|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
lokiare writes: This is all pure speculation. Is there any science that has identified a homosexual gene or allele? To the best of my knowledge, they haven't identified a tall gene, a fat gene, a pretty voice gene or a hair color gene. By your reasoning, therefore those things can't be natural. Is this making sense even to you?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
I do not have to give you chapter and verse ... except you did ask.
In her Message 14 is her initial misunderstanding. Pressie was answering how/where homosexuality fit into evolution. I am not sure Pressie meant that he was equating asexuality with homosexuality though that is what he said. I don't think he gave sufficient thought to this statement. Faith took it at face value as equating homo with asexual and objected that homosexual acts are not at all the same as asexual acts. Eventually we get to her Message 30 screaming that homo is not equivalent to asexual and insisting that homo sex is not reproduction. She is right of course, though I still think neither Pressie nor Faith realize the disconnect that had taken place and why. Your response in Message 32 didn't help correct either of the misunderstandings and exacerbated, IMHO, the further disconnect of the issue. Frankly, Theo, I'm not sure you see the erroneous equality Pressie stated, unwittingly imo, and thus why Faith could misunderstand his point. Further, we agree that Faith's philosophy on homosexuality is biased and bigoted, but I do not believe that was her motivation in reacting to Pressie's erroneous statement in this thread. That, I feel, was your misunderstanding. Regardless. I see as I see. We are allowed to disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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. Have you heard of eunuchs? People usually think that just means a castrated man, but that's not wholly correct. It also included uncastrated men, or people who just don't get married, including priests. The eunuchs played certain social roles, many which were helped by them being nonsexual. I think the homosexuals were included in the grouping. And practically, if the guy likes cutting hair and won't bang your mistress then it wouldn't really matter if he was gay instead of castrated. Anyways, I bring it up because you mention the new testament. Take a look at Matthew 19:
quote: Jesus mentions three types of eunuchs, going backwards: -for the sake of heaven, these are the priests-made that way by others, these are the castrated -born that way, ? Sounds like he's talking about the gays there. It can't be men who are born without testicles, that so rare and negligible that it isn't worth mentioning. But as you said, in roman times there were plenty of gay men skipping around. So it makes sense that they are mentioned. What do you think about Jesus saying they were born that way, as opposed to it being a choice?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3898 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 3898 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
lokiare writes: 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. And you are leaving out religion. Are you just stupid, or are you being deliberately disingenuous? Or is there a third choice that's not occurring to me at this time?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3898 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2337 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.1
|
quote:great so now you agree that sexual orientation should be as protected as your choice of faith. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3898 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 3898 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 3898 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3898 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
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. Can you be sure? Did all of those homosexual people voluntarily go through therapy to attempt to not be homosexual? I agree that being sexually abused as a child is not a choice for the child. It is a choice for the adult. For the child it falls under social environment, but can be corrected for using therapy. Again, can anyone provide some proof in the form of studies, facts, or articles?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3898 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
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? Are you saying those studies don't exist or that you want me to make a wall of text with a post taking up several pages with quotations and specific links to specific research? If you want to refute the facts I've presented go ahead. I may at some point do just what you ask for, but have fun trying to read the whole thing in less than a few hours or so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member (Idle past 124 days) Posts: 4001 From: Adirondackia Joined:
|
lokiare writes: Again, can anyone provide some proof in the form of studies, facts, or articles? You made an assertion that you refuse to support with evidence. No one has any obligation to refute what you cannot support."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lokiare Member (Idle past 3898 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
lokiare writes: Please do not express theory as if it were fact. Its misleading and prevents the discussion from moving forward. Oh the irony. Yes I know. Its like people don't understand what is a theory (evolution of specific animals from specific ancestors with very little proof to back it up) and what is fact (a long list of studies that point to a specific outcome).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024