Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9057 total)
96 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (4 members, 92 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,783 Year: 895/6,534 Month: 895/682 Week: 130/445 Day: 23/22 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(2)
Message 69 of 1309 (722913)
03-25-2014 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
03-25-2014 5:43 AM


The problem with your theory is that homosexuals don't reproduce, period.

Neither do worker bees, and yet their genes still get passed on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 5:43 AM Faith has not yet responded

Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(3)
Message 75 of 1309 (722922)
03-25-2014 6:00 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Free Republic? No thanks.

Do you have any scientific references?


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 118 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:23 PM Taq has not yet responded

Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(4)
Message 83 of 1309 (722931)
03-25-2014 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:24 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
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 to put up a sign that says "Will Not Serve Christians" since your religion is a choice.

Why should everyone be forced to cater to something that is a choice.

That is the agreement you make with our democratic society when you open a business that is open to the public. If you don't want to cater to homosexuals, then don't run a business that would require you to cater to homosexuals. It's not as if government agents are showing up to your home and forcing you serve homosexuals in your home.

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.

Tell you what. Go find Jesse Jackson who worked with Martin Luther King, Jr. Tell him your story, and then ask him how your story compares to the persecution that blacks suffered in the South during the Civil Rights movement. Don't be surprised if he laughs at you . . . for a long time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:24 PM lokiare has not yet responded

Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(2)
Message 84 of 1309 (722932)
03-25-2014 6:15 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.

Perhaps you could produce the evidence for this claim?

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.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:51 PM Taq has not yet responded

Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


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 responded

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

Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(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 yet responded

Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(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 responded

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

Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(2)
Message 190 of 1309 (723107)
03-26-2014 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by lokiare
03-25-2014 9:28 PM


Re: Research Studies
How does this in any way equivocate to homosexuality or the argument at hand? Are there homosexual bees?

You are arguing that evolution would not favor a situation where members of a species do not reproduce because of genetics. Worker bees demonstrates that you are wrong. Evolution can and does select for genetic mutations that result in non-reproducing individuals in a social species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:28 PM lokiare has not yet responded

Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(5)
Message 191 of 1309 (723108)
03-26-2014 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
03-26-2014 4:04 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
All of which I consider to be taking punishment. One way or another if we want to stand for our Biblical beliefs we'll have to take some kind of punishment.

Your stand requires you to punish others and take away their human rights. That's the problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 03-26-2014 4:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(8)
Message 192 of 1309 (723109)
03-26-2014 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
03-26-2014 3:44 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
You make a good point I'm sorry to say. So we're going to have to take punishment for upholding the Biblical view that homosexuality as a sin and refusing to do anything that validates gay marriage.

I find it strange that christians would consider it punishment to treat fellow human beings with a little bit of dignity and fairness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 03-26-2014 3:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(4)
Message 215 of 1309 (723166)
03-27-2014 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
03-27-2014 3:17 AM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
Interracial marriage is not opposed by Christian doctrine.

Neither is selling cakes to gay couples.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 03-27-2014 3:17 AM Faith has not yet responded

Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(2)
Message 216 of 1309 (723167)
03-27-2014 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
03-27-2014 7:44 AM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
In my opinion no Christian here has expressed anything remotely along the lines of "hate rhetoric" etc.

It is hate rhetoric each and every time you vocally support a political movement to take away the rights of homosexuals, which you have done repeatedly. Time and again, you have supported the idea that homosexuals should be discriminated against, segregated from heterosexuals, and treated as less than heterosexuals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 03-27-2014 7:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 274 of 1309 (727080)
05-15-2014 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Faith
05-14-2014 10:17 AM


Re: Courts strike down anti-gay maraige in Arkansas and Idaho
Practicing sinner means habitual sinner, one who persists in sin, will not give it up, will not repent of it, thinks God will accept him nevertheless but scripture says no, practicing habitual sinners are not saved, and it specifically names homosexuality.

Until you start living by the edicts of religions you don't belong to, don't expect others to live by the edicts of your religion.

Should the state outlaw pork? Require women to wear a burqa?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 05-14-2014 10:17 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 05-15-2014 3:53 PM Taq has not yet responded

Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 275 of 1309 (727082)
05-15-2014 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Minnemooseus
05-14-2014 1:32 AM


Re: Courts strike down anti-gay maraige in Arkansas and Idaho
Best topic I could find for this.
State Judge Strikes Down AR Marriage Ban

U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale has ruled Idaho’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional

Yes, bare links. But I wanted to get this into the record somewhere. Go to the linked pages to read more.

Moose

The actual ruling is very well written, IMHO.

"This case asks a basic and enduring question about the essence of American government: Whether the will of the majority, based as it often is on sincere beliefs and democratic consensus, may trump the rights of a minority

... Idaho's marriage laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love,"

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/...rejected.html#storylink=cpy

Also, a stay on the decision has been denied:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/...les-idaho-gay-marriage.html

As an Idahoan, I really didn't think I would see this happen this quickly. Same sex couples start getting married tomorrow here in my own state, which is one of the most conservative in the nation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-14-2014 1:32 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Taq
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 407 of 1309 (727759)
05-20-2014 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Faith
05-20-2014 10:35 AM


Re: sexual aberrations
The subject is gay marriage, the changing of an institution to apply it to people other than it is meant to apply to.

We already changed the institution of voting to allow women to vote.

We already changed the institution of marriage to allow couples of mixed race to get married.

We already changed the definition of "person" to allow black people to vote, and have access to the same bathroom as white people.

We already changed this entire country by declaring our independence in 1776.

Is that really your only argument, that you don't want anything to change because any change is bad, no matter what?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Faith, posted 05-20-2014 10:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022