Gay gene

by **Seperates** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:59 pm

Venolia wrote:
Person012345 wrote:Your religion is fake. Do you have a single piece of evidence to support your religion? I want a yes or no answer please.

This is my opinion so evidence is worthless to me but to answer your question, yes.

Opinions must be substantiated or they are intellectually worthless. Evidence is what makes opinions matter.

by **Venolia** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:59 pm

Yes Im Biop wrote:
Seperates wrote:But why would God make gays if he didn't want gays?

Just cause it looked like ya missed it... How the hell did we get from Fake genes to fake people in the sky?

Because they're against people being religious, so they gots to try to make me not believe, but it won't work. and then they'll probably ask for a "citation" for that other sentence.

by **Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:00 pm

I love that the same book of the Bible declaring Homosexuality a sin also states that people that wear mixed fabrics or eat shellfish should be put to death.

by **Venolia** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:00 pm

Seperates wrote:
Venolia wrote:
This is my opinion so evidence is worthless to me but to answer your question, yes.

Opinions must be substantiated or they are intellectually worthless. Evidence is what makes opinions matter.

Actually evidence is what makes fact matter, opinion does not need evidence, it is a person's belief on the subject.

by **Grave_n_idle** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:01 pm

Neo Arcad wrote:
Person012345 wrote:No, thou shalt not murder. Not that you shouldn't kill.

Would you, therefore, agree with removing a "religion" gene?

Religion is a belief. Unless you're claiming that homosexuality is a choice-

Irrelevant. The question can be answered, no matter whether religion is a choice or not. If it were possible to edit a religion gene, would it be a valid argument for eugenics?

by **Yes Im Biop** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:01 pm

Venolia wrote:
Yes Im Biop wrote:
Just cause it looked like ya missed it... How the hell did we get from Fake genes to fake people in the sky?

Because they're against people being religious, so they gots to try to make me not believe, but it won't work. and then they'll probably ask for a "citation" for that other sentence.

Your new here arent you?

by **Venolia** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:01 pm

Iuuvic wrote:
Venolia wrote: They're putting me through a trial of questions. lol no, they just have a lot of questions.

I think they are waiting for answers with a bit more substance than just some one liners that seem to ooze a not-so-sutble contempt for those who are asking.

If you are getting so many questions I suggest you make your stance a bit clearer with an in-depth description of your veiws and why you hold them.

They are asking the wrong person then.

by **Seperates** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:02 pm

Yes Im Biop wrote:
Seperates wrote:His justfication for gene therapy was his religious beliefs...

Which happens to be a bastardization of Christianity... not that Christianity is all that good in of itself.

bastardization of Christianity... Just when i thought i heard it all... SO why are we fueling him on anyone? Anyone?

Because it's amusing?

by **Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:02 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Neo Arcad wrote:
Religion is a belief. Unless you're claiming that homosexuality is a choice-

Irrelevant. The question can be answered, no matter whether religion is a choice or not. If it were possible to edit a religion gene, would it be a valid argument for eugenics?

GREAT NEWS, WE'VE ISOLATED THE MELANIN GENE, SO WE CAN CURE RACISM BY MAKING IT SO THAT BLACK PEOPLE DON'T EXIST!

by **Venolia** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:03 pm

Yes Im Biop wrote:
Venolia wrote:
Because they're against people being religious, so they gots to try to make me not believe, but it won't work. and then they'll probably ask for a "citation" for that other sentence.

Your new here arent you?

to the game, no. i just gave what the thread asked for and now they want to know why and then i tell them why and then they come up with off-topic stuff which is why we are talking about religion.

by **Person012345** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:03 pm

Neo Arcad wrote:
Person012345 wrote:No, thou shalt not murder. Not that you shouldn't kill.

Would you, therefore, agree with removing a "religion" gene?

Religion is a belief. Unless you're claiming that homosexuality is a choice- something that most or all homosexuals disagree with- then I'd say you aren't making a valid point. At ALL. ಠ_ಠ

The whole scenario is hypothetical. Although belief is not a simple choice. I could no more easily "choose" to believe in god tomorrow than I could to be gay. I am treating both as genetic for the purposes of debate, it's a valid analogy in this particular case.

by **Yes Im Biop** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:03 pm

Seperates wrote:
Yes Im Biop wrote:
bastardization of Christianity... Just when i thought i heard it all... SO why are we fueling him on anyone? Anyone?

Because it's amusing?

Fair enough i guess.

by **Seperates** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:06 pm

Venolia wrote:
Seperates wrote:Opinions must be substantiated or they are intellectually worthless. Evidence is what makes opinions matter.

Actually evidence is what makes fact matter, opinion does not need evidence, it is a person's belief on the subject.

My apologies...

It's intellectually valid opinions with value and worth that require evidence.

Your personal opinions are worth nothing without evidence, without logic, without substance. Only the religious believe that "opinion does not need evidence."

:palm:

Of course opinions require evidence. Otherwise, why would you believe it?

by **Iuuvic** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:06 pm

Venolia wrote:
Yes Im Biop wrote:
Just cause it looked like ya missed it... How the hell did we get from Fake genes to fake people in the sky?

Because they're against people being religious, so they gots to try to make me not believe, but it won't work. and then they'll probably ask for a "citation" for that other sentence.

See what this would boil down to is legality; would you support removal or prevention of the 'gay gene' as legally justifiable? Attempting to justify an action, even a hypothetical one, as lawful using only your opinion is laughable. People want something with more substance because we want to know WHY you think you could actually justify this action and "cause Its my opinion" just does not cut it.

by **The Soviet Technocracy** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:07 pm

Person012345 wrote:
Neo Arcad wrote:
Religion is a belief. Unless you're claiming that homosexuality is a choice- something that most or all homosexuals disagree with- then I'd say you aren't making a valid point. At ALL. ಠ_ಠ

The whole scenario is hypothetical. Although belief is not a simple choice. I could no more easily "choose" to believe in god tomorrow than I could to be gay. I am treating both as genetic for the purposes of debate, it's a valid analogy in this particular case.

No, it's a v. awful analogy.

by **Person012345** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:08 pm

The Soviet Technocracy wrote:
Person012345 wrote:The whole scenario is hypothetical. Although belief is not a simple choice. I could no more easily "choose" to believe in god tomorrow than I could to be gay. I am treating both as genetic for the purposes of debate, it's a valid analogy in this particular case.

No, it's a v. awful analogy.

No it isn't. In a different conversation, possibly. In this particular conversation it is good.

by **Yes Im Biop** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:08 pm

Iuuvic wrote:
Venolia wrote:
Because they're against people being religious, so they gots to try to make me not believe, but it won't work. and then they'll probably ask for a "citation" for that other sentence.

See what this would boil down to is legality; would you support removal or prevention of the 'gay gene' as legally justifiable? Attempting to justify an action, even a hypothetical one, as lawful using only your opinion is laughable. People want something with more substance because we want to know WHY you think you could actually justify this action and "cause Its my opinion" just does not cut it.

Would i support it? No. Would i be happy with anyone that chose to do it? NAw ide probably give em hell. Would it be morally wrong? Yup.

by **Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:10 pm

Yes Im Biop wrote:
Would i support it? No. Would i be happy with anyone that chose to do it? NAw ide probably give em hell. Would it be morally wrong? Yup.

Changing people genetically to make them fit in better has all the dressings of a totalitarian nightmare.

by **Yes Im Biop** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:12 pm

Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories wrote:
Yes Im Biop wrote:
Would i support it? No. Would i be happy with anyone that chose to do it? NAw ide probably give em hell. Would it be morally wrong? Yup.

Changing people genetically to make them fit in better has all the dressings of a totalitarian nightmare.

Now if gene tech could make people faster, stronger, smarter, and healthier? Then i would be gung ho for it

by **Iuuvic** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:13 pm

Yes Im Biop wrote:
Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories wrote:
Changing people genetically to make them fit in better has all the dressings of a totalitarian nightmare.

Now if gene tech could make people faster, stronger, smarter, and healthier? Then i would be gung ho for it

I want Bioshock-like gene therapy tech...

by **Yes Im Biop** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:16 pm

Iuuvic wrote:
Yes Im Biop wrote:
Now if gene tech could make people faster, stronger, smarter, and healthier? Then i would be gung ho for it

I want Bioshock-like gene therapy tech...

I assume without the bioshock like chaos? Think of all the tonics and plasmids that the games didnt tell us about XD

by **Grainne Ni Malley** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:21 pm

Catholicos wrote:It is unholy and destroys the whole purpose of Marriage.

Marriage is a concept that predates Christianity and its derivatives. The "purpose" of marriage has changed many times over the course of history to suit the needs and desires of society and I don't believe anyone owns a copyright on it.

As far as it being unholy, that is your belief. The solution is simple. Don't have a same sex relationship. Just know that a good number of people don't share the same beliefs as you, and they get to have an opinion, too. When enough people with the same opinion amass and do something about it, laws change. Even those regarding marriage and its purpose.

by **Jerusalem and Damascus** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:21 pm

Farnhamia wrote:
Chinese Regions wrote:I wouldn't, we wouldn't have people to laugh at.

There are so many jokes to be made here, I ... ack. *thud*

Damnit, now Farn is dead.

Or at least temporarily out of commission for a while.

Still, that's several millenia going and that killed/gave an anyeurism to Farn.

by **Jerobi** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:23 pm

I love how every thread about homosexuality on any forum always derails into a tedious religion vs secularism debate. It's almost as consistent as Godwin's Law.

Anyway, if we're going to "hypothetically" remove homosexuality from the gene pool, under the reasoning that it'd stop people from being bullied, we might as well remove anything that's even remotely differentiating too. So goodbye to race, gender and religion! Now we can all live as one single, sterilised collective, comforted in the assurance that we are each and every one of us the same.

yaaaaaaaaay

by **Person012345** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:25 pm

That sounds great. We're going to be making everyone exactly like me, right? Right?

Gay gene

Who is online