Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 55 (9054 total)
102 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, PaulK (3 members, 99 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,178 Year: 5,824/14,102 Month: 410/335 Week: 16/83 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 8 of 1309 (722736)
03-24-2014 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lokiare
03-24-2014 2:41 PM


So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all? Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?

Is homosexuality a choice or is it some biological process. If it is a biological process it should have been eradicated by evolution right?

It's not a dominant genetic trait, is it? By your naive reasoning, we'd also be rid of sickle-cell anemia.

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).

One could say the same of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms ...

And your right to be vegetarian is protected under the law. If you're a vegetarian, and someone tries to force a beefsteak down your throat, that's assault.

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:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300464/posts

Ah, freerepublic, the source of all knowledge ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lokiare, posted 03-24-2014 2:41 PM lokiare has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 6:07 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 68 of 1309 (722912)
03-25-2014 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:14 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:14 PM lokiare has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 7:57 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 71 of 1309 (722918)
03-25-2014 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:36 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:36 PM lokiare has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:04 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 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 yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 16112
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 yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 161 of 1309 (723016)
03-25-2014 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by lokiare
03-25-2014 9:52 PM


Nope sorry. The chemical reinforcement would prevent me from doing this.

Prevent you? You mean you don't have a choice?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:52 PM lokiare has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 163 of 1309 (723018)
03-25-2014 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by lokiare
03-25-2014 9:36 PM


There is a difference between establishing that something has a genetic component and locating the gene or genes. Equivocating between the two makes you look either ignorant or dishonest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:36 PM lokiare has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 165 of 1309 (723020)
03-25-2014 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by lokiare
03-25-2014 9:31 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
Equating homosexuality to the civil rights movement is a false dichotomy.

I wonder what on Earth you think "false dichotomy" means. Here's a hint as to its actual meaning: a false dichotomy invariably involves a dichotomy of some sort.

You are comparing a purely genetic set of traits to a non-genetic(according to all evidence shown in this thread) choice based mental affiliation (thousands have chosen to change back to being heterosexual).

But remember that this is crap that you've made up, and for which you have produced not a shred of evidence.

While we're remembering that, let's have a look at the American Psychological Association's Appropriate Therapeutic Responses
to Sexual Orientation
.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:31 PM lokiare has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 167 of 1309 (723023)
03-25-2014 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by lokiare
03-25-2014 10:00 PM


I've had about enough logical fallacies, so from here on out I'm just going to name the fallacies in your post and move on, no point in even responding.

This is not a procedure I would recommend to the man who wrote "Equating homosexuality to the civil rights movement is a false dichotomy." 'Cos you obviously wouldn't know how to identify a logical fallacy if they came with labels attached.

If you really want to save time, try substituting in your posts the acronyms C.I.M.U. for crap you made up, H.E.O.R. for halfwitted errors of reasoning, and I.D.U.B. to signify that you don't understand biology. Maybe P.S.R.P. for pompous self-righteous preening. You'll hardly need to post anything else except "and" and "the".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 10:00 PM lokiare has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 230 of 1309 (723305)
03-28-2014 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by lokiare
03-28-2014 2:41 PM


So, you could find no plausible evidence suggesting that homosexuality is a choice.

I thought not.

In an ideal world, then, you would stop claiming that it is.

---

Also would you please shut up about "logical fallacies" until you understand what they are? Cheers.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by lokiare, posted 03-28-2014 2:41 PM lokiare has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by subbie, posted 03-28-2014 8:11 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 232 of 1309 (723308)
03-28-2014 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by subbie
03-28-2014 8:11 PM


Remind you of a cargo cult?

Perhaps, but my own chosen appellation for our new friend would not be distinguished by the presence of a voiced alveolar lateral approximant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by subbie, posted 03-28-2014 8:11 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by subbie, posted 03-28-2014 8:46 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(9)
Message 249 of 1309 (723492)
04-02-2014 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by onifre
04-02-2014 9:48 AM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
Is it really a "Biblical belief" that you can't sell cakes to gay people for their event?

Of course.

For of thy eclairs, thy cupcakes, and thy muffins, thou shalt not sell unto the dykes, they that are bull, neither unto the bandits of the ass.

For the LORD thy God careth, I mean, he really really careth, behold, he's kind of obsessional about it, lo, he needeth help if you ask me. Anyway, he really careth about what the children of Israel, yea, and the Gentiles also, do with the naughty bits that he hath fashioned for them.

And behold, he hath decreed that if a man lieth with a man, or a woman with a woman, then that man, or woman, respectively, shall eat not of the cakes of deliciousness, yea, and even unto pastries also. Nor shall they have pudding. Thus saith the LORD.

Book of Cakes, ch. 4

See, it's right there in the Bible, just after the bit denouncing gun control and just before the bit explaining why the Bush tax cuts shouldn't have been allowed to lapse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by onifre, posted 04-02-2014 9:48 AM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2014 9:52 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 260 of 1309 (726979)
05-14-2014 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Faith
05-14-2014 4:44 AM


Re: Courts strike down anti-gay maraige in Arkansas and Idaho
A few posts above Dr A is mocking the plight of Christian business owners who have been targeted by Gay Rights advocates to punish them for refusing to provide services that would imply approval of gay marriage, which would violate their consciences. As usual he also twists the context to imply that Christians wouldn't serve homosexuals at all but this is false and has been shown over and over to be false. There is no reason a Christian would not provide ordinary services to homosexuals or anybody else under normal circumstances, it is strictly gay marriage they refuse to validate.

The proposed pro-discrimination laws are not confined to "strictly gay marriage". Have a look at this one.

Legalizing gay marriage in the courts is all of the same objective. This is an anti-Christian movement. Homosexuals have always been free to make their own unions however they want to, but making a law demanding that their unions be recognized by the state as legal is nothing but a way of forcing an unwelcome anti-Christian standard on Christians.

"Protestants have always been free to make their own unions however they want to, but making a law demanding that their unions be recognized by the state as legal is nothing but a way of forcing an unwelcome anti-Catholic standard on Catholics."

The parallel is rather exact. Catholics do not recognize marriage except when performed by a priest in (what they think is) the Apostolic Succession, having gone through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Do we violate their religious rights by having the state acknowledge those marriages that they do not?

Well then, other religions, or other denominations of your religion, want to celebrate gay marriages. The fact that your denomination doesn't recognize such marriages doesn't mean that you should be able to play dog-in-the-manger in the name of your religious freedom. What about theirs?

Or if the state of Utah had passed a law saying that only marriages conducted in a Mormon temple were to be considered valid, would you say that an effort by mainstream Protestants to have their marriages acknowledged by the state was a blow against the religious freedom of Mormons? Would it be "nothing but a way of forcing an unwelcome anti-Mormon standard on Mormons"?

If you want another parallel, here's one:

"Black people have always been able to vote however they want to, but making a law demanding that their votes be recognized by the state as valid is nothing but a way of forcing an unwelcome anti-White standard on Whites."

The point of voting is to have your vote counted. It is not sufficient to permit people to go through a meaningless charade and then not count their votes. If black people were allowed to have their own ballot boxes, to put crosses on the ballots, to put the ballots in the slot --- but not to have these ballots counted as part of the official tally, would that be defensible on the grounds that "they can vote however they want to"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 05-14-2014 4:44 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 05-14-2014 11:37 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 262 of 1309 (726999)
05-14-2014 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Faith
05-14-2014 11:37 AM


Re: Courts strike down anti-gay maraige in Arkansas and Idaho
Your comparisons and logic-chopping analogies are false as I already said in what I wrote. Ridiculous and in fact evil. Perhaps I'll come back and explain more later.

You can't explain more for the same reason that Alice couldn't have more tea.

I can't read your link, the print is faint and the background too white for my eyes.

I'm sorry to hear about your eyes. Amongst other things, the bill protects:

Making business-related decisions in accordance with sincerely held religious beliefs or exercise of religion including, but not limited to: (i) Employment decisions; (ii) Client selection decisions;

That is, a doctor (for example) may refuse to take a gay person as a patient, if it is his sincerely held religious belief that God hates gay people and wants them to be ill as a punishment for TEH GEY. You may, perhaps, agree with this, but you must at least admit that this goes far beyond saying that the doctor doesn't have to help out at a gay wedding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 05-14-2014 11:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 263 of 1309 (727006)
05-14-2014 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Faith
05-14-2014 11:37 AM


Re: Courts strike down anti-gay maraige in Arkansas and Idaho
Your comparisons and logic-chopping analogies are false as I already said in what I wrote. Ridiculous and in fact evil. Perhaps I'll come back and explain more later.

But do explain.

Catholics don't recognize marriages performed by Protestant ministers as legitimate. Is it a blow to their religious freedom if the state recognizes such marriages?

Mormons don't recognize marriages performed outside a Mormon temple as being legitimate. Is it a blow to their religious freedom if the state recognizes such marriages?

I can find you any number of churches which think that interracial marriage is against God's law. (I can supply references, or you can google it yourself.) Does it take away their rights if the state recognizes such marriages?

In the same way, your sect does not recognize gay marriage. That doesn't mean that it's a blow against your religious freedom if the state recognizes the gay marriages performed by different sects, such as the Quakers or the Waldensians or whatnot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 05-14-2014 11:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 05-14-2014 7:17 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021