer. I dont believe the once a homosexual always a homosexual, its nonsense. There is NO genetic evidence that predisposes one towards a particular sexuality, if there was, the the human gnome project would have identified a cause and here is news for you, they didn't find the so called gay ...[text shortened]... ality in such ludicrous terms, you got that? Good then perhaps you will come to terms with it.

Then Human Genome Project mapped the number of genes in the human genome. How those genes work and which genes do what is still being unravelled by scientists and will continue for many years to come. Mapping the genome and understanding how the genes all work are two entirely different tasks. I've told you this before, no doubt I'll have to tell you it again someday.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
get your bifocals checked rj. i didnt ask a question, it was a quote.

I would be willing to bet that RJHinds wacks off like its his job.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Then Human Genome Project mapped the number of genes in the human genome. How those genes work and which genes do what is still being unravelled by scientists and will continue for many years to come. Mapping the genome and understanding how the genes all work are two entirely different tasks. I've told you this before, no doubt I'll have to tell you it again someday.

no gay gene, no conclusive or compelling empirical evidence showing any absolute biological, genetic, or hormonal causation for homosexuality. The real question is why is it being promoted as if there is, the answer?

There are, however, ongoing attempts to convince the public that same-sex attraction is genetically based. (Marmor 1975) Such attempts may be politically motivated because people are more likely to respond positively to demands for changes in laws and religious teaching when they believe sexual attraction to be genetically determined and unchangeable. (Emulf 1989: Piskur 1992) Others have sought to prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction so that they could appeal to the courts for rights based on the "immutability". (Green 1988)

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0039.html

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no gay gene, no conclusive or compelling empirical evidence showing any absolute biological, genetic, or hormonal causation for homosexuality. The real question is why is it being promoted as if there is, the answer?

There are, however, ongoing attempts to convince the public that same-sex attraction is genetically based. (Marmor 1975) Such attem ...[text shortened]... e "immutability". (Green 1988)

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0039.html

"...people are more likely to respond positively to demands for changes in laws and religious teaching when they believe sexual attraction to be genetically determined..."

You profess to be advising on moral issues and you say you are not interested in legislating the moral code you espouse (correct me if I'm wrong). So why are you concerned about the influence of belief in a genetic basis of homosexuality, on the laws that are enacted? I can understand why you would object to changes in the religious teaching, within those religions that do not already accept gays, but I don't understand why you are now concerned about changes in the laws. Could you explain this?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no gay gene, no conclusive or compelling empirical evidence showing any absolute biological, genetic, or hormonal causation for homosexuality. The real question is why is it being promoted as if there is, the answer?

There are, however, ongoing attempts to convince the public that same-sex attraction is genetically based. (Marmor 1975) Such attem ...[text shortened]... e "immutability". (Green 1988)

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0039.html

The issue i'm contesting is not whether you think there is any genetic evidence for a 'gay gene', because having debated you over the years i know that any evidence i put forward will be simply ignored or dismissed. You are incapable of a reasonable and rational discussion when it comes to something which contradicts your chosen religious beliefs. That's the way you roll, closed minded and ignorant remember.

The issue here is your ludicrous claim that the Human Genome Project didn't find any 'gay gene', and you're correct they didn't. But that is because the scientists involved in that project set out to merely map the human genome, they basically counted the number of genes. How the genes in the human genome work and their relationship with each other is something which is going to take embyrologists decades to unravel, but that was not the goal of the HGP. So your claim that those scientists involved in the HGP didn't find a 'gay gene' is specious at best, they didn't set out to find a 'gay gene'.

Originally posted by JS357
"...people are more likely to respond positively to demands for changes in laws and religious teaching when they believe sexual attraction to be genetically determined..."

You profess to be advising on moral issues and you say you are not interested in legislating the moral code you espouse (correct me if I'm wrong). So why are you concerned about the influ ...[text shortened]... on't understand why you are now concerned about changes in the laws. Could you explain this?

Merely commenting upon what the implications of a certain political strategy may be is not to say that I personally desire legislating for the moral code that I espouse, is it. why am I concerned? because its a manipulation and a distortion of reality and it has misled all sorts of persons to adopt all manner of strange policy. When a Christian loses his or her job for expressing an opinion with regard to same sex marriages in the work place (as has happen in the UK), on the basis that its discrimination against gays, the very basis of which is an unproven assumption that sexuality is immutable, then any person with a functioning conscience should be aggrieved, for what has transpired is the suppression of the natural faculty of conscience and an injustice.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The issue i'm contesting is not whether you think there is any genetic evidence for a 'gay gene', because having debated you over the years i know that any evidence i put forward will be simply ignored or dismissed. You are incapable of a reasonable and rational discussion when it comes to something which contradicts your chosen religious beliefs. That's ...[text shortened]... find a 'gay gene' is specious at best, they didn't set out to find a 'gay gene'.

yes, i also recall you stated it was simply a matter of time, let me know when you find the 'gay gene' and incontrovertible proof of a genetic causation for homosexual behaviour.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, i also recall you stated it was simply a matter of time, let me know when you find the 'gay gene' and incontrovertible proof of a genetic causation for homosexual behaviour.

compelling evidence that biological factors define sexuality.

the study -

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.full.pdf

review of study by bbc (if you cant be bothered reading the study)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm

Originally posted by stellspalfie
compelling evidence that biological factors define sexuality.

the study -

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.full.pdf

review of study by bbc (if you cant be bothered reading the study)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm

shall we get into a my researcher verse your researcher, no I dont think so. Believe the myth if you like, the God of science! Here is the FACTS,

No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

now you can deny it, you can get your researcher to beat up my researcher, but that is the present state of affairs and no appeals to the God of science will change that FACT. You can prostrate yourself, offer up incense to an effigy of Charles Darwin, invoke Richard Dawkins, that is the present state of affairs. Time you learned to accept it so we can move on.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
shall we get into a my researcher verse your researcher, no I dont think so. Believe the myth if you like, the God of science!

oh dont get me wrong, im not going to argue with you. you are too far down the rabbit hole. but im happy to help you along the path to having a balanced view, remember we are aiming to give you critical thinking skills.

dont feel pressured to watch or comment on the links and videos i put up. do it in your own time when you are ready to come out of your bubble.