Quote# 45533

[on same-gender love]
Actualy, I don;t have to. One gay pride parade settles the issue. It's all about the erotic. Literally, it defines them.
[on peer-review]
Science is a very good friend of the Christian. Especially when being accused of homophobia, bigoty or hatefullness.

Every anatomy, biology and physiology book I have ever read is "peer reviewed."

ALL of them agree with the Biblical view that same-gender sex acts are inappropriate. Remember, genitalia provides "sexual orientation." Humans are not beasts. Our ability to use reason and logic to override our "animal instincts" is a fact. Or at least (according to science) they should.

I am far more comfortable debating the gay agenda with a science book in hand than a Bible. Although, the "Bible" is one heck of a "peer reviewed" work.

I mean, you weren't expecting something from the APA were you? How many times has the DSM been changed? They're on number 4 (IV) now.

Polycarp_fan, CF 33 Comments [8/22/2008 2:48:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

Dark_Lord_Prime

"Although, the "Bible" is one heck of a "peer reviewed" work."

Given that you believe it was written by God, it cannot possibly be "peer reviewed."

That little problem aside... you still fail.

8/22/2008 2:53:51 AM

tehcrzy

Not being a science-major (furthest thing from, pretty much), I've not read a lot of anatomy, physiology, and biology books. But I would be willing to bet quite a bit of money that very few of them have much at all to say about same-gender sex acts, and that only the Christian ones out-of-hand condemn them.

8/22/2008 2:56:26 AM

kitteny

And how many versions of the bible are out there...?

Yeah. Fail.

8/22/2008 3:29:20 AM

GreenEyedLilo

One gay pride parade settles the issue. It's all about the erotic. Literally, it defines them.

Two words: Spring break.

I mean, you weren't expecting something from the APA were you? How many times has the DSM been changed? They're on number 4 (IV) now.

Amazingly enough, when you don't think you know everything, you can learn new things and use them to help others! Ain't that something? Why don't you try it?

8/22/2008 3:32:29 AM

Allegory for Jesus

"ALL of them agree with the Biblical view that same-gender sex acts are inappropriate"

Either you are reading Christian-friendly, homeschool versions of these biology text books, are you taking liberties with the word "inappropriate", or are you just flat out lying for Jesus...

"Our ability to use reason and logic to override our "animal instincts" is a fact."

Then why would we have sex for anything but opportune procreation, and why would we ever have more than two children given the comforts and protections of the industrial era and the population of the world in general? Our animal instincts, whatever those may be, are far from overridden.

" Although, the "Bible" is one heck of a "peer reviewed" work."

I just vomitted in my mouth a little.

"How many times has the DSM been changed? They're on number 4 (IV) now"

Well...if you count the 2000 revision, it's been 5 over the course of over 50 years. Considering how much science changes and advances in short periods of time, I'd say that is not too incredibly often. Also, the DSM is a more reliable source on the subject of homosexuality than some guy saying something essentially along the lines of "penis goes in vagina" as the core of his argument.


8/22/2008 3:43:43 AM

Beeblebrox

ALL of them agree with the Biblical view that same-gender sex acts are inappropriate.

I have yet to come across any textbook that makes a value judgement concerning homosexuality. Even psychology texts discuss it in objective terms as one of several factors in the makeup of Humans.

Stop lying to people.

8/22/2008 3:55:39 AM

Sasha

Personally, I like how the DSM changes to incorporate new findings. It's a sign of honesty, rather than clinging to old, outworn and falsified ideas.

Just because science books agree on human anatomy does not mean they provide you with evidence that homosexuality is inappropriate. Straights and gays have the same equipment, but since sexual orientation is determined in the mind and not the genitalia, that fact doesn't count for anything. Your argument is shallow and false.

8/22/2008 4:26:43 AM

electrophilic

I currently have in my possession a biochemistry textbook, a physiology textbook, a cell biology textbook, and a microbiology textbook. None of them even mention same-sex relations. Both of the psychology textbooks that I have say that homosexuality is not pathological unless it is repressed.

"How many times has the DSM been changed? They're on number 4 (IV) now."

Actually, they are on version IV-TR (Version 4 - Text Revised) and a fifth is in the works. Thank you psychopathology class.

8/22/2008 4:38:50 AM

Jay-Sus

And which version of the Bible do you have? I have the New Testamnet.

8/22/2008 5:19:47 AM

anonymous_troy

"Humans are not beasts. Our ability to use reason and logic to override our "animal instincts" is a fact"

So now gay is natural, but nature isn't good anymore?
Weird.

8/22/2008 5:23:22 AM

myheadhurts

liar

8/22/2008 5:29:58 AM

IanC

How dare something be updated when new evidence comes along! HOW DARE IT.

Also - pride parades does not equal gay people all the time. Same as fucking spring break does not equal straight people all the time.

8/22/2008 8:37:30 AM

Paler_Face

Science proposes no such bullshit.
It makes no claims about what is "appropriate" behaviour.
Instincs are powerfull things, and claiming that humans can simply override them with logic is, at best, naieve.
The bible is not "peer reviewed", it was written by bigoted savages back in the bronze age.

8/22/2008 10:28:33 AM

Illuminatalie

Every anatomy, biology, and physiology book I have read is "peer reviewed" as well, and ALL agree that fundies should send all their money to me, and live a life of poverty. What? You don't believe me? I tell you, that's what I read. And it was peer reviewed. And it was science. Yes. It was.

8/22/2008 10:43:02 AM



Get a modern science book, prick!

8/22/2008 11:50:33 AM

alex77

Ouch! What a blow. Now we are really doomed. Run to the hills! Idiocy and Super-Science are comming for us.

8/22/2008 2:01:41 PM

aaa

No.

8/22/2008 2:42:08 PM

stogoe

Willfully Misunderstanding the concept of Peer Review FTL!

8/22/2008 2:48:23 PM



Sorry, if they contain the word Bible or speak of human as Non-Beast, they're not peer reviewed(or you don't have idea of what it means)

8/22/2008 4:09:47 PM

Mick

I am gay.
I have smex with men.
We are neither killing the human race, nor have I contracted any form of disease.

STFU.

8/22/2008 6:21:35 PM

Illuminatalie

"One gay pride parade settles the issue. It's all about the erotic. Literally, it defines them."
Yeah, like one person of a different race committing a crime, or being untrustworthy in general, means ALL people of that race are bad.

"{Every anatomy, biology and physiology book I have ever read is "peer reviewed. ALL of them agree with the Biblical view that same-gender sex acts are inappropriate."
What drugs are you on, and how much do they cost?

"I mean, you weren't expecting something from the APA were you?"
NOBODY expects the Fundy APA! Our chief weapon is bullshit...bullshit and fear...fear and bullshit.... Our two weapons are fear and bullshit...and mindless conceit.... Our *three* weapons are fear, bullshit, and mindless conceit...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Bible.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, bullshit.... I'll come in again.

8/22/2008 10:29:39 PM

Bad Influence

"ALL of them agree with the Biblical view that same-gender sex acts are inappropriate."

O RLY? We seem to be reading different things- please, show me a single science book that backs you up.

8/22/2008 10:58:03 PM

Old Viking

No, the science texts are not peer reviewed. They're reviewed by boards of education, many of whose members think like ... well, like people in Kansas.

8/23/2008 3:39:57 AM

Anon

Perhaps CF has only been reading medical texts from before the mid-1970's?

9/5/2010 1:54:19 PM

Agahnim

You must be reading fundie-approved books, then.

10/22/2011 6:42:51 PM

1 2 | top: comments page