EMW

What were we talking about agen?

VIP wrote:If it were genetic these people would die out incredibly fast due to the fact that they can't have children and considering the social barriers of the last few centuries it seems even more unlikely.

That is a logical fallacy. There are plenty of genetic mutations that render people sterile, yet that mutation still exists.

Ok, mutations are different from genetic traits. A mutation can happen even if neither of the parents had a corrupt gene. It takes a number of genes to reproduce and if only a few get screwed up it will result in malfunction of the reproductive apparatus. However, we are not sure if there even is a gene that controls sexual orientation. Most people think that love is controlled by the brain meaning that sexual orientation is psychological.

Also, we are not talking about logic right now, we're talking about bio.

Also you are correct, the term indecent is ambiguous and should not have been used in a debate. Some of us chose live by the words of Jesus Christ and uphold his teaching, we can't judge anyone by what they chose to do to themselves, we have to love them because of who they are not what they chose to do and we must respect them as human beings.

Now what gay people do may be some of out business. I can't really explain the biological reasons without going into some very disgusting details but gay people are catalysts for AIDS transmission and many other diseases that are much harder to transfer in the heterosexual way.

To Pirate, I don't even know what this forum is about, I just saw it and found it intriguing.

VIP wrote:

rackfocus wrote:If it were genetic these people would die out incredibly fast due to the fact that they can't have children and considering the social barriers of the last few centuries it seems even more unlikely.

That is a logical fallacy. There are plenty of genetic mutations that render people sterile, yet that mutation still exists.

Ok, mutations are different from genetic traits. A mutation can happen even if neither of the parents had a corrupt gene. It takes a number of genes to reproduce and if only a few get screwed up it will result in malfunction of the reproductive apparatus. However, we are not sure if there even is a gene that controls sexual orientation. Most people think that love is controlled by the brain meaning that sexual orientation is psychological.

True. We are still, however, talking genetics and physiology. That means traits and mutations. I agree that homosexuality most likely is not a genetic trait. However, a misfiring in the brain could be a prime suspect, or even a mutation that affects sexual preference.

Also, we are not talking about logic right now, we're talking about bio.

Science is the epitome of logic.

Now what gay people do may be some of out business. I can't really explain the biological reasons without going into some very disgusting details but gay people are catalysts for AIDS transmission and many other diseases that are much harder to transfer in the heterosexual way.

What? Any sexual disease is transmittable equally regardless of the genders engaging in the sexual act. One homosexual man without HIV having sex with a homosexual man with HIV, and one heterosexual male without HIV having sex with a heterosexual female with HIV are at equal risk.

Science is the epitome of logic.

That is true for a hypothesis but not a theory.

What? Any sexual disease is transmittable equally regardless of the genders engaging in the sexual act. One homosexual man without HIV having sex with a homosexual man with HIV, and one heterosexual male without HIV having sex with a heterosexual female with HIV are at equal risk.

That would be true for anal sex but not conventional sex. Do you take bio classes? It has to do with enzymes and crap like that. In the bio book there are five Hs you need to avoid if you don't want STDs, homosexuals is on of them.

First of all what is epitome?

The identity, the end result, one in the same.

What she means is that science is applied logic.

VIP wrote:The identity, the end result, one in the same.

What she means is that science is applied logic.

Actually, epitome means "a typical or ideal example".

VIP wrote:

Science is the epitome of logic.

That is true for a hypothesis but not a theory.

Even still, a hypothesis is based on logic.

What? Any sexual disease is transmittable equally regardless of the genders engaging in the sexual act. One homosexual man without HIV having sex with a homosexual man with HIV, and one heterosexual male without HIV having sex with a heterosexual female with HIV are at equal risk.

That would be true for anal sex but not conventional sex. Do you take bio classes? It has to do with enzymes and crap like that. In the bio book there are five Hs you need to avoid if you don't want STDs, homosexuals is on of them.

...what?
Seth, are you kidding?
Am I misreading you, or are you saying you can only get HIV from anal sex?

Wikipedia wrote:Infection with HIV occurs by the transfer of blood, semen, vaginal fluid, pre-ejaculate, or breast milk. Within these bodily fluids, HIV is present as both free virus particles and virus within infected immune cells. The four major routes of transmission are unprotected sexual intercourse, contaminated needles, breast milk, and transmission from an infected mother to her baby at birth. Screening of blood products for HIV has largely eliminated transmission through blood transfusions or infected blood products in the developed world.

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

No, that is not what I'm saying, it does increase the chances dramatically due to the construction of the walls in the large intestine. You are misreading me.

Ha, wikipedia, I asked my physics teacher what the real definition of inverse kinematics was and he didn't know so he looked it up on wiki.

VIP wrote:No, that is not what I'm saying, it does increase the chances dramatically due to the construction of the walls in the large intestine. You are misreading me.

Okay. I thought I had misread you, and wanted to clarify.

My point was that with any unprotected sex, you put yourself at risk. Homosexuals and heterosexuals both have an equal risk, especially with the popularity of anal sex even among heterosexuals.

Logic says that the prevalence of HIV among homosexuals was due to poor sex education. Rarely was the contracting of an STD the main point during sex-ed. It was pregnancy. Of course, homosexuals cannot impregnate each other, so who needs a condom?

Also, the homosexual culture was rather promiscuous. The act itself was taboo, so the participants weren't really concerned about protection.
HIV was a very, very misunderstood disease.

It's a very new disease to America. Only about 50 years old. It wasn't homosexual specific--it just happened that someone who contracted it through traveling abroad may have been homosexual and passed it among his community. If society had been different, and the heterosexual community had been more promiscuous (which it wasn't back then because of pregnancy outside of marriage), it could be a heterosexual disease.

So, to tie back to the whole main point of the homosexual debate, homosexuals are not catalysts. Anyone who has unprotected sex could be a catalyst. There is just certain stigmas around the homosexual community. They are a lot more careful now and protect themselves a lot better.

Ha, wikipedia, I asked my physics teacher what the real definition of inverse kinematics was and he didn't know so he looked it up on wiki.

I love wikipedia. I mean, the concept by itself--hundreds of people collaborating to form a comprehensive, concise encyclopedia that is free to the public...brilliant. The very embodiment of the wonder that is the internet.

Wow! That got off topic FAST! I was very sad for the loss of Heath Ledger I loved him in 10 things I hate about you. He was an excellent actor.

R.I.P

VIP wrote:The identity, the end result, one in the same.

What she means is that science is applied logic.

Ya, Science is that. But evolutionists say that evolution is science, but it is a young, yet very bileved in THEORY. Why do they think evolution is science then? Sorry if this is off topic but it confuses me alot.

Pirate92 wrote:

VIP wrote:The identity, the end result, one in the same.

What she means is that science is applied logic.

Ya, Science is that. But evolutionists say that evolution is science, but it is a young, yet very bileved in THEORY. Why do they think evolution is science then? Sorry if this is off topic but it confuses me alot.

Theory is still science. For scientists, theory and fact are not opposing entities. A theory is a testable model on a phenomenon that can be proved or falsified. From the National Academy of Sciences:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

Yes, right on the money, a hypothesis can be formed using logic but a theory requires proof and evidence.

But Theorys can be false therefor rendering it no longer logical. So the theory was false befor it was proven false. Therefor it is not science. This is what mainly confuses me, (probubly should have said this in last post). Sorry if I'm wrong, but what I know just seems to conflict with what other people say. This is becoming very good for me to know though. Knowladge might not be power but it sure helps! lol.

Well take Galileo for example. He disproved a widely accepted theory and was considered a mad man. The even had "Biblical evidence" that the earth was the center of the universe and a theological grounding for it. Was it wrong? Yes. Was it a theory? Yes. Was it science? Yes. The reason? It was the best conclusion they could draw based on the evidence. The sun appeared to go around the earth, so did the moon. It's only logical right? Galileo was using some very complex math for his day and figured out new data that contradicted what everyone else considered fact and was shunned for the rest of his life. Both sides had evidence, both sides drew conclusions. Unfortunately it took almost 200 years for enough evidence to be gathered to declare a clear winner. Even a theory can be proven wrong, but you have to do it the right way.