Chemical Forums
General Forums => Generic Discussion => Topic started by: Donaldson Tan on June 04, 2006, 03:47:58 AM
-
It's a big question.
I am not sure how to answer, but I have a gut feeling love is a biochemical phenomena.
We know body smell has something to do with physical attraction.
We also know the brain reflects different physiological responses when a person is subjected to pictures of his loved ones, versus that of friends.
We also know that oxytoxin is registered in relatively high concentration when a person is in love.
What are your opinions?
-
Every aspect of life is a biochemical phenomena - even solving differential equations boils down to biochemistry in brain. I thnik that's not what you wanted to state :)
-
Define love, please.
Otherwise, just meaning sexual attraction, my answer will be 'yes'.
-
Define love, please.
Otherwise, just meaning sexual attraction, my answer will be 'yes'.
I am refering to love to family love and love between a couple (hetero- or homo- sexual)
-
That's all genetics - the selfish gene (sin altruism) ;D
-
By the way, looking at the results, it looks like a comprehensive defeat for Romanticism, doesn't it?
-
By the way, looking at the results, it looks like a comprehensive defeat for Romaniticism, doesn't it?
We're all chemists, that's the reason ;)
-
One of the goals of my life to build a computer that can simulate human behavior to a very good degree. I hope, in doing so, I can prove that all human behavior boils down to complex mathematical and chemical equations and thus providing a scientific proof that ideas such as romanticism, religions, and various philosophies are complete rubbish.
-
One of the goals of my life to build a computer that can simulate human behavior to a very good degree. I hope, in doing so, I can prove that all human behavior boils down to complex mathematical and chemical equations and thus providing a scientific proof that ideas such as romanticism, religions, and various philosophies are complete rubbish.
It's one of the saddest things I've ever heard in my life. None the less, I understand you.
-
It's one of the saddest things I've ever heard in my life.
Why should it be? Nobel Laureate Professor Abdus Salam once said that science is the shared heritage of all mankind. Science will eventually eradicate all the sources of our differences and unite mankind.
-
It's one of the saddest things I've ever heard in my life.
Why should it be? Nobel Laureate Professor Abdus Salam once said that science is the shared heritage of all mankind. Science will eventually eradicate all the source ofl our differences and unite mankind.
Don't fool yourself. Science will always boil down to military power. Every advance in science has been exploited by government to advance their race, people, system, etc...
-
Define love, please.
Otherwise, just meaning sexual attraction, my answer will be 'yes'.
I am refering to love to family love and love between a couple (hetero- or homo- sexual)
I would not group those two together. One is normal and the other is a disease. It was only through a political process that the second was removed from the DSM as a disease (the DSM is the clinical handbook of psychological disorders).
-
Every aspect of life is a biochemical phenomena - even solving differential equations boils down to biochemistry in brain. I thnik that's not what you wanted to state :)
There is the Gestalt viewpoint, that we are more than the sum of our parts.
Can a thinking person force a different arrangment of chemicals in the brain? Is thinking enough to cause an increase or decrease of neurotransmitters?
-
Every aspect of life is a biochemical phenomena - even solving differential equations boils down to biochemistry in brain. I thnik that's not what you wanted to state :)
There is the Gestalt viewpoint, that we are more than the sum of our parts.
No contradiction here. "Parts" are biochemistry, "more" can be classified as emergent properties. Ting is, this new quality is often treated as something that can't be explained by interactions of the parts - which is obviosuly not true, as there are no other parts and no other interactions. Complexity of the explanation may be well beyond our understanding or beyond processing power of our computers, but it doesn't mean there is no explanation.
Diffusion is a good example. Diffusion is a macroscopical scale process, described by Fick's laws that doesn't tell a thing about single particles movements, as if the diffusion was something completely new and different, independent of the particles interactions. Yet if you know how, Fick's laws can be derived from random particles movements/bouncing.
Can a thinking person force a different arrangment of chemicals in the brain? Is thinking enough to cause an increase or decrease of neurotransmitters?
Yes - when you think there are measurable chemical changes in the brain. That's how large part of neuropsychological research is done these days.
-
Every aspect of life is a biochemical phenomena - even solving differential equations boils down to biochemistry in brain. I thnik that's not what you wanted to state :)
There is the Gestalt viewpoint, that we are more than the sum of our parts.
No contradiction here. "Parts" are biochemistry, "more" can be classified as emergent properties. Ting is, this new quality is often treated as something that can't be explained by interactions of the parts - which is obviosuly not true, as there are no other parts and no other interactions. Complexity of the explanation may be well beyond our understanding or beyond processing power of our computers, but it doesn't mean there is no explanation.
I hope we're more than skinner boxes. I'm sure one day, some scientist will break love or the sensation of love down to light particles hitting the rods and cones, which causes chemical changes in the brain which reacts to dna to produce another chemical. I know that light can make sugar when it hits chemicals in plants.
I've read a book on superstring theory which claims we live in more dimensions than we can sense. If that is the case, then maybe science will never be able to have true explinations, but only theories. Perhaps, some of what happens occurs in ways we can't measure or percieve.
-
I've read a book on superstring theory which claims we live in more dimensions than we can sense. If that is the case, then maybe science will never be able to have true explinations, but only theories. Perhaps, some of what happens occurs in ways we can't measure or percieve.
We are surrounded by things that we can't sense, but which were researched to the limits.
-
Don't fool yourself. Science will always boil down to military power. Every advance in science has been exploited by government to advance their race, people, system, etc...
Unfortunately, alot of scientific research are defense-motivated or motivated by selfish reasons. Scientists are paid handsomely to make the best weapons, invent a new way of killing people, etc. People are paid to perform a job, not a duty that requires self-sacrifice. Seriously, it hardly matters why a particular research is carried out. It is more important what research is carried out. Science is a double-bladed sword. It can injure opponents, and still cut the hand that welds it. You are suggesting that a double-bladed sword should never be used at all. I am not surprised if you are not against banning / restricting stem cell research in the United States.
I am refering to love to family love and love between a couple (hetero- or homo- sexual)
I would not group those two together. One is normal and the other is a disease. It was only through a political process that the second was removed from the DSM as a disease (the DSM is the clinical handbook of psychological disorders).
On what grounds should homosexuality be labelled as a disease? The anicent greeks regard male homosexuality as the most perfect and holiest of sex FYI. Just because a bunch of Catholics were the first authors of the DSM, doesn't make homosexuality a disease. The world has evolved into such a state whereby the people who don't have sex (the Pope takes a vow of celibacy) goes round advising (and condemning) people how to have sex. It is totally absurd.
There is the Gestalt viewpoint, that we are more than the sum of our parts.
We are more than sum of our parts. The very fact that you can post your opinion on this forum proves that you are more than the sum of your parts. Borek's description of the simple diffusion process is a good example of how anything in nature is greater than the sum of its components. It does not have to be alive to even validate this fact. Diffusion takes place in our body cells. Diffusion occurs in the direction of the concentration gradient. In fact, there is also an electrochemical gradient that will affect the diffusion flow. All this occurs due to interactions between individual cells and its environment.
-
Don't fool yourself. Science will always boil down to military power. Every advance in science has been exploited by government to advance their race, people, system, etc...
Unfortunately, alot of scientific research are defense-motivated or motivated by selfish reasons. Scientists are paid handsomely to make the best weapons, invent a new way of killing people, etc. People are paid to perform a job, not a duty that requires self-sacrifice. Seriously, it hardly matters why a particular research is carried out. It is more important what research is carried out. Science is a double-bladed sword. It can injure opponents, and still cut the hand that welds it. You are suggesting that a double-bladed sword should never be used at all. I am not surprised if you are not against banning / restricting stem cell research in the United States.
I am refering to love to family love and love between a couple (hetero- or homo- sexual)
I would not group those two together. One is normal and the other is a disease. It was only through a political process that the second was removed from the DSM as a disease (the DSM is the clinical handbook of psychological disorders).
On what grounds should homosexuality be labelled as a disease? The anicent greeks regard male homosexuality as the most perfect and holiest of sex FYI. Just because a bunch of Catholics were the first authors of the DSM, doesn't make homosexuality a disease. The world has evolved into such a state whereby the people who don't have sex (the Pope takes a vow of celibacy) goes round advising (and condemning) people how to have sex. It is totally absurd.
There is the Gestalt viewpoint, that we are more than the sum of our parts.
We are more than sum of our parts. The very fact that you can post your opinion on this forum proves that you are more than the sum of your parts. Borek's description of the simple diffusion process is a good example of how anything in nature is greater than the sum of its components. It does not have to be alive to even validate this fact. Diffusion takes place in our body cells. Diffusion occurs in the direction of the concentration gradient. In fact, there is also an electrochemical gradient that will affect the diffusion flow. All this occurs due to interactions between individual cells and its environment.
Geodome, please don't put words in my mouth. Did I ever post that I am against stem cell research? I am for research that can cure disease and save people. There is enough stem cells right now to do a whole bunch of research on many topics. I'm also in support of animal research, if we can find a cure to cancer or paralysis.
As for your question on homosexuality, it was considered a disease by modern scientists for a very long time. It is not a normal process. It is abnormal. They can't produce offspring, which is the reason for mating. They are the people who created AIDS, and the proof is that AIDS was exclusive to only gay males for a long period of time. I suspect the gays organized and purposefully spread it via drug needles to try and get AIDS into the mainstream. And ALL governments that allowed homosexuality eventually died. Rome is the best example, they were powerful, then they became gluttonous and perverted , and thier civilization crumbled. Homosexuality is no more normal than pedophiles. If pedophiles could organize and spend money to fund political candidates, they would probably be doing many of the same things gays are attempting to do to society. Would you say that alcoholism is not a disease? Is it a choice? Homosexuals and alcoholics are very much alike in their disease.
Edit- I wanted to also address the following statement by geodome: "Seriously, it hardly matters why a particular research is carried out. It is more important what research is carried out".
I would add that it is more important who is carrying out the research. For the past 1000 years, where did most of the advances to science come from? Culture and power go hand in hand. Would we want a violent part of the world to get the double-bladed sword, for example letting Iran get nuclear bombs.
-
Geodome, please don't put words in my mouth. Did I ever post that I am against stem cell research? I am for research that can cure disease and save people. There is enough stem cells right now to do a whole bunch of research on many topics. I'm also in support of animal research, if we can find a cure to cancer or paralysis.
I am not surprised if you are against stem cell research. I am not putting words in your mouth. In fact, I am surprised that you support stem cell research and animal research. Btw what is animal research? Are you refering to animal testing actually?
As for your question on homosexuality, it was considered a disease by modern scientists for a very long time. It is not a normal process. It is abnormal. They can't produce offspring, which is the reason for mating. They are the people who created AIDS, and the proof is that AIDS was exclusive to only gay males for a long period of time. I suspect the gays organized and purposefully spread it via drug needles to try and get AIDS into the mainstream. And ALL governments that allowed homosexuality eventually died. Rome is the best example, they were powerful, then they became gluttonous and perverted , and thier civilization crumbled..
I try not to laugh. Ridiculous is an understatement.
-
geodome, it is all true. If you remember history, there was only 1 group that was stricken with that disease in the beginning. Why? They must have been doing something wrong. Smokers get lung cancer, non-smokers don't get lung cancer in the same numbers. Alcoholics get cirrhosis in higher numbers than non-alcoholics. What is so surprising that a bad lifestyle produces disease?
-
What is so surprising that a bad lifestyle produces disease?
This is the first time I hear someone describes homosexuality as a lifestyle. HIV infection is the result of unprotected casual sex. In fact, frequent unprotected casual sex leads to HIV infection eventually. You might want to check the numbers if you find my claim questionable. There are so much more heterosexuals with HIV than homosexuals. HIV is not a homosexual disease. Everybody who engages in sex risks getting HiV. Homosexuality is just a sexual preference for the same sex group. Homosexuality is not preference for rampant casual sex.
-
What is so surprising that a bad lifestyle produces disease?
This is the first time I hear someone describes homosexuality as a lifestyle. HIV infection is the result of unprotected casual sex. In fact, frequent unprotected casual sex leads to HIV infection eventually. You might want to check the numbers if you find my claim questionable. There are so much more heterosexuals with HIV than homosexuals. HIV is not a homosexual disease. Everybody who engages in sex risks getting HiV. Homosexuality is just a sexual preference for the same sex group. Homosexuality is not preference for rampant casual sex.
You are 100% WRONG!!! Please, don't spread ignorance.
AIDS was a disease which first started causing deaths in large numbers in the 1980's. Before the 1980's, nobody heard of AIDS. If you remember the 1980's, they you would know for the first 4 years that AIDS was killing people, the disease didn't even have a name. The news called the disease "gay cancer" because it ONLY KILLED GAYS. That is 100% fact. Do you remember Rock Hudson, or Liberace?
Repeat after me. There were NO heterosexual AIDS deaths in the early 1980's. All AIDS deaths were homosexual. Every single one.
The reason AIDS spread into mainstream society is because homosexuals who also did drugs with needles, started sharing the needles with other people. These other people then infected normal people. It took a long time for the gays to force the disease on the rest of society. AIDS went from gays only, to gay drug users, to heterosexual drug users and prostitutes, to the lowest eliments of normal society, to infecting good people. How many innocent women were infected with AIDS because they had a boyfriend of low morals who used a prostitute that was infected? It is a crime against civilizationm, the woman is innocent and is suffering because of what gays and drug dealers did.
If you don't believe that AIDS is a disease made for gays, then consider there is a new strain of AIDS that is more powerful than the old one, and it only infects gays. This is happening today, it was in the New York Times, that old AIDS drugs are not working and the new AIDS is killing homosexuals. It is clear what God thinks about gays, and once again He is proving to us God is real and all powerful by forcing those people to repent or suffer forever.
-
geodome, it is all true. If you remember history, there was only 1 group that was stricken with that disease in the beginning. Why? They must have been doing something wrong. Smokers get lung cancer, non-smokers don't get lung cancer in the same numbers. Alcoholics get cirrhosis in higher numbers than non-alcoholics. What is so surprising that a bad lifestyle produces disease?
Just because someone has a disease it doesn't mean they have a bad lifestyle. That is the most pathetic argument I have ever heard of, as of yet (I'm sure you'll come up with a more pathetic one ;)).
Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease.
Just because you classify homosexuality as a disease it doesn't mean its right or wrong or normal or abnormal. I just get the impression you are using 'diseased' as an offensive and dirty term for people you don't like, as in; "Baseball_Fan is diseased". I would classify that as an offensive term. It would also be offensive if you called a person with lung cancer as 'diseased', as much as it is accurate, you would say they had lung cancer, not diseased.
Repeat after me. There were NO heterosexual AIDS deaths in the early 1980's. All AIDS deaths were homosexual. Every single one.
Repeat after me. I will not repeat anything with grammatical errors in it.
Well 'God' has clearly failed big time in his design for the human. If you want to kill off a species with a certain sexual preference, then what a more rotten way to do it than by AIDS. So much for a benevolent 'God', he has failed not only people with a certain sexual preference, but the 'innocent' people you mentioned. Not only has 'God' failed here, but also the fact that AIDS only kills those that have sex, and are infected with AIDS in the first place. I could have thought of a better way to kill off homosexuals than 'God'. Your 'God's' other diseases like lung cancer are also major flops, since they haven't wiped out smokers yet, and I don't think they ever will.
I think you suffer from more serious 'dise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry)ases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia)'. Maybe one day your 'God' will come up with an illness to wipe them out.
The fact is, love is a biochemical phenomenon, and I'm sure gay couples experience the same type of love that male-female couples do. I don't see how you can argue against that, even if you want to think that homosexuality is a disease.
-
I'll start with your first point "Just because someone has a disease it doesn't mean they have a bad lifestyle.". I consider alcoholism to be a disease. Do you? Nobody becomes an alcoholic with a good lifestyle. Most diseases start because the person does something wrong, they drink too much, eat too much. Gluttony is a sin, God warned us about it. If you look at all the major diseases, God warned us about each of them in a general way. God might not have said "don't gamble", but he did say avarice is a sin. Each time humans rebel against what God has told us, we suffer for it. AIDS is no different.
Your second point "Just because you classify homosexuality as a disease it doesn't mean its right or wrong or normal or abnormal.". Homosexuality is wrong, almost every religion teaches that. Those who practice it are doing wrong. God punishes some of them with AIDS, and now a new strain of AIDS. What do these people need to get the message, to have San Francisco sink into the ocean because of an earthquake? I don't think it was random that New Orleans, aka Sin City, was struck.
Your third point "The fact is, love is a biochemical phenomenon, and I'm sure gay couples experience the same type of love that male-female couples do.". Gays do not experience the same type of love that heterosexual people do. Read some research journals. Homosexuals tend to be very promiscuous, they have hundreds of sex partners, where normal heterosexuals don't. In one way, I guess you could classify homosexuals are suffering from a sexual addiction. But it is worse for them, because they don't even know the right sex from the wrong sex. Something in the thinking of a homosexual is fried and does not work normal. It is like an alcoholic who won't stop drinking. They can do it, but the don't.
Why does God target some for disease and not others? I think part of the reason is the person doing the wrong must have full knowledge they are doing wrong. When people like you act as an enabler, you are not doing anyone a favor. You are causing harm. One day, people will say that pedophilia is okay. Will you be one of those people who says "Oh, pedophiles love the same way. You're a bigot for not letting pedophiles live how they want".
-
Errrmm New Orleans is not "Sin City," Las Vegas is "Sin City."
New Orleans is " The Cresent City", "The Big Easy", or "The City that Care Forgot."
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
-
geodome, it is all true. If you remember history, there was only 1 group that was stricken with that disease in the beginning
Anyone who knows anything about AIDS will tell you that in addition to the cases of AIDS among homosexuals and heroin uses in America, there were many cases of AIDS in Africa at the same time among heterosexuals (especially those where the husband traveled to urban areas for work, solicited prostitutes, then came back to their rural homes). IIRC, cases with AIDS-like symptioms were reporeted in Africa well before they were reported in the American gay communities. Furthermore, the AIDS epidemics among intravenous drug uses developed in parallel to the epidemics among gay men.
-
*lol*
Baseball_Fan you are a f***ing idiot! haha
Where do you come up with this s**t? *lol*
-
*lol*
Baseball_Fan you are a f***ing idiot! haha
Where do you come up with this s**t? *lol*
When people are wrong, the best they can do is call others names. You just proved that. Everything I've posted is true. In the USA, AIDS was exclusivly a gay disease for the first decade, and then spread to others because of drug users. If it wasn't for homosexuals sharing needles with heterosexual drug users, the disease never would have spread out of the gay community.
But whatever, you don't care about facts. You just think that deserve some special rights. You want the facts to match your idea of what it should be like.
-
Not true. When people are wrong the best they can do is make up rubbish. The worst they can do is call each other names, and hey, I am willing to admit I am the latter, which one are you? :)
-
Not true. When people are wrong the best they can do is make up rubbish. The worst they can do is call each other names, and hey, I am willing to admit I am the latter, which one are you? :)
Everything I wrote is fact. You can't rewrite history. AIDS started in the gay community. That is a fact, no matter what you say. I remember watching the news in the 1980's, when AIDS was called "gay cancer". I remember how people didn't want to use public bathrooms because there was fear the disease could be transmitted just from being in the same area with a sick person. You might not have been around back then, but I was and I remember the panic. It was 1000 times worse than any bird flu or SARS. I also remember news stories about gays infecting straight women on purpose, to force the disease on "mainstream" society because nobody cared when gays shared needles with drug users. Everyone figured they deserved it.
I'm amazed when I see a liberal and they claim to be so open minded, but the first thing they do is attack religious people.
-
haha, oh you were "around" in the 80's were you? Oh you sound so wise, *lol*
Anywho, since when has the "news" been a source of facts?
Everything you write is just unsubstantiated rhetoric...
Nice try, but you are obviously just stirring up trouble.
1000 times worse than bird flu or SARS! what does this even mean dude? haha are you sure its not 900 times or 1100 times *lol* seeya
-
If you don't believe that AIDS is a disease made for gays, then consider there is a new strain of AIDS that is more powerful than the old one, and it only infects gays. This is happening today, it was in the New York Times, that old AIDS drugs are not working and the new AIDS is killing homosexuals. It is clear what God thinks about gays, and once again He is proving to us God is real and all powerful by forcing those people to repent or suffer forever.
Pleezzz, pleezzz, are you really a christian? I am a christian and it really hurts me if I see this, written by someone who claims to be a christian. The name of God is crippled by writing this, instead of glorified.
God loves gays! Why? Because God loves ALL people. Christian gays have a very hard time, trying to survive in a christian group and that is WRONG! Are you better than gays, even if they practice? We all are sinners and who am I to place myself above gays? Sure, the bible tells something about the lifestyle of some gays, but the bible also tells something about the lifestyle of some hetero's. I also disgust the gay parade as it is made every year in Amsterdam, but that is something different than persons, who are trying to find their way in life, which is hard enough for them. I think that such gay parades are bad, because most gays do not live like this (http://www.homocon.com/archives/gay_parade.jpg), but I think that your writings about God's position against gays is equally bad, because it makes life so much more difficult for gays.
No, this is the kind of reasoning which I hate. I personally know a gay girl, who is christian as well. I know her struggles and instead of coming with all this pointing fingers to them, we should help them find their way with God and themselves. Christians should try to love people and not try to convince people that they are wrong implying yourself being right!
So please, may I, as a fellow-christian, ask you to think over twice what you write? Scientifically it is invalid as well (I don't believe in viruses, selectively acting upon gays only, that is just urban legend), but what most irks me is that the name of God is harmed. People tend to think of God as the brute Force, destroying and killing every one who is not acting precisely as God wants. But God is not like that, God is a VERY forgiving God, and I'm 100% sure that later on in heaven I will meet lots of gays, even ones, who practiced their sexual feelings!
-
God is a VERY forgiving God
God is only forigiving of those who ask for forgivness.
Did anyone catch the report from the Pentagon that the USA military has again classified homosexuality as a disease, right next to personality disorders.
-
I agree with that, but that does not answer my question on homosexuals! What about a homosexual who asks forgiveness, but still has a very hard time not to practice? You know very well that you sin every day and you need to ask forgiving every day. So, please do not make sins of homesexuals more severe than other sins. As I wrote before, WE ALL ARE SINNERS, and homesexuals are no worse than any other people!
Did anyone catch the report from the Pentagon that the USA military has again classified homosexuality as a disease, right next to personality disorders.
I hardly can believe that is true, but if it is, then the Pentagon has made a big mistake. But what even irritates me more is your harsh position against homesexuals. I would have expected otherwise from a christian, sorry to say that. Suppose Jesus was here, right now on this forum, discussing homosexuals? Do you really think that He would be so harsh against homosexuals?
Do you know that story of that Samaritan woman, who had "used" and pissed off five husbands already? Did Jesus like that? Of course not. But Jesus was full of love, even to such a woman! So, He will do exactly the same towards homosexuals, yes to everyone, who really feels bad about his/her sins and wants to change things.
-
God is only forigiving of those who ask for forgivness.
Aren't Christians supposed to be forgiving people too?
-
God is only forigiving of those who ask for forgivness.
Aren't Christians supposed to be forgiving people too?
Christians are not supposed to accept an evil act. Homosexuality is like pedophilia.
A better example would be, do you want a strip club and bar to open on your block? Do you want drunks with no morals walking in front of your home at all hours. Do you want prostitutes walking the streets, bringing drug dealers to your neighborhood. Everywhere that gays open up their bars, you get these problems in greater numbers than elsewhere. The lifestyle gays choose is evil.
-
I'm not implying that you are wrong, but could I please see a source of your statistics?
I personally don't mind gay people as long as they aren't huge flamers. When they are like that, they just annoy me beyond all hell.
-
Geodome,
You are likely right, but there are a lot of caveats.
I believe that "love" is mostly an internal biochemical phenomena. In brute simplicity, it is the concept that person A places me in higher regard than everyone else. That feeds my ego and in return, I "love" that person and place that person in higher regard than everyone else. It involves a bunch of bitmaps. For example, at age 5, I associate a blonde woman with a positive experience. At age 7, i associate a certain dialect or voice with a negative experience. At age 9, i associate a thin woman with another positive experience. Over time, these experiences accumulate and create a number of "model images". Women that come close to socially or physically fulfilling this model image create internal biochemical responses. If my attention towards her is reciprocated with an equivalent amount of attention, I am "in love". It would be a very complex equation and probably impossible because for most people a lot of the model image also comes from peer input. Additionally, several of the bitmaps are unique for each individual. There also appears to be a dog-like dominance phenomena in love relationships. There is a dominant and a submissive angle that is likely influenced by many variables (birth order, religion, upbringing, intelligence, physical characteristics of the person, etc).
-
God is only forigiving of those who ask for forgivness.
Aren't Christians supposed to be forgiving people too?
Christians are not supposed to accept an evil act. Homosexuality is like pedophilia.
A better example would be, do you want a strip club and bar to open on your block? Do you want drunks with no morals walking in front of your home at all hours. Do you want prostitutes walking the streets, bringing drug dealers to your neighborhood. Everywhere that gays open up their bars, you get these problems in greater numbers than elsewhere. The lifestyle gays choose is evil.
Bull-s**t! *lol* you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about.
hmm a strip club on my "block" (whatever that is?) sure that sounds great saves me having to go into the city *haha* oh and even if I did go I am sure I would be forgiven by God.
And you know what, I would take a drunk neighbour, a prostitute neighbour, a drug user neighbour any day of the week over an ignorant bigot such as yourself. In all honesty the cr*p that you are spreading is much more evil than anything you are talking about.
The simple fact is, your are wrong. Be more tolerant!
-
hmm a strip club on my "block" (whatever that is?) sure that sounds great saves me having to go into the city *haha* oh and even if I did go I am sure I would be forgiven by God.
And you know what, I would take a drunk neighbour, a prostitute neighbour, a drug user neighbour any day of the week over an ignorant bigot such as yourself. In all honesty the cr*p that you are spreading is much more evil than anything you are talking about.
You make life worse for the rest of the planet by exploiting women and supporting strip clubs. You say you have no problem with prostitutes or drunks. You cheapen life, just as an alcoholic slowly destroys his mind and body.
God will not forgive gays who continue their evil and perverted lifestyle. If you look at the old testament, God commanded that all gays be executed. God grouped homosexuals in the same group as people who have sex with animals or children or incest.
-
You make life worse for the rest of the planet by exploiting women and supporting strip clubs. You say you have no problem with prostitutes or drunks. You cheapen life, just as an alcoholic slowly destroys his mind and body.
Who ever said it was a female strip club? Don't assume anything mate! ;)
You cheapen life, just as an alcoholic slowly destroys his mind and body.
Nope, I do not cheapen life, more unsubstantiated opinion....
God will not forgive gays who continue their evil and perverted lifestyle.
ermm, yes He will. Oh and by the way, why is it perverted? What is the correct way to do "it"? *haha* there are many so called hetero couples who do basically the same thing dude ;) who cares what you do as long as it is consentual..
If you look at the old testament,
Again, mate you got it wrong, the bible is just some fellow's interpretation of the teachings of God and Jesus, no doubt there would be some things that have to be read with a little common sense. Man I know when I wrote my thesis I thought it was perfect but I still found a bunch of mistakes in it, and my thesis was way shorter than the Bible!
Oh and PS Dr Evil, why not reply to this?
In all honesty the cr*p that you are spreading is much more evil than anything you are talking about.
-
mike, I almost don't want to respond to you because you sicken me. You're an evil person and will burn in hell, and suffer if you don't change. This is my last response to you, then I will ignore you.
God is clear with what he believes about the actions you do. It is filthy and wrong. The old testament states in Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them".
If the old testament is not good enough for you, God repeats this in the new testament 1 Corinthians 6:9- "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders". The very next sentance in 1 Corinthians 6:10 - "nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God". It should be perfectly clear that people with low morals will not enter heaven. God commands me to speak the truth, so you know what you're doing is wrong.
God hates what you do. You better get to terms with that, or you will suffer for all eternity in fire.
I've spoken all I want to with you. From now on, I am going to ignore you.
-
mike, I almost don't want to respond to you because you sicken me. You're an evil person and will burn in hell, and suffer if you don't change.
No I won't, I already checked with God.
God is clear with what he believes about the actions you do. It is filthy and wrong. The old testament states in Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them".
If the old testament is not good enough for you, God repeats this in the new testament 1 Corinthians 6:9- "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders". The very next sentance in 1 Corinthians 6:10 - "nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God". It should be perfectly clear that people with low morals will not enter heaven. God commands me to speak the truth, so you know what you're doing is wrong.
God hates what you do. You better get to terms with that, or you will suffer for all eternity in fire.
hmmm, well unless you are God (God? is that you?) then who the f**k are you to say any of this anyway?
The old testament states in Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them".
You have misread/misquoted this. The actual passage reads:
If a man also lie with mankind, and he lieth with a woman at the same time, all of them have committed an orgy: they shall surely be put at a special place in the kingdom of the lord. Their blood shall be upon those who walk through the valley of the shadow of death.
So I don't know what you are talking about because it seems you are just making up scripture!
On another point it has already been proven that the Bible is only 76% original. And that the Corinthians is one text that has been deemed a fraudulent document! So you should be careful what you believe.
I am not sure where you are from but it is a fact that 79% of anglosaxon males in the world are homosexual, and 50% of those are actually in relationships with women or even married. So more than likely you are yourself, or if you are not that you will be one day, as the onset of homosexuality usually starts around the age of 28 or so (I am not sure of your age so you will have to pardon me if you are not at this age yet).
I've spoken all I want to with you. From now on, I am going to ignore you.
Oh come now.... I can't beleive that for a second, you are obviously a well educated person who is keen on a debate, it would be a shame to simply bow out of the conversation at such a point. I apologise if I have offended you previously, hopefully you will continue sharing your knowledge with me....
-
I love the subject name.
I have not seen Baseball_Fan post a single source of where he is getting his statistics.
Start here for diseases.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/express.htm
And here for your other statistics.
http://www.fedstats.gov/
Here is information on HIV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
Some information on AIDS which is after the HIV virus has pretty much decimated the immune system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS
HIV/AIDS statistics.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/index.htm
More HIV/AIDS statistics.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/
Also it is very possible that for many years, possibly decades, before it HIV/AIDS was recognized, it was probably killing people, both homosexuals and heterosexuals.
-
Well if by love you are referring to family and close ones then yes it is all biochemical (not just pheramones and oxytocin and whatnot but also coded nucliec acids, etc.).
Remember there is a good biological reason, but it basically boils down to chemicals. ;D
Can't have love without atoms.