Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
106 online now:
dwise1, nwr, xongsmith (3 members, 103 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,180 Year: 6,292/6,534 Month: 485/650 Week: 23/232 Day: 23/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
lokiare
Member (Idle past 2968 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 91 of 1309 (722939)
03-25-2014 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Pressie
03-25-2014 5:23 AM


lokiare

What's your opinion on Intersex people? Do they have a choice about their sexuality? Are Intersex people sinning just by being born Intersex? Are Intersex people being born to be Intersex not a result of genetics?

Hope you do realise that the Theory of Evolution can explain Intersex people very well. Genetics.

This makes me think that there is a genetically induced rainbow of sexuality stretching from being completely heterosexual through bisexual through homosexual trough to being Intersexed.

No choice involved in sexuality.

(Before you go off on a tangent, Intersex is not the same as Transexual).

Can you explain what intersex means? If it does not mean transexual (which is a genetic flaw where certain traits from one sex are imposed on a person of the opposite sex due to various genetic problems some or all stemming from environment)?

From my quick once over on wikipedia it looks to me like intersex individuals fall into the same category as people with other birth defects which can in some cases by corrected by surgery. In all cases they are likely to have a dominant sex from a genetic perspective which can be checked for and then correct their deformations to match that sex. Which has little to do with homosexuality except that some of these people might not have the glands to produce distinctly male and female hormones thus confusing them into thinking they are one or the other when they might in fact be the opposite.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Pressie, posted 03-25-2014 5:23 AM Pressie has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 92 of 1309 (722940)
03-25-2014 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by lokiare
03-25-2014 6:30 PM


Re: choice??
It is a choice, not an easy choice. Many homosexuals are caused by sexual abuse as children (as the studies I linked show).

First, I know plenty of gay people. None of them chose to be gay.

Second, being sexually abused as a child is not a choice.

Besides, our choices of how we want to live our lives is protected by law.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 6:30 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:57 PM Taq has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 2968 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 93 of 1309 (722941)
03-25-2014 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Pressie
03-25-2014 5:35 AM


lokiare writes:

So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all?

Homosexuality sure does fit into the theory of evolution. It's very basic. All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled eukaryotic species. That species reproduced both sexually and asexually, depending on the conditions being favourable for asexual reproduction and other conditions being favourable for sexual reproduction.

Bringing in facts that haven't been vetted nor can be verified, is a bad way to start your proof. Very little if any evidence actually points to all organisms coming from one organism, which is why the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. You can speculate about this all you want, but without transitional fossils showing micro changes leading from one eukaryotic organism to the next you can't call this a fact. It might be the 'best' explanation you can come up with, but it is far from a fact.

Easy.

Even if we were to assume they all came from the same ancestors what would this have to do with homosexuality in social animals who according to my limited research never reproduce asexually? You appear to be comparing apples to space ships.

Now you explain how Intersex people fit into men being poofed into existence and women being taken from a rib of some alledged man and turned into a woman. Please explain the differences in DNA in men and woman that way.

If I were to assume your sentence above then it would easily be fit in by the fall and decay of the world brought on by Adam and Even throwing a wrench into a well working machine. Entropy. Very easy. All defects are caused by environmental factors whether its stress on the creature or previous defects brought forward. This is the same for both the evolution side and the CR/ID side, only the source of the flaws are debated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Pressie, posted 03-25-2014 5:35 AM Pressie has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 2968 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 94 of 1309 (722942)
03-25-2014 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by vimesey
03-25-2014 7:46 AM


Oh, I am following the argument, but I'm not making the mistake which you're making in confusing homosexuality with sexual acts.

Homosexuality is sexual attraction towards your own sex. That is what we don't have a choice in - our sexual attraction to someone.

Where we do have a choice is in whether or not we perform a sexual act. I can be sexually attracted to someone and choose not to do something about it (being the faithful sort that I am). Equally, I can choose to do something sexual with someone I'm not attracted to. That choice will not affect in the slightest my sexuality - the people to whom I'm attracted.

Homosexual people have throughout history had heterosexual sex - often to avoid persecution, sometimes to have children. But throughout it all, they remain homosexual and attracted to their own sex. We can all choose to perform or not perform a sexual act - none of us can choose our sexual orientation.

Consequently, it is possible to reproduce as a homosexual - through surrogacy, or the choice to have heterosexual sex. You still stay homosexual.

Actually this is a common misconception. Many homosexuals voluntarily go through therapies to become heterosexual and are successful. For some reason the homosexual lobbies don't publicize this fact when they talk the subject. Go figure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by vimesey, posted 03-25-2014 7:46 AM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by subbie, posted 03-25-2014 7:19 PM lokiare has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3851
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 95 of 1309 (722943)
03-25-2014 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by lokiare
03-25-2014 6:30 PM


Bare links and paste jobs
lokiare writes:

It is a choice, not an easy choice. Many homosexuals are caused by sexual abuse as children (as the studies I linked show).

You seem appalled to find that this forum spurns bare links and cut-and-pasted blocks of text as evidence in scientific debate.

A bare link is exactly what it sounds like: a link to awebsitethatagreeswithme.com, without any summary of specific data, studies or methodologies. In effect, you tell your readers to refute a mass of material at which you have vaguely gestured, making no effort of your own.

Similarly, your cut-and-paste laundry list of quotes and claims offers none of your own analysis or any reason for a reader to think they are true.

Neither of these are valid means of conducting scientific debate.

Cite your study: a link to the actual text is useful. Summarize the data and the analytical methodologies; tell us why you think it is sound.

Did you truly believe that linking to that list of material, or simply pasting it here, amounted to scientific debate? That the expression of an opinion elsewhere can be validly characterized as a fact?


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 6:30 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:00 PM Omnivorous has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 2968 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 96 of 1309 (722944)
03-25-2014 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Pressie
03-25-2014 7:55 AM


This one was very, very funny

Faith writes:

Yeah, really. Only by heterosexual sex can they reproduce, not AS homosexuals. As you well know. They are NOT like asexually reproducing animals. Duh.

Actually, some species can reproduce by themselves (growing penises from their cell walls and impregnate themselves), to having sex with other cells (growing penises from their cell walls and impregnate other cells). They don't have fixed sexes.

We are decendents of those cells.

Please do not express theory as if it were fact. Its misleading and prevents the discussion from moving forward.

If we came from creatures like that, it still wouldn't matter though, as what we were millions and billions of years ago has little or no bearing on what we are today, especially if none of the genetics remains (which appears to be the case).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Pressie, posted 03-25-2014 7:55 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 6:54 PM lokiare has replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 2968 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 97 of 1309 (722945)
03-25-2014 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by AZPaul3
03-25-2014 8:26 AM


So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all?

What makes you think homosexuality does not fit into evolution? What does "fit into evolution mean"?

Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?

Why should it? You do know about dominate vs recessive genes, yes?

And what makes you think homosexuality is solely a genetic effect? Do you know about epigenetics?

Is homosexuality a choice or is it some biological process.

The brain is a powerful and complex organ that we are woefully unable to understand. The genetic and epigenetic makeup, the structure and biochemistry, are beyond our present state of knowledge.

But I will reiterate what has been said here. If homosexuality really is a choice that can be consciously made then you could make that same choice. If you're like me the very thought is ... well ... icky, disgusting. I cannot make that "choice" because I do not have that choice.

If I don't have that choice, and if deep down you find that you do not really have that choice, then what makes you think anyone else does? Your religiously motivated, biased and bigoted web sites? Probably not the best sources for researching reality.

Let's establish this one fact. Sexual orientation, from hetero through homo and every shade in between, is not by conscious choice. The orientation is the result of genetics, epigenetics, the structure and biochemistry of the body and brain. You have no choice in selecting your own sexual orientation and you have no choice in accepting the fact that neither does anybody else.

I'll leave the "why" via evolution to those more studied than I.

Can you link some studies (or articles about those studies) that back up the idea that it is genetic. I haven't been able to find a single reputable study that proves anything of the sort. In fact all of the evidence I can find points to the opposite, in that it appears to be almost solely an environmentally caused state of mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 8:26 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 9:12 PM lokiare has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3851
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 98 of 1309 (722946)
03-25-2014 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by lokiare
03-25-2014 6:50 PM


lokiare writes:

Please do not express theory as if it were fact. Its misleading and prevents the discussion from moving forward.

Oh the irony.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 6:50 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:01 PM Omnivorous has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 99 of 1309 (722947)
03-25-2014 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:57 PM


Sure, but as I've said before. Its more akin to a mental psychosis reinforced by brain chemistry. So if you were attracted to the same sex it would most likely be a reinforced reaction rather than something stemming from your genetics.

If this were true then the "normal" behavior would be monosexual, as one doesn't need to rely on anyone else for sexual pleasure. This would be even more prevalent in today's internet access world where visual stimulation is available at no cost, and can be kept in the privacy of one's home.

Curiously this is not the case.

... However there is no special equipment needed to be installed for homosexuals only costly products and services that would be incurred by a business that didn't refuse service to homosexuals....

Ah, a cake for homosexuals costs more than a cake for heterosexuals? Really?

Which is odd, since its purely a mental state brought on by environment and chemical reinforcement, which can be reversed. The phrase "Which one is not like the others" comes to mind.

Again, when did you decide to be heterosexual? Did you always know?

Here I'll list the contents of that short website which includes many studies since apparently I'm not supposed to link to facts (weird).

Note getting it are you? Now you are just copy and pasting information, now without a link to check your sources.

Do you know what quote mines are?

quote:
1.)Dr. Dean Hamer who failed to find a "gay gene":

"Homosexuality is not purely genetic. Environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. I don't think that we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."


This does not mean that it is a choice, it means that they don't know what the basis is, whether it is partly genetic and partly developmental (environmental chemicals and hormones during development).

Most of the other quotes appear to be similarly misrepresented.

Can you explain to me what a 'bare link' is? What I linked is literally a list of studies that have been done on the subject.

A bare link is just the link and no discussion, it is against the forum rules ...

Posting lengthy copy and pastes is also against the forum rules ...

What you are supposed to do is provide a link for reference, a brief quote of the pertinent information and then your argument about what it means. Your argument is what is under debate, the links and quotes are evidence you cite to support your position.

Its my understanding that homosexuals don't get aroused (as opposed to bisexuals) when around the opposite sex. ...

Back in the day when gays were forced into the closet due to violent suppression from religious bigotry many gays married and had children to hide their preferences -- and I know several men that came out gay after having been married and having children. There are different positions than just the missionary position you know (some quite fun in fact).

What it comes down to is what you visualize in the process -- it's like masturbating using someone else as a tool.

Personally I don't understand what your problem is -- I have not been negatively impacted in any way by having gays and lesbians in my neighborhood. I think it makes the neighborhood richer and more interesting in the variety of people and views and interactions.



we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:57 PM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 2968 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 100 of 1309 (722948)
03-25-2014 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
03-25-2014 9:17 AM


Re: when did you choose
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 occur
Second 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 9:17 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 03-25-2014 7:40 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 11:25 PM lokiare has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 573 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 101 of 1309 (722949)
03-25-2014 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by lokiare
03-25-2014 6:47 PM


lokiare writes:

Many homosexuals voluntarily go through therapies to become heterosexual and are successful.

The interesting question is whether you actually believe this, and why, or whether you are simply passing on someone else's lie without regard for its truth or falsity.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 6:47 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:07 PM subbie has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 102 of 1309 (722950)
03-25-2014 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:57 PM


Its my understanding that homosexuals don't get aroused (as opposed to bisexuals) when around the opposite sex.

Have you gained that understanding by being gay?

I'm never seen gays describing themselves by what they weren't getting aroused by. Hey-oh!

So short of modern chemicals that stimulate an erection it really should have been evolved out, unless it doesn't come from genetics and is purely or mostly environmental.

False dichotomy. Its not either genetic or environmental. And even if it is genetic, that doesn't necessitate that it should have evolved out. Look at altruism.

Sure, but as I've said before. Its more akin to a mental psychosis reinforced by brain chemistry.

Which could have a genetic basis.

So if you were attracted to the same sex it would most likely be a reinforced reaction rather than something stemming from your genetics.

Why wouldn't that stem from your genetics?

Well if you assume its some kind of disability as you compare it to above then sure, if seeking treatment for it, they should not be discriminated against

We are not going to force treatment for a disability onto a person before we recognize them as having basic rights.

(really no one should be discriminated against, but what some consider discrimination or bigotry is merely disagreement)

One of the basic rights that we don't discriminate from the disabled, is free and open access to all businesses that serve the public. If you want to open a new business, you will put in a wheelchair ramp or you won't be allowed to open.

However there is no special equipment needed to be installed for homosexuals only costly products and services

What costly products and services?

And really, why would a business refuse to make money doing what they do?

Comparing it to religion is kind of a false comparison. I don't remember any wars over homosexuality or any mass persecutions (it was merely viewed as a mental illness up until the 60's).

Its a legal comparison. The law says I can't discriminate against you because of your religion, which is entirely your choice.

Which is odd, since its purely a mental state brought on by environment and chemical reinforcement, which can be reversed.

Yeah, society can get kinda odd.

Even queer, some might say

Here I'll list the contents of that short website which includes many studies since apparently I'm not supposed to link to facts (weird).

Your supposed to describe the facts in your own words, and then link to them as support.

Its in the Rules.

So quoting the whole page didn't really help much either. It'd take me a long time to go through each one of those and dismantal it. What kind of evidence did they use to determine it? Is your interpretation accurate?

The first two are from the same guy who says: "Welp, we couldn't find the gay gene"

That's not evidence that its not there.

The next few are the same tone, that they couldn't find the genetic factors. Didn't find it in the brain.

There's no scientific evidence of homosexuality being genetic, 18 years ago in 1996.

Honestly, that's not very convincing. When we figure it out, its just going to be more complex than we've been looking so far.

Regarding behaviors and brain chemistry, I think its all in the genetics.

Can you explain to me what a 'bare link' is? What I linked is literally a list of studies that have been done on the subject.

A bare link is just a link by itself, without any description of them from you.

We don't just go: "Here's the evidence. www.theevidence.com"

'Cause then people just go: "No, here's the evidence www.therealevidence.com"

And nobody discusses anything. This is discussion site. The rules say no bare links. Check my post in the rules thread you started.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:57 PM lokiare has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 103 of 1309 (722951)
03-25-2014 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by lokiare
03-25-2014 6:07 PM


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.

Correction: there is no reason that you accept\know and you haven't considered how it would benefit the breeding population. There are several ways that non-breeding people benefit the breeding population, one of which is providing more resources for group survival and protection. A woman with a gay brother and a husband would have three sources of food and protection for her children rather than two.

Having homosexual people does not add to the needs of the population, nor is it detrimental to the survival of the population.

If there is no detriment caused by homosexual people then selection would not operate against those traits. It would be neutral to selection.

I already addressed this in a post above.

Nope. We have laws protecting lots of choices, especially choices in religious beliefs.

Ah the Ad hominem fallacy, where a source of information is defamed rather than the information provided.

Or the voice of experience in reading drivel and misinformation from a source over and over again.

If you find a source that misrepresents information do you quote it as valid information?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic

quote:
Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum for activists, and chat site for self-described conservatives, primarily within the United States.[2] It presents articles and comments posted pseudonymously by registered members, known as "Freepers",[3] using screen names. The site is supported entirely by donations, with pledge drives known as "Freepathons" held each quarter.

Free Republic has been involved in several organized conservative campaigns including against CBS anchor Dan Rather and against the Dixie Chicks for their antiwar statements.[4] Freepers were instrumental in raising the question of a lack of authenticity in the so-called "Killian memos".


Not a scientific source of information, not an unbiased source of information, not a source that relies on facts but one which has an agenda.

How do you tell when a source presents factual information versus conspiracy theory and biased innuendo?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 6:07 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:18 PM RAZD has replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 2968 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 104 of 1309 (722953)
03-25-2014 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Stile
03-25-2014 2:26 PM


Re: Same old, same old.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Stile, posted 03-25-2014 2:26 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 8:36 PM lokiare has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 105 of 1309 (722954)
03-25-2014 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by lokiare
03-25-2014 6:07 PM


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.

And people who have one copy of the gene don't have sickle cell anemia. But do have immunity.

I already addressed this in a post above.

But apparently you don't think your answer is good enough to either repeat or reference.

My example is that every restaurant is forced to serve vegetarian options on their menus. Is that protected under the law? Because that's what homosexuals are pushing for.

I'm fairly sure that homosexuals are not in fact pushing for a compulsory vegetarian option. But perhaps I missed the fine print on the gay agenda.

Ah the Ad hominem fallacy, where a source of information is defamed rather than the information provided.

It is reasonable to suppose that a collection of quotes on freerepublic will not constitute an unbiased review or meta-analysis of the scientific literature, since freerepublic is not a peer-reviewed publication in the biological or sociological sciences but rather a social organization for mad people; which does in fact cast doubt on the rationality of their selection criteria. If you wish other people to take you one-tenth as seriously as you evidently take yourself, you would do well in future to provide references to sources other than freerepublic, the David Icke forums, or that guy in the vomit-stained coat who stands outside Walmart shouting at passers-by.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 6:07 PM lokiare has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022