Rainbows banned at Mississauga Catholic school

The fact that you compare homosexuals to thieves and murderers disgusts me.

Shame.

Sapta is using an exaggerated example to demonstrate a point and all you see is the comparison (that is, as aforementioned; exaggerated) and feel disgust. Blind.

If they're focused on Sin they should worry more about viagra. Clearly the work of the devil.

If they're focused on Sin they should worry more about viagra. Clearly the work of the devil.

Why? Apparently now condoms are a go! Milk it baby! (oh, too many puns)

Shame.

Sapta is using an exaggerated example to demonstrate a point and all you see is the comparison (that is, as aforementioned; exaggerated) and feel disgust. Blind.

What point? If the point is that it's okay to discriminate a certain group in his opinion, then I still feel disgust.

"Hate the sin and not the sinner". And you can actually claim that there's people who hate homosexuality, but do not hate homosexuals? Teaching that homosexuality is a sin, is also teaching that homosexuals are sinners.

"Hate the sin and not the sinner". And you can actually claim that there's people who hate homosexuality, but do not hate homosexuals? Teaching that homosexuality is a sin, is also teaching that homosexuals are sinners.

Incorrect, by their teachings homosexuality is a choice, just like theft, murder, rape and any other sin.
Therefore you hate the sin, love the sinner, and try to reform them.

The other alternative there from their view point would be to say that homosexuals were made that way and are therefore irredeemable and incapable of salvation.
That'd be bad for two reasons, #1 it'd imply god made mistakes and #2 it'd imply we didn't have any reason to be allowed to live.

The other logical alternative of course is that they're placing their faith in an out-dated overly edited collection of stigma and mythology and selectively choosing which pieces of it are magically still true and accurate ways to live your life while disregarding the ones they find inconvenient. They aren't too fond of that alternative for some reason.

What point? If the point is that it's okay to discriminate a certain group in his opinion, then I still feel disgust.

"Hate the sin and not the sinner". And you can actually claim that there's people who hate homosexuality, but do not hate homosexuals? Teaching that homosexuality is a sin, is also teaching that homosexuals are sinners.

Just for clarification the people aren't discriminated, they frown on the actions of those people and try to convince them not to do it. Of course people in their clubhouse also discourage them to advertise them breaking their clubhouse rules.

Also consider reading the bible so you look less..silly with your opinions.

Some religions and religious people ignore the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. In biology/anatomy, the concept of "Structure = Function" is key to understanding how things in the human body work. This is very general, but many studies have found differences in the brain structure of homosexual men when compared to heterosexual men. Homosexual men GENERALLY have a brain that is structurally more like a female's brain than a heterosexual man's brain. My biology teacher, who I find to be an very smart man (he's very well respected in the scientific community, too) even taught us about how differences in hypothamalus size in heterosexual men and homosexual men cause differences in hormones and sexual orientation (The homosexual made had a larger node in their hypothalamus, much like females when compared to heterosexual men). I know it's Wikipedia, but this article is a good read if you want to know more.

On my own personal moral compass, it's a sin to treat homosexuals any different from heterosexuals. Being homosexual is not a choice, but apart of who you are. Religion says we were made in God's image, right? If God didn't want homosexuals to exist, they wouldn't. All humans are the same, and it doesn't matter what sexual orientation you are - God loves everyone and everything he made. Don't get me wrong, I'm agnostic, so I'm open to both possibilities of God existing and not existing. I just try to be a good person and make life better for other people, and I don't do it for whatever reward I may get in a life after the current one that may or may not exist.

Just for clarification the people aren't discriminated, they frown on the actions of those people and try to convince them not to do it. Of course people in their clubhouse also discourage them to advertise them breaking their clubhouse rules.

Also consider reading the bible so you look less..silly with your opinions.

Read Dan Brown's The Lost Temple before you read the Bible to make the experience much more better, since I'm pretty sure Satellite would not want to read the Bible even if it was the only book in a pit that I pushed him into.

Some religions and religious people ignore the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. In biology/anatomy, the concept of "Structure = Function" is key to understanding how things in the human body work. This is very general, but many studies have found differences in the brain structure of homosexual men when compared to heterosexual men. Homosexual men GENERALLY have a brain that is structurally more like a female's brain than a heterosexual man's brain. My biology teacher, who I find to be an very smart man (he's very well respected in the scientific community, too) even taught us about how differences in hypothamalus size in heterosexual men and homosexual men cause differences in hormones and sexual orientation (The homosexual made had a larger node in their hypothalamus, much like females when compared to heterosexual men). I know it's Wikipedia, but this article is a good read if you want to know more.

So because some guys have less testosterone and are thus predisposed to a slightly more effeminate nature, they are now unequivocally born gay? Uh...no.

People that take illegal drugs for a while experience a change in their brain chemistry. Does that change then make the taking of those illegal substances no longer a choice? No, it doesn't.

There is completely and blatantly no evidence that homosexuality isn't a choice. It is definitely and totally a choice. Some men may be more feminine than society wants to accept, but that doesn't make them gay, they choose that lifestyle. Some women may be more masculine than is socially acceptable, but deciding to have sex with only women is absolutely their choice.

So because some guys have less testosterone and are thus predisposed to a slightly more effeminate nature, they are now unequivocally born gay? Uh...no.

People that take illegal drugs for a while experience a change in their brain chemistry. Does that change then make the taking of those illegal substances no longer a choice? No, it doesn't.

There is completely and blatantly no evidence that homosexuality isn't a choice. It is definitely and totally a choice. Some men may be more feminine than society wants to accept, but that doesn't make them gay, they choose that lifestyle. Some women may be more masculine than is socially acceptable, but deciding to have sex with only women is absolutely their choice.

mmhm, just as using your left hand to write with is absolutely your choice.
Countless generations of children beaten and bound into using their right hands prove that "brain structure" for handedness does not exist.

/sarcasm, for those with broken detectors *cough* satellite

There's no 100% proof that homosexuality is your choice and there's no 100% proof that homosexuality is based on genetics.

My argument; passive disposition =/= born this way
Thus; decrease in standard levels of sexual hormones = passive disposition. NOT born homosexual.

EDIT:

There's no 100% proof that homosexuality is your choice and there's no 100% proof that homosexuality is based on genetics.

I'm a bit of a black or white thinker. So pardon me if i'm being a bit obtuse. If there's no 100% proof that homosexuality is based on genetics, wouldn't that, by default, make it a choice?

So because some guys have less testosterone and are thus predisposed to a slightly more effeminate nature, they are now unequivocally born gay? Uh...no.

People that take illegal drugs for a while experience a change in their brain chemistry. Does that change then make the taking of those illegal substances no longer a choice? No, it doesn't.

There is completely and blatantly no evidence that homosexuality isn't a choice. It is definitely and totally a choice. Some men may be more feminine than society wants to accept, but that doesn't make them gay, they choose that lifestyle. Some women may be more masculine than is socially acceptable, but deciding to have sex with only women is absolutely their choice.

It isn't just testosterone. You're being quite closed minded about this; the brain is MUCH more complicated then that, and humans as a whole are just beginning to understand it - we haven't even scratched the surface. The STRUCTURE and SHAPE of their brain is DIFFERENT. That effects many more hormones than just testosterone! That effects more then just hormones as well, it effects how they process things and how their brain functions and much more than I could even begin to explain and understand. There is no ONE CAUSE for being homosexual, it's a cumulative effect. Just as there is no ONE CAUSE for developing heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, and many other diseases. Biology isn't as simple as many people believe and want it to be. Every human, every living thing is complex. Homosexuals are born that way; there is no choice.

"There is completely and blatantly no evidence that homosexuality isn't a choice. " Did you even scan through that Wikipedia article? Your statement is false. Please read these studies.

I'm a bit of a black or white thinker. So pardon me if i'm being a bit obtuse. If there's no 100% proof that homosexuality is based on genetics, wouldn't that, by default, make it a choice?

No. Lack of evidence doesn't prove something.

My argument; passive disposition =/= born this way
Thus; decrease in standard levels of sexual hormones = passive disposition. NOT born homosexual.

EDIT:


I'm a bit of a black or white thinker. So pardon me if i'm being a bit obtuse. If there's no 100% proof that homosexuality is based on genetics, wouldn't that, by default, make it a choice?

Read the beginning of the sentence O_o.

It would be St. Joseph's that does it. Used to live near there.

All I'm gonna say about this thread is two things.

One, nice ultra conservative board that school has. :|

Two, it's saddening they chose that route, leading to adding more fuel to Satellite's hatred to God. xd

It isn't just testosterone. You're being quite closed minded about this; the brain is MUCH more complicated then that, and humans as a whole are just beginning to understand it - we haven't even scratched the surface.

Quite so. I make no apologies for having a firm opinion either.

Biology isn't as simple as many people believe and want it to be. Every human, every living thing is complex. Homosexuals are born that way; there is no choice.

I feel I know a fair bit about general biology. Not an expert by any means but I squeaked by with an A in Bio 1 and Bio 2. Among the things I learned, I also learned that homosexuality isn't something a person is 'born with'.

"There is completely and blatantly no evidence that homosexuality isn't a choice. " Did you even scan through that Wikipedia article? Your statement is false.

Nah, I didn't scan through that wikipedia article, didn't even open it. However, i'll go ahead and read through your below linked articles and voice any concerns I have with them, and hopefully you can set my mind at ease.

Please

--"It shows a different physiological response to the same external stimulus," said Ivanka Savic, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute and the study's lead researcher. "This response [occurred] in the brain region involved in reproductive behavior."

Different =/= homosexual. Nor does it say arousal. In fact, it only says different. As you yourself said, biology isn't simple. Just because the response occurred in the brain region (region, just the general area mind you) involved in reproductive behavior doesn't mean much at all towards the homo/heterosexual debate. In fact, it could mean the opposite of what is being suggested. It could also be a reaction of disdain or disgust. Doesn't say, so don't assume. Wish I could tell those scientists that.

--"It directly shows a link between brain activity and sexual orientation," said Hamer, the NIH geneticist.

It shows that gay men interpret female sex hormones different than straight men. That means absolutely nothing until 'different' is defined. Scientists are supposed to be unbiased but when people like Hamer, a dramatic proponent of the 'born gay' hypothesis interpret the word 'different' their bias shines so brightly it makes their opinion effectively worthless.

--Hamer cautions that the gay men's different brain activity could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. But, he said, "it certainly seems unlikely that somehow being interested in men would cause the brain to rewire itself in such a dramatic way."

Why? Because he's biased. When someone shoots up meth, their brain chemistry changes. It actually changes from that. That's dramatic isn't it? Yet such an outcome isn't questioned. Why is it questioned that a gay man may have a different (note again: not good or bad, just different, it isn't defined) reaction to female sex hormones after having had gay sex throughout his life? BIAS!

--Scientists at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, found that gay men preferred odors from other gay men, while odors from gay men were the least preferred by straight men and women.

Do smokers like the smell of smoke? Sure. Did they before they smoked? Mostly, no. Rather irrelevant when basic logic is applied.

I did a little bit more research, let me share. The leader on this study, Ivanka Savic-Berglund, had this to say after conducting the study,

"I want to be extremely cautious - this [my] study (Brain Response to Putative Pheromones in Homosexual Men) does not tell us anything about whether sexual orientation is hardwired in the brain. It doesn't say anything about that."

source

Did you catch that?

does not tell us anything about whether sexual orientation is hardwired in the brain.

It doesn't say anything about that.

He's the lead researcher on this study. Your link, and this study is completely invalid as a demonstration of anything at all. There's no proof, there's no support for your belief. None in this study.

read

First thing I noticed when reading this article, it's not peer reviewed, in fact it's just opinions of this man who has his degree in psychotherapy....which isn't genetics afaik.

--During the 1990's evidence was found that a gene could be the root cause of homosexuality.

A gene could be the root cause. Could. Might be, might not. Could. Lolwut?

--It was thought that the X chromosome, which is passed from the mother to the son, carried the variability that accounted for becoming gay.

Firstly, it was thought is in past tense. Not It is thought/believed.
Secondly, there's always a degree of variability within the genes. It's the argument of nature vs nurture. As I said earlier, a disposition (read variability) doesn't mean born that way.

--More recently, both the X and Y chromosomes have been investigated to determine the causes of homosexuality.

Cool, so there was investigation done. Fantastic! Yet....I don't hear results. Oh wait, lemme read a bit further.

--All of these studies have been successful to the extent that they have found genetic factors to be the cause of homosexuality in fifty to sixty percent of the populations studied.

.........
....
.......
LMFAO!!!!
50-60% is the best they can do?! REALLY??? Know what it takes to prove something? 100% *cough*.

If I was trying to prove that this paper tower was more effective at absorbing water than that paper towel, and my results demonstrated that my paper tower was more effective at absorbing the water 50-60% of the time, i'd call that a stark failure. It's a toss up. In fact, it's more lending to the idea that my paper tower and the other paper towel are very similar.

--Biological Research

Completely irrelevant. All it says is that when a larger sample of boys is taken, there's a higher chance for one to inclined to be gay. I know several families with 4+ boys and none of them are gay. That's all speculation and garbage. Link to his source for his study?

--The Environment

I believe the environment contributes to the decision to pursue the homosexual lifestyle.

--As a result of everything I have read, learned and experienced as a mental health worker, I long ago concluded that homosexuality is not a matter of choice.

Bias. Long ago he decided that homosexuality was born, not a choice. Thus, he's going to read and state things with his bias. In determining whether controversial evidence supports or rejects a theory, don't turn to someone that believes firmly in one side or the other because they'll obviously interpret the data with that bias.

This source of yours is irrelevant. Not only is it not peer reviewed but merely an opinion, it's also heavily biased by a man that decided long ago what he believed.

these

...sheep? really?

I read the article and, honestly, I can't even take it seriously. There are just so many issues. We aren't sheep, we don't live like sheep, our biology isn't comparable. It's completely silly.

studies.

--"This refutes the idea that hormones are the only story in sexual differentiation of the brain. That has been the dogma in the field for 30 years," said Dr. Eric Vilain, an assistant professor of human genetics and urology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles, who led the research.

Note: dogma. Clearly, the leader of this research is biased. Refer to my previous statements about bias.

--In 1993, Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the National Cancer Institute, studied 40 pairs of gay brothers and published his results in Science. With a technique called linkage mapping, Hamer identified a region called Xq28 on the X chromosome (inherited from the mother) that was statistically correlated to homosexuality. In 1995, a second study by Hamer and others confirmed that finding.
--In 1999, researchers led by George Rice at the University of Western Ontario in Canada studied the same brain region in 52 gay male sibling pairs and reported contradictory findings. Clearly, more research is needed to prove homosexuality is inherited.

Did you read your articles?

No. Lack of evidence doesn't prove something.

In a way, it does. When some hypothesis challenges a currently standing belief, overwhelming evidence must be supplied to overturn said standing belief.

I suggest everyone just stop conversing with White now. No matter what arguments anyone has, as long as one of the parties holds the belief that lack of evidence proves the contrary, they are a complete lost cause.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you, White, are heterosexual.

With that assumption made, I'll ask you:

Do you choose to be straight? If so, why?

And if you happen to be homosexual, do you choose it? Again, why?

Actually, I'm glad you read the articles. Don't you think it's nice to read up on things and learn more about them? However, it's useless debating with you; someone so entrenched in their beliefs to be blind to other possibilities will never change. Instead of trying to see the other side of the argument, you completely ignore it and mock it as if it is nothing. I only argued so much to one point to get you to see that there is a possibility of it being biological. Instead, you continue down the path of closed mindedness. I cannot reply to your arguments because they are not logical, at least, not logical to me.

Not everything is black and white. You have never taken a stats class, have you? Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING is 100% when it comes to numbers, studies, and experiments. We can NEVER be 100% sure, only 99.99999999999999(etc.)% sure. As humans, we can't even be 100% sure of our own existence. Also, have you ever dissected a sheep brain, heart, eyeball, or other organ in an Anatomy class? Sheep organs are used because they are so similar to human organs. We do have many things in common anatomically with animals such as sheep and pigs.