megan #fundie

megan #fundie forum.myspace.com

[On <a href="http://channels.netscape.com/whatsnew/default.jsp?story=20060222-1317">this</a> study out of UCLA with more evidence that homosexuality is genetic.]
oh wow. a small study is going to change my beliefs. i don't think so.

pray tell, what exactly are you trying to prove? because bibically, homosexuality is a sin just as other sins, and since we are inherently born into this world as sinful people, this really should just be more proof that God does in fact exist.

63 comments

old comment by Crosis

<<< I don't believe at all that homosexuality is genetic, logically if it were, gays would have sex (bare no kids *gasp*) and the gays would die, and the genes would die with them. >>>
Yes and no. A recessive trait would take a long time to get bred out of the population in any case, since it only shows up in 25% of children from heterozygous-heterozygous pairings. (This is, of course, a major simplification; if it's controlled by more than one gene - and it likely is - things get more complicated). Aside from that, one gene can often have multiple, very different effects (for instance, the same gene that causes sickle cell anemia also confers immunity to malaria).

old comment by Cindy

did anyone even read this post she made?
"you did not even bother to take into account what my beliefs ARE. no study done will convince me that God does not view everyone equally in His eyes. no study done will convince me that i should not see everyone accordingly. what is so wrong about that, that is making you hand pick me? and of course, no one thinks the beliefs they have are wrong. that is why they have them in the first place." http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&groupID=100007274&page=10&EntryID=13209355 &CategoryID=0&get=1&adTopicId=27&lastpagesent=5&Mytoken=D39F56FB-DD35-8494-9D0C5DFFBF50DD545004212

old comment by David D.G.

Megan, what makes homsexuality different from "other sins" is that it is inborn; it does NOT equate with, say, promiscuity or adultery -- plenty of straight people commit those.
"Sin" is a choice, or it isn't sin, period; otherwise, God has deliberately skewed the grading curve just to mess with us. ("Original sin" is a concept I reject for that reason. But just to cover it here, if homosexuality were an indication of "original sin," we would ALL have it -- and there are plenty of us straights to show otherwise.) Since homosexuality is NOT a choice, but an inborn feature, it cannot be sin. You can argue that it isn't the norm, but there is nothing inherently evil or sinful about it, any more than there is about straight sexuality. ~David D.G.

old comment by David D.G.

Megan, you have a tendency to put things exclusively in religious terms. I prefer to use secular terms -- in this instance, psychology (or at least a lay version of it).
Human nature has its good side and its bad side. I think that most people, most of the time, support the good side of their natures (generally follow the law, help friends and family, don't cheat at cards, etc.), but most of us also, I think, give in to the temptations of the bad side from time to time in varying degrees (drive over the speed limit because everyone else does, keep that excess change the clerk gave, lie to parent/significant other to avoid getting in trouble for something). Absolute goodness is just not consistent with evolved human nature; we are too well wired for self-interest, genetically speaking. That does not mean that we can't use our minds to fight those selfish instincts in the pursuit of our better natures, but it explains why we so often fail. As for why Jesus was crucified, if indeed the whole incident occurred even remotely as the Bible describes it, my understanding is that he was punished by the Romans (who acted as proxy for the Jewish priests and political VIPs) for threatening to upset the local religiopolitical power structure. In essence, he was showing up the corruption of those in power, and those in power didn't like being shown up -- so they made an example of him to stop him cold and to discourage other potential upstarts. That's it. It was a little more drawn out than a mob hit, but it was a similar kind of situation. At least nowadays, politicians usually just crucify their rivals in the media with innuendoes and accusations (which may or may not be true, but that's not really the point). And in some countries, they do arrange their deaths, though generally no longer in a form of public torture by an occupying state force. ~David D.G.

old comment by Sierra

[r]evolution -
Here are a few things to consider before posting: 1. This site is called "Fundies Say The Darndest Things!", not "Fundies are Terrible People with Absolutely No Redeeming Qualities." A fundy does not have to be unrepentantly evil to be quoted on this website. 2.This website is also not called "Fundies Are Stupid Because They Disagree With Us." Megan's post was not accepted simply because it is anti-gay, and thus bringing up that she's not as anti-gay as some people is completely irrelevant. This post was accepted because it was humorous, not simply because it was anti-gay. 3. This site is additionally not called "Entire Threads in Which Fundies Participate." If you have yet to notice, this WHOLE WEBSITE is a compilation of quotes taken "out of context." If we were to publish the entire context of every single quote, the site would simply be unmanageable. 4. This post was published before her subsequent posts on the thread, so context did not exist when the majority of the comments were published. Therefore it is very unfair to - how did you put it? Attack blindly? - the people who responded to this quote when it was first put up. 5. Context does not change the humor value of this post. This post is funny because she's saying, "This study won't change my beliefs, but just in case it turns out to be correct, this study fit with my beliefs all along." That she supports equal rights for gays has absolutely nothing to do with why this post was accepted. Have a nice day.

old comment by NonHomogenized

Oh no, we've pissed off Myspace! Now we'll have hordes of teenagers coming to whine and cry at us, and maybe cut themselves. :-D
My responses, in order, to megan and those who posted here to defend her (or just attack FSTDT. It's not entirely clear in [r]evolution's case): Megan: Whether you fight for gay rights or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a) you hold to your beliefs in spite of evidence, and b) that you try to claim that the evidence (which you just acknowledged is contrary to your own stated beliefs) as evidence for your beliefs. Also, your statement "because bibically, homosexuality is a sin just as other sins, and since we are inherently born into this world as sinful people, this really should just be more proof that God does in fact exist." is a non-sequitor; the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises... unless your premise is that god exists, in which case it's circular logic. Cindy: Congratulations. You contributed something utterly irrelevant to this discussion. You must feel special. [r]evolution: You said; "I love the fact that the majority of the posts you people make are actually more along the lines of juvenile insults than anything else." This is not a "discussion" forum, per se. That is, these posts that we're making fun of are addressed to us in particular (usually) on this board. Generally, I think we poke fun at these posts largely as a cathartic activity to keep from becoming incredibly depressed at how stupid people can be. Also, some of the posts are just too funny to not make jokes at their expense. "Even AT that you have to make the intentional choice to take that quote out of said context." Notice the text that says where it was taken from? For example, at the bottom of this quote, it read "megan, Myspace", and the text "Myspace" is hyperlinked to the post, allowing anyone who cares to read the context to do so. "Then again... it's easier to attack blindly than engage intelligently... isn't it?" Not really. Admittedly, some posters are so incoherent that an intelligent response is nearly impossible, but, for the most part, it would be easy (if time-consuming) to write an intelligent response. However, most of the posts that get quoted on FSTDT are strong evidence that any attempt at intelligent discourse is futile, and even writing an intelligent response is a waste of time. It's a much better and more productive use of time and effort to mock. Importantly, I don't merely mock *everyone* who disagrees with me, but rather, the sort of people who tend to get quoted on here. I do engage in reasoned debate, on some fora, under this very same user name.

old comment by Bigfoot

I don't care what you believe, it's when you try and pass your beliefs off as facts that I get pissed. For example:
You wrote: "if sin is a choice, then please explain to me why all people are born sinners. after all, isn't that why Jesus was crucified?" You made a statement as a fact. You didn't say, "I believe all people are bonrn sinners", you said, "all people are born sinners." Period. And by the way, scripture doesn't count as proof, or evidence of any kind (www.skepticsannotatedbible.com). And also, why is homosexuality wrong? Numerous animal species have been shown to engage in homosexual intercourse. You're going to have to come up with better than, "My sky daddy tells me it's wrong."

old comment by Darkpoet1987

Wow, a lot has happened since I last browsed...
To the couple of people that are angry/irritated with fstdt, I think calling everyone of us immature would bring you down to the same level of immaturity because you are making a generalization. Secondly, if you can not learn to laugh at the stupid things you say sometimes, you won't get along decently in an open environment. I've said some very stupid things, and if someone dug deep enough, I'm sure they could find something silly of mine to post on this site.... but I laugh at them. Maybe you should take a look at exactly what the quotes on this site say, and perhaps, seek to either edit or accept the things you've said, posted, or written. Of course, if you want to go and have a fit over it, then go right ahead.

old comment by megan

to bigfoot:
of course i was using biblical references; this was after all in a christian forum that i posted, and so of course i felt safe using such materials as the BIBLE. my beliefs, to me, are a fact, and if not to you, then i don't have to explain myself to you. just like if you were to tell me that God does not exist, i would not badger you for evidence because if that is what you believe, then so be it. homosexuality is wrong biblically but is just like any other sin and i don't like how a lot of christians pinpoint that ONE in particular and make a big deal about it. that is my "evidence." that is what i "believe". if you don't believe in the bible, then really there is nothing i can say to you that will make a difference.

old comment by NonHomogenized

Megan wrote:
"i'm not a teenager. what evidence are you speaking of that would contradict my beliefs?" If you're not a teenager, that just makes you look even worse. Now, I'll admit, I didn't read the myspace thread; I just moved into a new apartment, and I don't yet have internet access at home, so I've been reading FSTDT at work for the last week, and myspace is blocked from the internet connection here. However, your quote implies that a study indicating that homosexuality is genetic contradicts your beliefs (ie, the "a small study is going to change my beliefs. i don't think so." portion of the original quote) This UCLA study is, therefore, evidence which contradicts your beliefs. I don't know what else you personally happen to believe, but, as you say that homosexuality being genetic is *more* proof of god's existence, I'm willing to bet that there's more. But that's just based on a hunch of mine.

old comment by Seomah

Megan:
"my beliefs, to me, are a fact" Sorry but no. Facts are things accepted and taken as true by a vast majority of people, to put it short. A problem with lots of people (fundies and not) is that they think their right to believe everything make their believes true. You can say "my beliefs, to me, are true", and I agree with that, but they are beliefs, not facts. "homosexuality is wrong biblically but is just like any other sin and i don't like how a lot of christians pinpoint that ONE in particular and make a big deal about it." I am not entirely sure about homosexuality being a sin, but I won't discuss that, I accept it. I completely agree with you in the rest of that sentence. And I want to thank you for your intention of defending homosexuals, even if I think that's not the right way to do it. Still, I think your original post has merits to be here. "if you don't believe in the bible, then really there is nothing i can say to you that will make a difference." Sadly, I also agree with that. When you discuss with other people, you have to agree on the terms used and the basis, so to speak. If we agree that 1+1=2 and 2+2=4, I can demonstrate that 1+1+1+1=4 because (1+1)+(1+1)=4 is (2)+(2)=4 and we have agreed on that. But if we disagree on 2+2=4, then my demonstration will not be accepted by you. I hope this (silly) example can explain that the first thing to do in a discussion of this kind is to put clear if the bible is a valid source or not. Even agreeing that the bible is a valid source, there's much more to discuss about homosexuality.

old comment by Seomah

Bigfoot:
You're right. That definition of 'facts' was not quite good. Maybe 'fact: a concept whose truth can be proven' is better. I just tried to explain it with few words. The bible can be a valid source for a discussion, even being full of crap and lies, just like you can argue about who is more powerful, Superman or Hulk. It's just the bible is not a valid source to define reality. One of the more entertaining exercises you can do arguing with a fundie is to agree that the bible is true, then smack down his belief system quoting bible verses, something like Julian has done in the above post quoting Luke. I'm afraid I said something I didn't mean; that wasn't my intention.

old comment by Bigfoot

To megan:
What the fuck? At this point I think you're stupid for what you're posting on this site. You wrote: "when did i say that i didn't care what you thought?" You posted earlier that you "didn't have to keep explaining yourself to me", and yet you continued responding to my posts. Saying that you don't have to explain yourself to me pretty much the same thing. Oh, and you're also stupid because of the post there at the top of this page, the one where you ignore a scientific study because it contradicts your irrational beliefs, and then you go on speculate that we are born as sinful people, and then you try and pass your speculation off as proof that your god exists. You are deluded if you have read the bible (or this site: www.skepticsannotatedbible.com) and you still try and pass off using bible quotes as reasoning, or anything more than fiction, and some pretty piss-poor fiction, I might add. Oh, and I'm the one who's close-minded? Once again, I'm not the one who ignored a scientific study because it happened to contradict my beliefs. I am the one who has read most of the bible, and has considered all possible arguments for and against your sky daddy before giving up beliefs in gods. And I'm not the one who considers homosexuality a sin, which, if you hadn't noticed, means that it is wrong by your bible's definition of sin, and then give no good argument for why homosexuality, an inborn trait which has been shown to be relatively common in many animal species, is wrong. Oh, and you're also stupid because you came onto this site preaching christy bible-talk at everybody, and actually saying that you don't need evidence for your ridiculous beliefs. If you expect any intelligent people to take you seriously, then please, stop acting like a retard.

megan #fundie forum.myspace.com

63 comments

Confused?