|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
Is homosexuality a choice or ... I put forward several studies that have been done that show homosexuality is more by choice and environment and falls under a mindset rather than a biological imperative or being of genetic origin: Can you tell me when you decided to be heterosexual? Or did you always know? Very clever. Except that all the evidence I've seen is that homosexuality is an environmentally caused deviation from the norm. In which case your question is invalid, unless you (or anyone really) would like to put forth some studies that prove otherwise to counter the sources and studies I've already posted.
Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now? Why? Why would you expect the genetic traits that govern attraction should always be aligned with the genetic traits for reproduction apparatus during the process of reproduction? Especially when there are several gene sites that could be involved? You do realize that there are many animals with homosexual individuals along with heterosexuals (and that they are not persecuted by their fellow beings)? Bonobos (pygmy chimps) are perhaps the best known. Where did persecution come into this? You'll find that the rates of homosexuals in animals is pretty similar to the rates of homosexuals in humans (2%-6% depending on the study you look at). You'll also find that some of the same causes happen to both (serotonin imbalances for one). In animals as long as you follow the social rules you fit in, which is why humans have dogs and cats as pets, because our social structures are compatible. This is a non-sequitur. The one doesn't necessarily follow the other, because we can come up with multiple reasons why it might be so or not so.
... or is it some biological process. ... and environment ... If it is a biological process that occurs during fetal development due to hormones then this is logically going to be a common recurring result, and still not a choice on the part of the individual. Actually some of the research I linked shows that it happens long after birth and is caused by social (parenting) and sexual factors (sexual abuse) as well as chemical imbalances which can happen during gestation as well as any time after, but generally before early sexual experiences. Can you show some studies that show homosexuality only happens during or before birth?
If it is a biological process it should have been eradicated by evolution right? Why? If the biological conditions that produce the hormones affecting the fetal development are commonly replicated there should be no reason for results to change. See above. Assumptions devoid of facts are not helpful.
If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism). So which side does it fall under and what are the scientific and lawful implications? Why? Your purported choice to be heterosexual should also not be protected in that case, logically speaking, and thus laws should treat all people equally regardless of sexual orientation. Firstly all people should be treated equally under the law, but that does not mean some people can't refuse service to others, especially if it is on another protect right (such as freedom of religion). Secondly, all my research (as I said above) has shown me that homosexuality is a deviation from the normal sexual process brought on by environment, and thus this argument is invalid. We would no more protect psychopaths and sociopaths (mental orientations) than we should protect homosexuals beyond the ways we protect all humans.
The scientific implications are that we don't know yet all the causes or reasons, but studies have shown than one cannot decide to be other than what they are (see Vimsey above and I have had similar experience). Whether it is strictly genetic, strictly hormone\environment\developmental or a combination is really irrelevant: the people are still fully human beings and members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Scientifically there is no more difference than there is between any two individuals. Except for the fact that voluntary therapies have been shown to reverse the effects of homosexuality. Combine this with our previous knowledge that homosexuality appears to simply be a deviation caused by environment and we end up with another invalid argument (unless you are homosexual and have voluntarily tried the therapies and failed, then its just a matter of sample sizes not being high enough).
The lawful implications are what we as society decide to do in making laws, and whether we want those laws to be equitable and just in their treatment of individuals or we want to be oppressive and discriminatory. And in a country where we purportedly value independence, liberty, justice and equality, it seems to me logical that there should be no restriction on how people want to behave in private between consenting adults.
I agree, what people do in private is their own business, however its come to more than that. Its come to the point where you disagree or refuse service to a homosexual (even though its legal to do both for 'no reason') that you are looking at a monetary fine or jail time. Its getting to the point where if you so much as speak negatively about homosexuality (like me here positing that its an environmentally caused mental state that is a deviation from the norm) you are looking at jail time or fines. I would say that's counterproductive to free thought and freedom.
As far as laws go, I would propose that these guidelines should apply: First do no harm or through inaction cause harm to occurSecond do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Agreed. Unfortunately the laws go way beyond that, and to the point of mandating acceptance.
Finally I note that the preamble to the constitution states:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. We have become more perfect with time as we have increased the freedom and liberty of others, more just in our laws treating people as equals, but there is still room to grow and become even more perfect still. The constitution doesn't list exceptions. It gives no preference to any religious beliefs or biased beliefs. You are correct, however homosexuals should not get special treatment under the law over others. So should it be illegal for Christians and other religions to not hire homosexuals or serve them? According to the Boy Scouts law suit it was deemed that it shouldn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
lokiare writes: Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID Evolution doesn't say anything about the morality of homosexuality.It just acknowledges that homosexual behaviour exists. This is kind of obvious. This is what is called a straw man. No where did I talk of morals in relation to evolution. I asked how homosexuality would not be culled out by evolution if evolution were true.
It's pretty clear that a literal reading of the Bible (especially the Old Testament) shows it to be against homosexuality. It's also pretty clear that a literal reading of the Bible is... um... well... it's silly. Ridiculous. Laughable. Care to put forth some proof for this claim? It appears you are dipping into the argument from incredulity fallacy. Not that it has any bearing on the subject of this thread, which is a purely secular one.
Anyone who thinks the passages against homosexuality are valid, but the passages against shellfish and mixing fibres are not is going against a literal reading of the Bible. They are putting their own interpretation on the passages, pulling certain things out of context and not others inconsistently, and their motives for doing so are extremely obvious. Even though this is entirely off topic and has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, I'll answer it anyway. Sin wasn't picked randomly. God didn't just put his hand in a hat and say "Ok, this is a sin, and this is not.". Sin leads to death. So if eating shellfish leads to death, then it is a sin (red tide and certain micro-organisms, which we now can test for that they couldn't test for then). From a biblical perspective if its called a sin, then it leads to death in some way shape or form. Everything listed can be found to lead to death. If you mixed your cottons with other fabrics you weren't as well protected from the sun and would die more easily from heat exhaustion or it would cause more stress on you so that you died earlier than you could have. There is a whole list of things they did back then like thoroughly cooking meats, avoiding pork, not touching dead things, etc...etc... that all lead to early death, which is why they were sins. Some sins lead to physical death (homosexuality and its practices have a much higher incidence of STDs than heterosexuality and its practices for instance), and others to a spiritual death (promiscuity makes a special loving act between two dedicated people into a common occurrence that has little or no meaning, so that when a promiscuous individual finally settles down one of the pillars of the relationship is pretty much near meaningless). However as I've said that is far off topic for this thread.
Reading the Bible as a whole, understanding that certain aspects were for a long-dead civilization, and focusing on the morality of the New Testament... well... the Bible's still against homosexuality, but it's much easier to explain away in light of other more general passages. Actually the new testament was written during Roman times when homosexuality was an oddity, but not persecuted or even looked down upon. So they were going against social norms, not with them.
As far as morality in general goes: Anyone who is "against homosexuality" in the sense that they don't like it and don't want anything to do with it and they may even find it disgusting... you're perfectly within your rights to feel this way. Some people like it, some don't. It's really not a big deal. No one cares if you get freaked out by snakes either... it's kind of funny to those of us who think snakes are cool and awesome... but no one really cares about your personal psychological issues. We all have our own to deal with. The problem is those of us that don't like snakes are being forced to pick them up and pet them and snakes are being put into out every form of entertainment and if we say we don't like them we are fined, sued, or thrown in jail for bigotry.
Anyone who is "against homosexuality" in the sense that they want to stop adults from having sex with each other for any reason whatsoever... you're evil. Regardless of the basis for your ideas. It can come from the Bible, or your beliefs, or your grand-daddy's dying words. If you want to stop adults from doing something that doesn't hurt anyone and actually spreads love throughout this world... you're evil. You're against Love. And I spit upon your honour. I think that most of us in the Christian community feel that it is wrong, but wouldn't go so far as to break into peoples houses and force them to stop. Without the freedom to choose to be or not to be a Christian, you really cannot be saved. Also homosexuality spreads a lot more than love. Its one of the leading groups in spreading STDs. Actually, I don't know where you get that homosexuality spreads love at. The only thing I've seen is that it spreads promiscuity which in turn spreads disease. There is a major difference between love (which can be spread by individuals by their actions regardless of who or what they are) and sexual desire.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
The key thing to take away is that not liking something is not persecution or bigotry. But refusing to bake someone a cake because they are gay is, in fact, bigotry. No more than refusing to bake a vegan only cake is or refusing to bake a cake for someone that isn't wearing a shirt or shoes. Refusing service isn't bigotry. Its refusing service.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
locklare writes: Nice try Chicken. {Sarcasm}Wow, your cogent fact filled argument totally changed my world view!{/Sarcasm} I don't really have to try this because the billion dollar homosexual lobby pays producers to put homosexual scenes into every show and movie they can. So I get plenty of exposure and I have zero attraction to it. I've gotten to the point where I'll just fast forward through any episode or show that has it, as it just isn't entertaining to me, in the same way that a romantic comedy scene is not entertaining to someone watching a political thriller (who likes political thrillers, but does not like romantic comedies).
One this would not work unless you had a large enough sample size to weed out randomness. Second it wouldn't prove anything one way or the other. This is a personal challenge, we've put aside randomised samples and control groups. This is about YOU personally. A sample of 1. I'm asking you to put your hand in the wound, Thomas. Go look at a gay porn site and see if you can get an erection. Let us know how you get on. I've already refuted this and exposure to a visual and auditory media is known to influence individuals. I personally don't want to be subjected to things I don't like and I certainly don't want to be influences subconsciously by them. How about you sit down and watch several hours of a Christian broadcast of the Brownsville revival and see what that does to you? No, ok.
The one thing that most people don't understand is that it is reversible and treatable. There are many testimonies of willing people that have undergone therapy to reverse their (I want to use another neutral word, but can't find one) addition to the same gender and who live normal lives afterwords. And this is total, absolute and revolting drivel, but we can discuss it later. Nope, here let me link and post the relevant bits: from http://www.janetboynesministries.com/aboutjanet.html
quote: There are hundreds or even thousands of people that VOLUNTARILY choose to go to these therapies and are able to live normal heterosexual lifestyles afterwards. I understand that homosexuals come out vehemently against these things and claim they don't exist, but they do in fact exist. Which proves that it is a choice, not an easy choice, but a choice non the less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
Do you have any proof that "... that homosexual gender attraction is not a choice.". Studies? surveys? anything to factually back this up and negate the link I posted that lists many studies showing it is environmental and choice based? Actually, it lists no studies showing that homosexuality is "choice based". This rather tends to vitiate your argument. Actually I just posted above this post in response to another poster where someone was able to change their orientation after years of homosexuality. So my point stands. The question stands also: Do you have any studies, surveys, or proof showing otherwise?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
Because it is getting to the point where it is coming into direct conflict with the laws that protect the free exorcise of religion. Your free exercise of religion stops where you interfere with others' free rights of conscience.
... now being sued and threatened with criminal conduct ... No. It is a tort action, not criminal. There is a major difference. It may become criminal at some time in the future just like racial discrimination is today. And it our secular society decides to criminalize this religious form of bigotry the all the better. Someone's sexual orientation is none of your business. Keep your hate in your church, not in my marketplace. Strange how its not discrimination to tell someone they won't be served an all vegetable plate, or that they won't serve people without shirts or shoes, but that it is discrimination to tell someone that due to religious beliefs protected by law and constitution that they won't serve them. Its also seems that its bigotry to dislike something that is a choice. I personally don't like liver and think anyone that eats it is gross. I won't serve liver at my table and I ask that people leave liver at home when they come over. I guess I'm a liver bigot by the same standards they use for homosexuality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
So its more akin to a mental psychosis (not exactly, I'm looking for a more neutral word) [...] (I want to use another neutral word, but can't find one) "Sexual orientation". You're welcome. Sexual orientation doesn't mean the same thing. Its very ambiguous. I'm looking for a word that encompasses the environmental impact as well as the chemical reinforcement that the brain does during climax repeatedly. Mental State, Mental Habit, Mental Addiction. Something like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
In fact its the religious freedoms that forcing those things would violate.... Nope - you and your church are free to have any beliefs you want to, but when you offer a public service you are expected to offer that service to anyone -- because you need to respect the beliefs of others rather than try to hold them to your beliefs: that is religious freedom. Actually those rights don't stop at the church door. They are covered by 'religious expression' which refusing to serve certain services (such as marriage related products or services) fall under.
It also has to do with what people consider persecution and bigotry. I once went to a forum and expressed my dislike of all of the homosexual lobbying that was putting homosexual scenes in every show. I said something along the lines that I was not entertained by it anymore than someone who doesn't like scenes of romantic comedy in their serious political thrillers. Shortly after I was severely 'persecuted' for having an opinion. So you expressed you bigoted view and found out that some people were annoyed by it. Did you learn anything by this experience? Your attempts to get under my skin by using controversial terminology won't work. To even be able to say my view is bigoted you have to prove that homosexuality is somehow natural and normal, that I am insulting or denigrating it (rather than just not like it), and that I am somehow persecuting it. I would no more force someone to watch a romantic comedy than I want to be forced to watch homosexual behavior in every tv show or movie I see. So far you haven't put forth a single fact to back up your viewpoint yet. Hopefully your next response will be a fact filled one that at least attempts to refute what I've posted. Otherwise I may have to ignore your posts in favor of those that actually want to be productive.
The key thing to take away is that not liking something is not persecution or bigotry. Sorry, you are free to have bigoted beliefs and people are free to persecute you for being bigoted -- that is what freedom is about. Trying to paper over your bigotry by calling it dislike, to pretend that you are not a bigot, is your option. It doesn't fool anyone but you. You can dislike chocolate ice-cream, but if you try to prevent other people from eating chocolate ice-cream then you are going much further than just dislike. The assumption here is that me or anyone else has tried to force others to stop liking homosexuality. I have nothing but love for homosexuals, however it has nothing to do with their homosexuality. It has to do with their humanity. Until I've been shown some reason to change my mind, I'm sticking with the idea that homosexuality is a deviation from a normal process caused by environmental factors backed up by chemical addiction in the brain (caused by climaxes being rewarded with positive endorphins) For the bigotry comments see above.
The second thing is we have to get rid of all those signs and clauses in contracts that say "we can do these things without having a reason at all.". This is nonsense -- perhaps you could explain better with an example? Look at the rules for this very forum. They have a clause that says moderators can do anything they want whether or not you are violating the rules. Is that being bigoted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all? Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now? There are 2 plausible explanations. First, the alleles responsible for homosexuality are also involved in other important and beneficial adaptations. We see the same situation with sickle cell anemia where heterozygotes are protected against malaria which selects for the allele, even though there is negative selection in the case of homozygotes. Any negative selection caused by a preference for the same sex may be outweighed by other factors that increase fitness. This is all pure speculation. Is there any science that has identified a homosexual gene or allele? As far as I can tell, there have not been any so this whole line of reasoning is invalid.
Second, social species do not have to personally reproduce in order to pass on their genes. This is called kin selection. If you are able to support your siblings and increase their chances of having children then you are also increasing the chances that the genes you carry will be passed on. This second one is more valid, but still over millions of years it would have been weeded out if it were genetic. Since this is only observed in social species, it is more likely that homosexuality is a social mental state.
If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism). Two bad conclusions here. First, homosexuality is a biological drive as much as heterosexuality is. Proven false in posts above. At best its a deviation from the norm brought on by environment and cemented in through chemical reward from repetition of climax endorphins. Unless someone has any evidence at all to show that this is not so?
Second, we don't decide what is and isn't legal by what is or isn't "natural". We could argue that wearing clothes is not a natural or biological process, so we should outlaw it. That doesn't make much sense. It seems that you are committing the Naturalistic fallacy here. Actually I'm not. Since I'm saying that because it falls into the category of choice/environment it shouldn't. So this doesn't even come close to the naturalist fallacy. Environment != Natural. Much of a persons environment is contrived by other individuals and thus is not natural.
I put forward several studies that have been done that show homosexuality is more by choice and environment and falls under a mindset rather than a biological imperative or being of genetic origin: Science Shows That Homosexuals Are Not "Born That Way." Free Republic? No thanks. Do you have any scientific references? Attacking the source rather than the facts presented? Ad hominem alert. Attack the facts and not the source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
lokiare writes: The key thing to take away is that not liking something is not persecution or bigotry. You're half right: bigotry is indeed an inner state, not a behavior; persecution and other discriminatory acts are behavior. I am astonished that you will not defend your premise that only biologically determined characteristics should be protected by law, preferring to claim the question is an attempt to "box you in". But you have boxed yourself. Without that premise, your argument is nonsense. I find some religious tenets abhorrent: may I refuse service to anyone I suspect of embracing them? Actually, the 'box' is something of your creation. My premise isn't that it shouldn't be protected by law because its 'biologically determined characteristics', its that its a choice (sometimes imposed from the outside through the environment). The fact that a homosexual can change into a heterosexual by choice proves that it is a choice. Now compare that to all the things that the law declares as 'civil' rights, things like age (no choice), sex (no choice), race (no choice), etc...etc... It doesn't compare. You are comparing apples to oranges.
lokiare writes: So the equivalency would be for every restaurant to be required to have a vegetarian option or be considered to be persecuting vegetarians. No, the equivalent would be refusing to serve salads to vegetarians because they won't eat the meat. What if that restaurant doesn't have salads or the materials to make them? Suddenly they are persecuting those poor vegetarians that chose to eat salads instead of meat.
It also has to do with what people consider persecution and bigotry. I once went to a forum and expressed my dislike of all of the homosexual lobbying that was putting homosexual scenes in every show. I said something along the lines that I was not entertained by it anymore than someone who doesn't like scenes of romantic comedy in their serious political thrillers. Shortly after I was severely 'persecuted' for having an opinion. One frequently hears that a chorus of condemnation is an affront to free speech rights. That's as ridiculous as your attempt to allocate equal treatment under the law on biologic grounds. It is also typically the complaint of bigots. Wow, Appeal to equality (somehow being able to say I don't like something is equated with a homosexuals right to force their beliefs on me), Psychogenetic Fallacy ("Chorus of Condemnation" because some other group did it, I must be using the same tactic, despite the facts presented), Straw Man (biologic grounds, no where did I say that.), and argument from incredulity (Claiming something is ridiculous without presenting facts to prove it so) all in the same two sentences. I applaud you for your efforts. Please present facts, surveys, or other data to back up your claims and/or ideas to further the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
... A christian bakery is now being sued and threatened with criminal conduct for choosing not to serve a homosexual couple for example. ... Nope. A PUBLIC bakery discriminated against a couple based on the bigoted beliefs of the owner. And you are now ignored until you present some facts to back up your use of the word bigoted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
quote:Like religion. I'm glad you can see how it is now time to sweep away all the false religions protected by law and force everyone to convert to the true faith and worship the king of kings, lord of lords, Odin the Allfather. Or, we could protect everyone from general discrimination and not make special laws for homosexuals or Christians. Provocation will only get you more facts. Your tactics seem shallow to me. Also nothing like Religion. Religion is a personal belief system (from a secular viewpoint). A person can have homosexual urges and still think its wrong or be of a particular religion. False dichotomies are false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
Because it is getting to the point where it is coming into direct conflict with the laws that protect the free exorcise of religion. A christian bakery is now being sued and threatened with criminal conduct for choosing not to serve a homosexual couple for example. So it actually is our business. You'll notice that we didn't really care until that point. We tried to convert them, but that was it. Well my religion says that i cannot do business with black people, and now i can be sued, Nazis tried to make them white with blue eyes and the world condemned such experiments and prosecuted the scientists. Strange, my religion doesn't tell me I can't do business with homosexuals, only that homosexuality is a sin (which leads to death). Choosing not to serve homosexuals is an attempt to show dislike for the specific act of homosexual marriage. Also nice Reductio ad Hitlerum, its always nice to see people compare a religion to Nazi beliefs, even though the two aren't comparable. One being a religion and the other being a political viewpoint. Just to be clear I've had homosexual friends in the past, and never discriminated against anyone in my life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
People who have sickle cell anemia are immune or resistant to malaria a wide spread disease in some areas. There is a reason it persisted. There is no reason for homosexuality (if it were genetic) to persist. Perhaps you could produce the evidence for this claim? Sure, hope you don't mind a link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/04/110428123931.htm
quote: My example is that every restaurant is forced to serve vegetarian options on their menus. False. Vegetarians can order anything off the menu, just like anyone else. There is no discrimination. If it were comparable, you would not let vegetarians enter your restaurant. Ok, so if they sold only heterosex cakes and decorations, then they shouldn't be sued? "I'm sorry, we only sell cakes that have a male and female name on them and a heterosexual couple decoration on top. You are just out of luck?" I don't think that would fly anymore than the vegetarian example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3679 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
I can speak from personal experience. Really? So you've voluntarily gone through sexual therapy to try to become a heterosexual and failed? Can you tell us the specifics of why it failed or anything of that nature (if its too personal don't worry about it).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024