Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,495 Year: 6,752/9,624 Month: 92/238 Week: 9/83 Day: 9/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
lokiare
Member (Idle past 3905 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 106 of 1309 (722955)
03-25-2014 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by New Cat's Eye
03-25-2014 5:41 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 5:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 8:09 PM lokiare has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10299
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.1


(3)
Message 107 of 1309 (722956)
03-25-2014 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by lokiare
03-25-2014 7:14 PM


Re: when did you choose
Except that all the evidence I've seen is that homosexuality is an environmentally caused deviation from the norm.
Your genetics determine how you react to your environment.
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.
I have yet to see you discuss a single study, and how it supports your claims.
Firstly all people should be treated equally under the law, but that does not mean some people can't refuse service to others,
Yes, that is what it means. You need to treat people equally, even people you think are icky.
Except for the fact that voluntary therapies have been shown to reverse the effects of homosexuality.
At what rates? Who were the study groups? What were the control groups?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 7:14 PM lokiare has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1660 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(5)
Message 108 of 1309 (722958)
03-25-2014 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by lokiare
03-25-2014 6:17 PM


Re: Research Studies
In order for natural selection to work, the gene has to be passed on, homosexual animals don't pass on genes.
Wrong.
Don't know much about evolution and how it works do you?
The gay uncle \ lesbian aunt share genes with their brothers and sisters, and so helping them survive means that those shared genes get passed from generation to generation, with some survival benefit from the extra pair of hands.
Actually relatives helping others in their families in social animals is seen whether the animals in question are gay or not. So this proposition doesn't even stand up to basic logic (are there other equally likely reasons that this could happen?). There is no genetic advantage to this that wouldn't be eclipsed by a heterosexual creature that helps take care of relatives young as well as its own. Thus being more likely to spread their genetic code to the next generation.
Let's talk about wolf packs. There is a dominant male and a dominant female, and only the dominant male and dominant female breed.
What is the benefit of the other wolves (male and female) in the pack? And why is this not similar to them being homosexual?
Then look at herd animals: again you have a dominant male that mates with the females in his herd, other males are left out. What is the benefit of having more males? Surely those other males could be gay and not impact the herd.
Bees have also been mentioned.
If your argument were valid then none of these behavior patterns would be observed, there would only be monogamous paired species, so as this is not the case your argument is logically rather obviously invalid.

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 85 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 6:17 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:26 PM RAZD has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10299
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.1


(2)
Message 109 of 1309 (722959)
03-25-2014 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by lokiare
03-25-2014 6:17 PM


Re: Research Studies
Actually relatives helping others in their families in social animals is seen whether the animals in question are gay or not. So this proposition doesn't even stand up to basic logic (are there other equally likely reasons that this could happen?).
Worker bees are female and entirely sterile. They do not have children. They make up more than half of the bee population in a hive. Only a single female in an entire hive is producing children.
Evolution has selected for this strategy on the part of bees. How do you explain this?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 6:17 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:28 PM Taq has replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3905 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 110 of 1309 (722960)
03-25-2014 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Tangle
03-25-2014 5:44 PM


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:
When God calls, He calls in love. My name is Janet Boynes and I have felt both God's calling and His love in my life.
Life hasn't always been easy for me. I grew up in Norristown, Pennsylvania, a northern suburb of Philadelphia. My mother was strict and abusive to me and my six stepbrothers and stepsisters. Her beatings made me want to be strong, so that I wouldn't have to be weak and vulnerable to anyone. I began beating up my siblings and the kids at school, earning a reputation as a tomboy and a bully.
When I was thirteen, the father of one of my sisters sexually abused me. I started doing drugs, smoking, and drinking alcohol to cope with all of the pain in my life, but everything I tried was empty. None of the drugs or alcohol could fill the void I knew I had in my life, so I kept searching.
I graduated high school and began going to college. I loved basketball, but I wasn't able to play because of my drug addiction. Things finally got so bad that I switched schools and began attending a Christian college in Minneapolis. I attended Bible classes and became involved with a church in Minneapolis, finally thinking that I had found what I was looking for in Christianity. I even met the man who would eventually become my fianc.
Things didn't go the way I had planned, however, and before I knew it, I was slipping away from God. Even though I was engaged to be married, I spent a lot of time with a female friend from work, so much time that my fianc began commenting on it. I told him that it was nothing, but I didn't realize what I was doing. One night I spent the night with my female friend and we became involved sexually.
I told my fianc the next day and our wedding was called off until I could decide what it was that I wanted. I didn't go back to him, however. It was then that I started a journey that would last for many years and cause a lot of heartache for both myself and those around me.
For fourteen years I lived the lesbian lifestyle, moving from one relationship to the next. My old habits came back as well and I struggled in and out of treatment, even getting in to trouble with the law. Throughout all of those years, I always knew that I would one day return to God, that He was calling me, but I wasn't ready to come back.
Finally I met a woman at a grocery store who invited me to church. I went a few Sundays later and recommitted my life to Jesus Christ. Soon, all of my habits began falling away. It wasn't easy, but with the help of the Holy Spirit and with the support of those around me, I gave up drugs, alcohol, and smoking. I joined a women's Bible study and began to feel God calling me out of the homosexual lifestyle as well.
I knew that I had to sever all ties with my old lifestyle in order to make a clean break from it, so I moved in with a family from our church. I stayed with them for about a year, and for the first time, I was able to see how a family was supposed to function. God's love worked through that family and began healing many of my old wounds caused by my childhood.
It's been over eleven years since I was called out of the lesbian lifestyle, but I don't feel any regrets. God has bound up my broken heart and I am a new creation. I know that He has a wonderful plan for me, and I believe that one day, He will even bring a husband into my life. My story is proof that it doesn't matter how far you've gone, or what you've done, God still calls, and He calls in love.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Tangle, posted 03-25-2014 5:44 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by subbie, posted 03-25-2014 7:58 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 178 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2014 3:10 AM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3905 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 111 of 1309 (722962)
03-25-2014 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2014 5:46 PM


Re: Rights versus Responsibilities
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2014 5:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2014 8:07 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2014 8:26 PM lokiare has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1510 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(5)
Message 112 of 1309 (722963)
03-25-2014 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by lokiare
03-25-2014 7:54 PM


lokiare writes:
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.
The delusion is strong in this one.

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 110 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 7:54 PM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3905 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 113 of 1309 (722964)
03-25-2014 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by AZPaul3
03-25-2014 5:52 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 5:52 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 9:48 PM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3905 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 114 of 1309 (722965)
03-25-2014 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2014 5:54 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2014 5:54 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9489
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 6.1


(4)
Message 115 of 1309 (722966)
03-25-2014 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by lokiare
03-25-2014 7:57 PM


Re: Rights versus Responsibilities
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.
That would be an anecdote, not a study. Do you know anything about science and how it works?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 7:57 PM lokiare has not replied

Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 130 days)
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(6)
Message 116 of 1309 (722968)
03-25-2014 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by lokiare
03-25-2014 7:39 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
lokiare writes:
Refusing service isn't bigotry. Its refusing service.
They'd have loved you at the Woolworth's Lunch Counter in Greensboro.

"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 106 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 7:39 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:31 PM Omnivorous has replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3905 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 117 of 1309 (722969)
03-25-2014 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
03-25-2014 5:58 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 5:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by subbie, posted 03-25-2014 8:24 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2014 1:21 AM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3905 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 118 of 1309 (722970)
03-25-2014 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Taq
03-25-2014 6:00 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 03-25-2014 6:00 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by subbie, posted 03-25-2014 8:27 PM lokiare has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1510 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 119 of 1309 (722971)
03-25-2014 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by lokiare
03-25-2014 8:14 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
lokiare writes:
To even be able to say my view is bigoted you have to prove that homosexuality is somehow natural and normal....
Why? Is bigotry something that can only apply to natural characteristics? No, clearly that's not the case since someone can be bigoted against a religious group.
But again, the interesting thing isn't the point you are trying to make, but what that point says about you. THIS is the real reason you are fighting so hard to prove that homosexuality isn't natural. You think for some reason that bigotry against gays is Ok as long as it's their choice. I'm sure there's something in your bible somewhere that says, "Love your neighbor are yourself, as long as they don't make any wrong choices."

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 117 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:14 PM lokiare has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 120 of 1309 (722972)
03-25-2014 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by lokiare
03-25-2014 7:57 PM


Re: Rights versus Responsibilities
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.
Nothing you quoted says that she changed her orientation.
The question stands also: Do you have any studies, surveys, or proof showing otherwise?
If you like, I can find you about a zillion gay people pointing out the bleedin' obvious fact that they didn't choose to be gay. And straight people pointing out that they didn't choose to be straight.
And, of course, plenty of gay people who've tried to change and failed. For example, John Paulk, formerly of Exodus International (remember them?):
For the better part of 10 years, I was an advocate and spokesman for what’s known as the 'ex-gay movement,' where we declared that sexual orientation could be changed through a close-knit relationship with God, intensive therapy and strong determination. At the time, I truly believed that it would happen. And while many things in my life did change as a Christian, my sexual orientation did not.
For the better part of 10 years? Given that amount of time, it seems that I have more chance of choosing to be heavyweight champion of the world. I really could exercise, bulk up, practice my left hook. But Paulk couldn't become straight with "strong determination", with "intensive therapy" and with the alleged support of an omnipotent God.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 7:57 PM lokiare has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024