Miscellaneous comments not having much to do with FrG's bible study

Quote: MathExtremist

Without speaking out of turn, I think this is the basis for Nareed's disfavor of religion in general.

Some of it.

Quote:

For example, what would be the non-religious justification for homophobia, given that homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom? If you couldn't point to some line in a religious text, how could you cogently make an argument that homosexuality is bad?

Interesting question. Someone will point out totalitarian regimes have also come down hard on it. You'll hear mention of what the Soviets and Nazis did to homosexuals. You won't hear Communism and Nazism required as much faith as Christianity, and could be fairly described as secualr religions, or even atheistic religions; complete with the need for sacrifice, a powerful yet intangible entity (the state, the volk), holy books and even religious services.

Quote: rxwine

Christianity used to include eternal damnation for people like me? Did they take it out?

Quote: weaselman

Actually, for people like you, it's just death, which, I think, is pretty aligned with your own view.

So, Christianity is pretty much the current interpretation of the day or the denominations choice. As I didn't come up with the idea of my going to Hell. It's foundation is like a rock. If the rock is sandstone.

Quote: weaselman

One possible justification I can offer, that has nothing to do with religion is that homosexuality is detrimental to the reproduction of the species.

Sure. We're on the brink of extinction ebcause about 5% of the population won't reproduce.

The other flaw with that line of hokum, is that homosexuals routinely find ways to reproduce these days, though such things like artificial insemination, in vitro, surrogates, etc.

Quote:

Let me ask you a question too. Do you think incest is bad? If you do, how do you justify that?

Nice straw-man.

Quote: Nareed

Sure. We're on the brink of extinction ebcause about 5% of the population won't reproduce.

No, we are not on the brink of extinction. We are talking about homosexuality being "bad", not "catastrophic".

Quote:

The other flaw with that line of hokum, is that homosexuals routinely find ways to reproduce these days, though such things like artificial insemination, in vitro, surrogates, etc.

"Routinely"? Really? Oh well ... We have already established, that your concepts are too different. Despite using the same set of words, you seem to be speaking some very different language.

Quote:

Nice straw-man.

Huh?

Getting a bit ridiculous here. Here's what I'll say. Organized religion has provided a great deal of positive and negative forces in life. If there was no religion and no god to believe in, what would the world be like? My personal belief is that we probably would killed off homosapiens a long time ago.

Yes, we've hard the dark ages. Yes, we've had 9/11. We've had priests take advantage of boys. There's been persecution through the ages. But on the other hand, there are great artifacts of beauty, paintings, and societies based on religion. There are many success stories in life that are based on one's belief in a higher being. So largely, I think presence of religion has been a very positive force in many's lives.

Of course, there are zealots everywhere, and there are those who push their beliefs on others and persecute others on their own and use passages in their religious text to justify their means. But overall, I think the presence of religion in today's world is a good thing.

I look at FrGamble's post and am somewhat inspired by his homilies and posts. He is gentle in spirit, is respectful, and seems to be kind-hearted. Religion fills his heart. If he is that way because God fills his heart, then I think that's a good thing.

Quote: weaselman

I am not sure, it is a good place and time to start that conversation, but since you asked ...
One possible justification I can offer, that has nothing to do with religion is that homosexuality is detrimental to the reproduction of the species. The fact that it occurs in the animal kingdom is irrelevant. Just because something occurs in the animal kingdom, it does not mean it's a good thing.

Let me ask you a question too. Do you think incest is bad? If you do, how do you justify that?

I agree that just because something occurs does not mean it's good -- theft, murder, rape, cuckolding, and infanticide also occur in the animal kingdom, and I don't think anyone could argue those are good for society. But those traits, as negative as they may be to society, are typically beneficial to the perpetrator and his or her genetic future. On the other hand, DJTeddyBear already pointed out that since homosexuals don't reproduce, there is no biological fitness for being homosexual. If that's so then homosexuality as a genetic trait should have died off a long time ago. The fact that it didn't is indicative of some measure of biological fitness somewhere along the line. I don't know what that might be, but it's hard to argue otherwise.

Incest is a totally different matter. Unlike homosexuality which is reproductively neutral (since there is no reproduction), incest leads to biological non-fitness. European monarchies of the past are well-known examples of why shagging one's sister leads to health problems for your kids. But as to "bad", well, I'll leave the morality to you: is it bad that a population subgroup intentionally wants to introduce negative recessive genes to their family line? The Darwinian argument would be "go ahead and let them -- they won't be around too long". Unless they evolve into zombies, but that's a plot for a different movie.

Quote: rxwine

As I didn't come up with the idea of my going to Hell.

Well, if you did not come up with it, where did you get it from then?

Quote: MathExtremist

On the other hand, DJTeddyBear already pointed out that since homosexuals don't reproduce, there is no biological fitness for being homosexual. If that's so then homosexuality as a genetic trait should have died off a long time ago. The fact that it didn't is indicative of some measure of biological fitness somewhere along the line. I don't know what that might be, but it's hard to argue otherwise.

This just does not make any sense, I am sorry.
Even, assuming that homosexuality is indeed genetic (which is not only unknown and unproven, but also highly unlikely), there are plenty of genetic traits that are extremely harmful to the individual, and still have not died off. Take sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs ... just to name a few.

Quote:

Incest is a totally different matter. Unlike homosexuality which is reproductively neutral (since there is no reproduction), incest leads to biological non-fitness.

Ok, I should have clarified it from the beginning. I mean incest as "pure love", without reproduction. Homosexual incest is one possibility. Or, heterosexual one, when one or both partners are sterile. Or, simply a pact, that there will be no children (a mandatory abortion in case of an "accident", might have its own moral repercussions, but let's ignore that for the purposes of this discussion).
Do you think there is anything wrong in non-reproducing sexual incest?

Quote: weaselman

Well, if you did not come up with it, where did you get it from then?

Because according to scripture there appear to be people in Hell. Unbelievers for one. Cowards, Idolators, etc,

Quote: rxwine

Because according to scripture there appear to be people in Hell. Unbelievers for one. Cowards, Idolators, etc,

Can you provide a citation, specifically concerning non-believers in Hell?

Quote: weaselman

Can you provide a citation, specifically concerning non-believers in Hell?

http://bible.cc/revelation/21-8.htm

New International Version (©1984)
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."


Also, my right eye has caused me to sin, and since I haven't gouged it out, (or come to Christ) my "whole body" is going to Hell.

Or that's implied.

Quote: boymimbo

I look at FrGamble's post and am somewhat inspired by his homilies and posts. He is gentle in spirit, is respectful, and seems to be kind-hearted. Religion fills his heart. If he is that way because God fills his heart, then I think that's a good thing.

Now, you see, that's the kind of statement that robs an individual of all credit and assigns it elsewhere. Personality is a complex issue, but some aspects of persoanlity are one's choice, sometimes maintained by dint of relentless effort, sometimes assumed easily. But to credit god for the good disposition of an individual is to dimminish that individual.

Also, would you say Osama bin Laden or Torquemada were as they were because god filled their hearts? See the problem with such statements?

It's worse still when a more significant achievement is credited to god. I especially can't stand people who thank god when a person dear to them comes through all right through risky, delicate surgery, yet they don't thank the surgeons, who do the actual work and have the actual skills, a tenth as much.

Quote: weaselman

No, we are not on the brink of extinction. We are talking about homosexuality being "bad", not "catastrophic".

Ok. then the world is underpopualted because about 5% of the population didn't reproduce.

It may be big news if some prominent gay couple adopt or hire a surrogate mother, but it happens frequently. Lesbians ahve little trouble obtaining artificial insemination from a sperm bank. Is that routine for you or isn't it?

Quote: rxwine

http://bible.cc/revelation/21-8.htm

New International Version (©1984)
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."


Also, my right eye has caused me to sin, and since I haven't gouged it out, (or come to Christ) my "whole body" is going to Hell.

Or that's implied.

Check out the commentary down the same page:
"And unbelieving; meaning not merely atheists, who do not believe there is a God, or deists only, that do not believe in Christ; but such who profess his name, and are called by it, and yet do not truly believe in him, nor embrace his Gospel and the truths of it, but believe a lie"

Also, nobody quite knows what references to "Hell" mean in the Bible. Gehenna is usually interpreted as Valley of Hinnom, Jerusalem city dump. The garbage was burning there, thus the lake of fire. Other references are translation of Greek word Hades, which literally (sorry, Dorothy) means "grave".
I think, the meaning is quite clear - those, not deserving of paradise, will be sent away from God, thrown away, and die forever. (and this is the "second death", because they will be resurrected after their first for the Final Judgment).

My own personal notion of Hell is closer to how one rabbi once explained it - in Heaven, everybody just sits around, reading Torah. Some regard it as paradise, others as Hell.

Heh, I found this, and it's not the recent comment about Romney and Mormons. It's from 1997 apparently.

Quote:

On the stump the Sunday before the election, Texas Gov. Rick Perry wandered into a theological swamp. He attended a service at the non-denominational Cornerstone Church in San Antonio. Pastor John Hagee preached: "If you live your life and don't confess your sins to God almighty through the authority of Christ and his blood, I'm going to say this very plainly, you're going straight to hell with a non-stop ticket."

http://www.rickross.com/reference/fundamentalists/fund211.html


I lived in San Antonio and have been to the Cornerstone Church in fact, but it wasn't Hagee preaching that day, because it was for a marriage ceremony of some friends.

I don't know if Hell is reading the Torah, but it sounds like I'm going to have to read it in a fiery trash pit. How specific is: "their place is in the fiery lake of burning sulfer." You need a fantastic political spin meister to tone that down.

I said "if". There are plenty of people who credit their god for their success, including surgeons, scientists, and others. Their relationship to god is an aspect of their personality. You see it in professional sports all of the time. It's their love of God that drives them to success. I'm not diminishing FrGamble at all. I am stating that religion is a good thing if he attributes his goodness to God, which I bet he will affirm.

I also credit my God for my success. To you that's pointless, and maybe it diminishes my actual individual effort for my own success. But you know what, I've had hard times and I've turned to god for help. In the end, one could argue of course that God didn't help me - i helped myself - after all, God doesn't exist. But I'll choose my own beliefs and you can choose your own. Personally, I believe that there's more to this world than atoms and molecules, but I wouldn't and could ever say that one should believe in a Christian God (or any other God) for that matter. After all, you're the one going to hell ;)

As for Osama, his god did fill his heart. I am sorry that I failed to mention that my God is good.

Quote: Nareed

Ok. then the world is underpopualted because about 5% of the population didn't reproduce.

Maybe, maybe not. Who the hell knows? Homophobia is not a rational thought, rather an evolutionary memory. An instinctive feeling of rejection towards anything that has a potential threat to the population. If not for this feeling, who knows, maybe there would be 50% instead of 5%?

Quote: boymimbo

I'm not diminishing FrGamble at all. I am stating that religion is a good thing if he attributes his goodness to God, which I bet he will affirm.

You betcha I'll affirm that! Thanks for the positive post. We were about ready to discover the meaning of life together and the thread seemed to go off the tracks.

God does not diminsh he amplifies. He can take a broken human sinner like me and help me to serve and care for people in ways I would never even dream of being able to do on my own. I echo the words of Mary in chapter 1 of Luke's Gospel:

“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;
behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.
The Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
His mercy is from age to age
to those who fear him.
He has shown might with his arm,
dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart.
He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones
but lifted up the lowly.
The hungry he has filled with good things;
the rich he has sent away empty.
He has helped Israel his servant,
remembering his mercy,
according to his promise to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever.”

Quote: weaselman

Maybe, maybe not. Who the hell knows?

Then what is the probelm with the lack of reproduction?

Quote:

Homophobia is not a rational thought,

Yes, but...

Quote:

rather an evolutionary memory.

Sorry, there's no such thing as that, nor "racial memories," nor "ethnic memories."

Quote:

An instinctive feeling of rejection towards anything that has a potential threat to the population.

One thing I do credit Christianity with is recognizing that human beings are individuals and that it matters we are individuals. Not mere parts of a "greater" collective. So if you're talking about evolution, then a non-threatening rival is of no consequence.

Quote:

If not for this feeling, who knows, maybe there would be 50% instead of 5%?

How, if gay people don't reproduce?

Quote: boymimbo

I also credit my God for my success.

That's your choise. if you want to thank unicorns, or the Kraken, or the natives of Xanax XV in another galaxy, that would be your choice, too. And as regards me, all thsoe are equally real.

Quote:

To you that's pointless, and maybe it diminishes my actual individual effort for my own success.

You see, it's not pointless. You hit it right in the head: the point is to diminsih yourself.

Some years ago my father underwent a heart valve replacement. I was talking to his surgeon the day after the operation, when we were interrupted by another grateful relative. This person spent five minutes preaising god and perhaps two seconds thanking the surgeon. When we were alone again, I asked him "Did you see god in the O.R." Ann he said, "If god has ever done anything for my patients, is to be quiet while I operate." I love that man.

Quote:

Personally, I believe that there's more to this world than atoms and molecules,

Of course there is. There are protein chains, complex hydrocarbons, nucleic acids, and, in case you didn't notice, actual human beings (look around,t ehre's over 6 billions of us, we shoulnd't be hard to find), each one with a mind and the potential for great achievements. Doe sit not strike you as marvelous that we've gone from being savages, a tiny step above animals, to building our current civilization that easily trascends space and time? Do you need to keep inventing supernatural beings and miracles? And do you need to keep diminishing actual human accomplishments?

Quote:

but I wouldn't and could ever say that one should believe in a Christian God (or any other God) for that matter. After all, you're the one going to hell ;)

You may not say so, but you believe it. And all too many of your brethren nto only say so, but want to enforce their moral code on the rest of us as well.

Quote:

As for Osama, his god did fill his heart. I am sorry that I failed to mention that my God is good.

How do you know? I mean, Can you prove Osama's heart wasn't filled by god, and further that it wasn't your god who did the filling?

Quote: Nareed

Sorry, there's no such thing as that, nor "racial memories," nor "ethnic memories."

Yes, there is. And it has nothing to do with "racial" or "ethnic" ... nice try though ...

So, what about my question about incest. Would you like to answer that instead of just making empty unsubstantiated claims?

Quote:

So if you're talking about evolution, then a non-threatening rival is of no consequence.

It is threatening the species. Like I said, this is not a rational thought, just an instinctive repulsion.

Quote:

How, if gay people don't reproduce?

What does it have to do with anything?
I am saying that if the instinctive rejection of homosexuality was not preprogrammed into species by evolution, it is logical to expect that a greater percentage of population would be gay. Perhaps, 50%, if the sex an individual is attracted to was picked at random, why not? Now, that would be a real threat to the species existence. There is got to be some kind of a protection from that. What I am saying is that homophobia may be one of those protective mechanisms.

Quote: Nareed

How do you know? I mean, Can you prove Osama's heart wasn't filled by god,

Can you prove that it was?

Quote: weaselman

Yes, there is.

Proof?

Quote:

So, what about my question about incest. Would you like to answer that instead of just making empty unsubstantiated claims?

I don't waste my time kocking down straw man arguments.

Quote:

It is threatening the species.

How? Where is the shortage of children?

Quote:

What does it have to do with anything?

Everything. if homosexuality is genetic, then the surest way of passing it on would be for gays to reporduce. if they don't, then it's not passed on to the next generation.

Quote:

I am saying that if the instinctive rejection of homosexuality was not preprogrammed into species by evolution, it is logical to expect that a greater percentage of population would be gay.

Why?

Quote:

Perhaps, 50%, if the sex an individual is attracted to was picked at random, why not? Now, that would be a real threat to the species existence. There is got to be some kind of a protection from that. What I am saying is that homophobia may be one of those protective mechanisms.

Is this argument built out of thin air and prejudice your own or is it the position of one or mroe of the myriad Christian sects?

Quote:

Proof?

You make a claim, and then require me to come up with a proof that it is false? Priceless.
What exactly do you deny? The existence of evolution? The role of instincts? The idea that instincts are a product of evolution?
Or is the term "memory" your only problem?
In the latter case, I'll agree to retract it. Let's just call it "instinct".

Quote: Nareed

I don't waste my time kocking down straw man arguments.

I don't know what you mean by "straw man arguments".
It is not really an argument at all, it's just a question. Are you repulsed by a sexual relationship involving incest or not?
Where is the straw man? Perhaps, it is your own prejudice that makes you believe it exists? ;)

Quote:

How? Where is the shortage of children?

You are not listening.
There actually is a shortage of children in most of civilised countries, but most of it is probably not attributable to homosexuality ... because of the protective mechanisms, like homophobia, preventing it.

Quote:

Everything. if homosexuality is genetic,

That's a big "if".
There is no proof or even a slightest reason to believe that it is.

Quote:

Why?

Because there would be no reason not to.

Quote:

Is this argument built out of thin air and prejudice your own or is it the position of one or mroe of the myriad Christian sects?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no prejudice toward anyone, and I am not a member of any sect.
The argument you are referring to is based on elementary statistics.

Quote: weaselman

Maybe, maybe not. Who the hell knows? Homophobia is not a rational thought, rather an evolutionary memory. An instinctive feeling of rejection towards anything that has a potential threat to the population. If not for this feeling, who knows, maybe there would be 50% instead of 5%?

Perhaps saving children with birth defects is a threat to evolution too? Many of them can reproduce later.

Quote: rxwine

Perhaps saving children with birth defects is a threat to evolution too? Many of them can reproduce later.

Yes, in fact, it is. Humanity does get in the way of evolution in more way than one.

Quote: weaselman

You make a claim, and then require me to come up with a proof that it is false?

You claim there is such a thing as a "genetic memory." Memories are formed by individuals and stored in active brain cells. We know acquired traits, like memories,a re not apssed on to the next generation. Ergo, there's no such thing as an inherited memory. You claimed otherwise, so go ahead and prove it.

Quote:

I don't know what you mean by "straw man arguments".

In the old days soldiers would build straw men and would place armor and weapons on them, hoping to fool the enemy with such decoys. It worked, sometimes. The use of decoys has become more sophisticated, but the principle is the same. A smart commander desn't go after decoys when she can tell they're decoys.

Quote:

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no prejudice toward anyone, and I am not a member of any sect.

My apologies. I thought you did believe in god and practiced some kind of Christianity.

Quote: Nareed

You claim there is such a thing as a "genetic memory." Memories are formed by individuals and stored in active brain cells. We know acquired traits, like memories,a re not apssed on to the next generation. Ergo, there's no such thing as an inherited memory. You claimed otherwise, so go ahead and prove it.

I agreed to call it instinct. Move on.

Quote:

In the old days soldiers would build straw men...

This is not old days, and I am not building anything. Why don't you just answer the question? Are you afraid of something?

I actually think the purpose of wide variation gives our species much latitude to adapt to changing environments over time with many variations being what would be termed useless. I can't think of much use of being albino. But who knows, maybe we'll have to live underground in caves in the future and maybe they would be suited for it.

People who are thought psychotic imagining the world is ending any time, may actually be the only ones living in remote location when a comet hits the Earth someday and are able to survive even if their luck was just random.

I'm not sure if there's a reason to cast a moral judgement on any of it.

Quote: weaselman

I agreed to call it instinct. Move on.

You can agree to call it Rosebud if you want.

But go on. What instincts have been identified as existing in humanity as a whole?

Quote:

This is not old days, and I am not building anything.

Well, I guess I wasn't explicit enough. When a decoy is identified as a decoy, one tends to treat them contemptously. This is only natural, you see, as a good decoy is supposed to be taken for real. The term straw man, used in an argument, implies a certain clumsiness in one's opponent for being so transparent.

Quote:

Why don't you just answer the question? Are you afraid of something?

I told you: I don't go after decoys. It's a waste of time.

Quote: rxwine

I can't think of much use of being albino. But who knows, maybe we'll have to live underground in caves in the future and maybe they would be suited for it.

Being albino is not a prerequisite to living underground, but rather a consequence. The pigmentation is genetic response to sunlight.
There are lots of genetic variations, that are not only useless, but harmful. Just think of all the genetic diseases and deformities. The reason is that evolution has no brains, mutations are random, so there are got to be some going "the wrong way". They serve no purpose, just random glitches.

Quote:

I'm not sure if there's a reason to cast a moral judgement on any of it.

Who is casting a moral judgement?

Quote: Nareed

But go on. What instincts have been identified as existing in humanity as a whole?

Coughing.

Quote:

Well, I guess I wasn't explicit enough. When a decoy is identified as a decoy, one tends to treat them contemptously.

It was not meant as a decoy. You must be mistaken. I can't understand why you think that it is a decoy, or what do you even mean by a "decoy" in this context.

Quote: rxwine

I can't think of much use of being albino. But who knows, maybe we'll have to live underground in caves in the future and maybe they would be suited for it.

I can't see any benefit there. Light skin is an adaptation to both shorter days and keeping one's body covered. Lighter skins allow more sunlight to produce vitamin D, therefore compensating for lower sunlight exposure. But people with dark skin do as well in cold climates these days, so who knows how valuable the adaptation really is.

What's more interesting is that with a much larger population pool and altered selection mechanisms, human evolution is progressing even faster now than in the past. We don't knwo where that will lead, faster evolution is still very slow, but it's time for SF writers to tackle the subject. About all we can say is that natural selection no longer applies to humanity, nor to our domestic and ornamental animals and plants.

Quote: weaselman

Yes, in fact, it is. Humanity does get in the way of evolution in more way than one.

Not really. Humanity and its ability to change th environment merely changes the rules for which make for survival. Evolution isn't the suvival of the fittest. It is the survival of the fit enough.

Quote: thecesspit

Not really. Humanity and its ability to change th environment merely changes the rules for which make for survival.

Yes, that's what I meant by "getting in the way".

To clarify ... I think, most people do feel that instinctive repulsion in sight of a disfigured person, a "freak". It is not a rational feeling, just like homophobia, and any civilised person will try to suppress it and act "normal". Of course, we want to save infants with birth defects, and of course we do not want to prosecute and oppress people for being gay, because we are civilised. At the logical level, we are humane and tolerant, but the instinct is still there, it is a product of evolution, and there is not much an individual can do to get rid of it.

You can't blame an individual for being homophobic any more than you can for being gay. They can't help it. There is still a requirement to remain civil of course. That's a totally different story. There are many instincts that are really repulsive. We, as members of civilised society have learned to suppress and control them.

Quote:

Evolution isn't the suvival of the fittest. It is the survival of the fit enough.

That's a definition I never heard before :)
It may be a good definition, but perhaps, to avoid confusion, it should be attached to a different term?

Quote: weaselman

Coughing.

Reflex. try again.

Quote:

It was not meant as a decoy.

Uh huh. I'd be tempted to say the same thing if my decoy were spotted. I wouldn't, for reasons that ought to be obvious. But you go right ahead if you want, ok?

Quote: weaselman

Being albino is not a prerequisite to living underground, but rather a consequence.

It is for cave dwelling animals, but I'm pretty sure today's human albinos weren't born underground (I'm guessing I haven't surveyed them or anything : )

Quote: Nareed

Everything. if homosexuality is genetic, then the surest way of passing it on would be for gays to reporduce. if they don't, then it's not passed on to the next generation.

You guys are funny. This whole back and forth stuff makes for a good laugh.

I do wonder what you meant by the above statement Nareed. Are you saying that homosexuality is not genetic? Are you saying that it is some sort of third gender? The first gender would be males (attracted sexually to females), the second being females (attracted sexually to males) and then... something else? Are homosexuals just genetically designed to be attracted to the same sex? I've heard it said that homosexuality (or sexual preference) is not a choice. Is this your understanding? Is it a genetic defect? I honestly don't know so I'd like to know your views. What proof is there that sexual preference is not personal choice?

Quote: Nareed

Reflex. try again.

same difference
examples of clearly instinctive behaviors include many reflexes.

Quote:

Uh huh.

Whatever ...

Quote: rxwine

It is for cave dwelling animals, but I'm pretty sure today's human albinos weren't born underground (I'm guessing I haven't surveyed them or anything : )

Of course. I just meant that being an albino would not give them any advantage if the human race had to move to live underground all of a sudden.

Quote: TheNightfly

What proof is there that sexual preference is not personal choice?

I think when people ask this, they are thinking, yeah, I could force myself to have sex with someone of the same sex if I had too, so, it must be all choice.

But it's more like could you have sex with someone of the same sex for tomorrow and the next day for years and years and enjoy it the whole time.

That would illustrate the difference.

Quote: rxwine

I think when people ask this, they are thinking, yeah, I could force myself to have sex with someone of the same sex if I had too, so, it must be all choice.

But it's more like could you have sex with someone of the same sex for tomorrow and the next day for years and years and enjoy it the whole time.

That would illustrate the difference.

I think, you are oversimplifying. The "personal choice" thing is not an immediate reaction ("I choose to have sex with that woman right now"), but rather an acquired behavioural trait, that builds up over years as a response to the environment.

Not to make any moral parallels or anything like that, just as an illustration of an acquired behaviour, it is known that many "boy lovers" have been "loved" back when they were boys. I think, it is perfectly logical to conclude that their attraction to boys is not genetic or congenital, but acquired as a reaction to the environment they grew up in. I think, it is a commonly accepted opinion, that if those people were not victims of molestation as children, they would not become child molesters later in life. I know that not all victims of molestation become child molesters, and not all child molesters have been molested, but that's irrelevant - the same environmental factors do cause different effects in different people, and I am not saying that having been molested is the only possible factor.

So, if attraction to boys can form in response to environment, as a sort of a "personal choice", then why attraction to mature individuals of same sex could not?

"My apologies. I thought you did believe in god and practiced some kind of Christianity".

Nareed, I think you are insulting yourself by capitalizing the c word.

Evolution isn't the suvival of the fittest. It is the survival of the fit enough.

Quote: weaselman

That's a definition I never heard before :)
It may be a good definition, but perhaps, to avoid confusion, it should be attached to a different term?

Perhaps, but it does describe evolution (for me at least) in a better way than survival of the fittest. The latter leads to all sorts of images of purpose, "better than" and other side effects from reading far to much into a description of how the world works. Survival of the fit enough is much more like it, as those that can survive in the environment, and breed, pass on their genes. They don't have to be the best, or the fastest, strongest, most intelligent. They just have to survive.

I'm not an expert on evolution so my understanding is a pop science.

"Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for natural selection in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape".[4] Hence, it is not a scientific description." (From Wikipedia).

There is evidence that homosexuality is a genetic trait. There are traits that can be dormant and passed down the line. There is a study I read once that suggests younger brothers are more likely to be gay "http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10531.full", with various reason posited. One was that there's an advantage for a family lineage to have less competitors within for mates, especially if the kin can help nuture and care for the other brother and sister's children. This could lead to nature/nuture type effect that leads to homosexuality. I don't agree that homophobia is necessarily a instinctive response of distaste for those that won't breed the human species. Genes "push" for their own survival, not for the survival of the entire gene pool. It would be as easy to say people should welcome homosexuality if they themselves are hetreo... less competition for mates...

Quote: rxwine

I think when people ask this, they are thinking, yeah, I could force myself to have sex with someone of the same sex if I had too, so, it must be all choice.

But it's more like could you have sex with someone of the same sex for tomorrow and the next day for years and years and enjoy it the whole time.

That would illustrate the difference.

What I'm asking Nareed for is proof that homosexuality or sexual preference (which may or may not be mutually exclusive) is NOT a personal choice. So often I've heard that it is not personal choice and yet I don't know of any scientific proof to back this up. Nareed is on the "proof of God" bandwagon suggesting that without any quantitative proof of God then one would be foolish to give the idea any credence. I'm simply asking for proof that homosexuality is anything more than a personal choice, a genetic abnormality, a quirk of fate or a lifestyle path selected by those looking for acceptance outside of the norm when it can't be found within. Of course, all I'm really doing is stirring things up because this sort of scientific proof can no more be found for the basis of homosexuality than it can for the existence of God. The next question I'd have would be whether or not Nareed is male or female and what criteria is being used to make that claim. I understand that that is a very personal question so I will understand if Nareed chooses not to answer.

Quote: thecesspit

Perhaps, but it does describe evolution (for me at least) in a better way than survival of the fittest. The latter leads to all sorts of images of purpose, "better than" and other side effects from reading far to much into a description of how the world works. Survival of the fit enough is much more like it, as those that can survive in the environment, and breed, pass on their genes. They don't have to be the best, or the fastest, strongest, most intelligent. They just have to survive.

If two (or more) species compete for survival, the fittest will survive, not all that are fit enough. That's how I understand the meaning of the term. It is not only about surviving environmental conditions, it is about winning the competition with other species.
Neanderthals were fit enough to survive in the ice age. Where are they now?

Quote:

There is evidence that homosexuality is a genetic trait. There are traits that can be dormant and passed down the line. There is a study I read once that suggests younger brothers are more likely to be gay "http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10531.full", with various reason posited.

I don't see how that is evidence of anything, let alone gayness being genetic. Younger brother is subjected to a different environment (of having an older brother), so he ends up developing differently. There are many personality traits, that are more characteristic to younger siblings, not because they are all genetic, but exactly to the contrary, because they are not.

I can give you some links to studies that say exactly the opposite to what you read. Here is but' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://stkarnick.com/blog2/2008/10/post_169.html]but one example.

I think what all of these studies have behind them is politics, personal bias, some wishful thinking, and very little else.

Using logic, every day observation and common sense I see very little if any at all reason to believe that homosexuality is a genetic trait. It will take a lot more than a questionable, unverified, and unrepetable statistical data based on a small sample to convince me otherwise.
In all other cases. when scientists talk about genetic traits, they can point to a particular gene combination, responsible for the effect. If they can ever find the gene of homosexuality, I'll readily admit that I was wrong. Until then, it is all pure speculation, and a highly questionable one at best.

I have already stated (some of) my reasons to believe homosexuality is acquired. I feel that they are fairly consistent and logically strong enough to believe that the burden of proof is in the opposite camp.

Quote:

One was that there's an advantage for a family lineage to have less competitors within for mates, especially if the kin can help nuture and care for the other brother and sister's children. This could lead to nature/nuture type effect that leads to homosexuality.

It would be more logical for that effect to lead to frigidity, sterility or impotence, don't you think? Not to mention that I find the reasoning itself quite laughable. The advantage to family lineage is to have less competition outside of the family, by increasing the family competitiveness, not to cripple all but one family members, and dramatically limit the chances of successful reproduction.

Quote:

I don't agree that homophobia is necessarily a instinctive response of distaste for those that won't breed the human species. Genes "push" for their own survival, not for the survival of the entire gene pool.

You were just talking about the "genes" could "push" for the younger brother to be gay because it might be beneficial for the family, and now you are making a 180, and claiming that they only push for your own survival. You can't have it both ways :)
No, the product of evolution is species, not an individual, the instincts, being the product of evolution are thus beneficial to the species as a whole.

ME, and Nareed won't answer my question, perhaps, you will ... Do you personally find incest appauling/disgusting/distasteful, provided that there is no chance that the relationship will ever produce offspring (except, perhaps, from a sperm donor or a surrogate mother)?

Hmmm, good points all. As I said, I'm at the pop cultural level.

My arguements are purely various ideas I've seen. I don't know if any of them are true, false, good or bad.

"I don't see how that is evidence of anything, let alone gayness being genetic"

It's proof that younger brothers are more likely to be gay. By proof I mean "one item of evidence". And it IS genetic. The genetics here are the make up of the human being that mean there's various womb conditions that may make younger males more likely to smaller (and hence more likely to be gay). This trait is due to how the human body works. If it worked differently (and no reason why a womb might not work differently), there may be less of the factors that make the offspring homosexual.

The genetic trait doesn't have to be a genetic difference in all, but how the genes express themselves, and gene experession can be highly variable due to the environment.

It's all back to nature/nuture debates. These things always end up there. I don't think homosexuality is a high level cognitive "choice" to find members of the same sex attractive, any more than my preference for beer over wine is a high level choice. I do agree there's almost certainly environmental factors involved, but I do expect there to be something within a person's nature to make them tend to one set of behaviours... given the fundamental attractiveness some men have for other men, and from a young age, I'm not sure how it cannot be part of the possible make up of a human being.

As for the incest question.... I don't find it appalling or disgusting in the terms you describe. I find it odd, strange, weird, outside societies bounds and I'd go for unsettling-to-distasteful.

It is my choice. It doesn't diminish me as a character. Now, that's your judgement. You think I'm diminished because I credit God for my success. So what do I care?

It does strike me as marvelous that we've evolved, but that evolution was not because of something that humans have done. A simple asteroid or nuclear armageddon would likely wipe out our civilization and in little over a couple of hundreds of years, that evidence would be wiped from the face of this earth.

And I don't believe that you're going to hell.

And probably Osama's heart was filled by hatred of a Christian God.

Quote: thecesspit

It's proof that younger brothers are more likely to be gay. By proof I mean "one item of evidence". And it IS genetic.

Ok, a younger brother is more likely to be gay. How do you conclude from that that it is genetic?
I remember reading some study that the younger of two brothers makes more income on average. Does that have to be genetic too?
Does everything that a younger brother is more likely to have have to be genetic, or is homosexuality an exception?

Quote:

The genetic trait doesn't have to be a genetic difference in all, but how the genes express themselves, and gene experession can be highly variable due to the environment.

I don't know what this means, I am afraid. Are you suggesting that the same combination of genes could result in different effects depending on ... what? Womb conditions? If that was true, then what meaning does the notion of "gene" would have?
As far as I know (and I am not an expert, so ...) when they talk about a "genetic trait", it usually means that there is a particular gene or group of genes, that, when activated, causes a certain effect. If that gene is suppressed, then the trait does not appear.
Genetics is quite an exact science actually, knowing the exact compositions of genes an organism has allows to calculate exactly which features that organism will possess (the genetically-conditioned features that is, not something like gayness or liking of beer).

Quote:

It's all back to nature/nuture debates. These things always end up there.

Well ... I think, that is where it starts actually :)

Quote:

I don't think homosexuality is a high level cognitive "choice" to find members of the same sex attractive,

I agree with that. It is not a cognitive choice, and definitely not "high level". It is more like a complex of subconscious behavioural reactions, formed as a response to various environmental stimuli.

Quote:

given the fundamental attractiveness some men have for other men, and from a young age, I'm not sure how it cannot be part of the possible make up of a human being.

Why not? Being rejected by a girl a few times (and not necessarily in a sexual context), or just treated badly by a girl or a woman, can very well do that. The young age is actually especially vulnerable to factors like that, so I am not sure what is it you see about it that's so surprising.

Quote:

As for the incest question.... I don't find it appalling or disgusting in the terms you describe. I find it odd, strange, weird, outside societies bounds and I'd go for unsettling-to-distasteful.

Ok, good enough. Can you explain why you find it unsettling or distasteful? And/or why you think it is outside of the societal bounds?

Quote:

Ok, a younger brother is more likely to be gay. How do you conclude from that that it is genetic?
I remember reading some study that the younger of two brothers makes more income on average. Does that have to be genetic too?
Does everything that a younger brother is more likely to have have to be genetic, or is homosexuality an exception?

Nope. But I believe there is likely to be a MIX of factors... nature and nuture. The genetics here is NOT the younger brother's genes, but the mother's... it may be that some mothers wombs work differently after the firstborn male. Maybe they don't. What I am saying is that there maybe casual link/tendency between the number of older brothers and the chance of being gay. This might be nothing to do with the womb environment (which all I am saying IS a trait of the human being, and how the genes work to express themselves to make a woman's womb work, along with the proteins, and the way the genes in different cells run the business of the human body... it's such a wonderfully complex and chaotic machine).

Quote:

Genetics is quite an exact science actually, knowing the exact compositions of genes an organism has allows to calculate exactly which features that organism will possess (the genetically-conditioned features that is, not something like gayness or liking of beer).

That'll be a surprise to some of the people I work with then :)

Gene expression is how a particular set of genes react to express their make up and form the proteins and hence the attributes in the body. And this can be variable dependent on the environment. Genetics is not precise, and I think the latest thinking is that for some attributes there is not one set of bases in the genome that points to a single attribute. It's much more complex than that (in some cases... in others, there's a simple link between the gene code to the protein to the attribute, especially in some disorders and traits).

Quote:

Why not? Being rejected by a girl a few times (and not necessarily in a sexual context), or just treated badly by a girl or a woman, can very well do that. The young age is actually especially vulnerable to factors like that, so I am not sure what is it you see about it that's so surprising.

I don't find that surprising. But what makes one man rejected by a girl turn to the comfort or men, and another a woman hater and another bounce back and the world's greatest Lathario (sp?) in ten years time? All sorts of factors. One's we may never know. I don't fault people for trying to find out though.

Quote:

Ok, good enough. Can you explain why you find it unsettling or distasteful? And/or why you think it is outside of the societal bounds?

Hmmm, dunno. I just do. Partly because I don't want to sleep with my sister, so on the bare face of it, I would expect any one else to want to (sleep with their sister, clarifying before I make an obvious joke :).

The outside of societal bounds one is obvious. Because, erm, my cultural society looks down on relationships between brothers and sisters, for various reasons, not least we "know" it can screw up the offspring. What do you think of it?