Home » Forums » Religion and Irrationalities » Kill 'em with Kindness

Homosexuality, Darwinism, Microarrays, and Exotic becomes Erotic theory [KEWK]

Posted on: September 19, 2010 - 12:56pm
BookofJob
Theist
Posts: 20
Joined: 2010-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Homosexuality, Darwinism, Microarrays, and Exotic becomes Erotic theory [KEWK]

http://dbem.ws/Exotic%20Becomes%20Erotic.pdf

 

"Born Gay?

There is a common belief among liberals that people are born either gay or straight. Conservatives tend to believe that sexual orientation is actually sexual preference, which is chosen by the individual. This page represents a review of the scientific literature on the basis for homosexual orientation.

Homosexuality and Darwinism

I am not a huge fan of Neo Darwinian evolution. Nevertheless, there is some clear evidence that natural selection (and sexual selection) does act upon populations and has acted on our own species to produce racial differences.37 Natural selection postulates that those genetic mutations that favor survival and reproduction will be selected, whereas those that compromise survival and reproduction will be eliminated. Obviously, a gene or series of genes that produce non-reproducing individuals (i.e., those who express pure homosexual behavior) will be rapidly eliminated from any population. So, it would be expected that any "gay gene" would be efficiently removed from a population. However, it is possible that a gene favoring male homosexuality could "hide" within the human genome if it were located on the X-chromosome, where it could be carried by reproducing females, and not be subject to negative selection by non-reproducing males. In order to survive, the gene(s) would be expected to be associated with higher reproductive capacity in women who carry it (compensating for the generation of non-reproducing males). I can't imagine a genetic scenario in which female homosexuality would ever persist within a population.

Real genetic studies?

Within the last decade, genetic analysis of heritable traits has taken a huge step forward with the advent of DNA microarray technology. Using this technology, it is possible to scan large lengths of the human genome (even an entire genome wide scan - GWAS) for numerous individuals, at quite reasonable costs. This DNA microarray technology has led to the discovery of genes that are associated with complex diseases, such as Crohn's Disease, which is the topic of my research. If homosexuality truly has a genetic component, DNA microarray studies (probably beginning with the X-chromosome) would not only definitively prove the point, but would identify specific gene(s) or loci that might be associated with those who express a homosexual orientation. Why haven't these studies been done?"

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html

 

 

Widespread Male Homosexuality presisting in a culture as an ideal for society. What's the historical results?

 

Notice to Reader: "The Boards of both CERC Canada and CERC USA are aware that the topic of homosexuality is a controversial one that deeply affects the personal lives of many North Americans. Both Boards strongly reiterate the Catechism's teaching that people who self-identify as gays and lesbians must be treated with 'respect, compassion, and sensitivity' (CCC #2358). The Boards also support the Church's right to speak to aspects of this issue in accordance with her own self-understanding. Articles in this section have been chosen to cast light on how the teachings of the Church intersect with the various social, moral, and legal developments in secular society. CERC will not publish articles which, in the opinion of the editor, expose gays and lesbians to hatred or intolerance

 

"The enemy of women

Yet another reason for Judaism's opposition to homosexuality is homosexuality's negative effect on women.

One of the most remarkable aspects of contemporary societies' acceptance of homosexuality is the lack of outcry from and on behalf of women. I say "outcry" because there is certainly much quiet crying by women over this issue, as heard in the frequent lament from single women that so many single men are gay. But the major reason for anyone concerned with women's equality to be concerned with homosexuality is the direct correlation between the prevalence of male homosexuality and the relegation of women to a low social role. The improvement of the condition of women has only occurred in Western civilization, the civilization least tolerant of homosexuality.

In societies where men sought out men for love and sex, women were relegated to society's periphery. Thus, for example, ancient Greece, which elevated homosexuality to an ideal, was characterized by "a misogynistic attitude," in Norman Sussman's words. Homosexuality in ancient Greece, he writes, "was closely linked to an idealized concept of the man as the focus of intellectual and physical activities...The woman was seen as serving but two roles. As a wife, she ran the home. As a courtesan, she satisfied male sexual desires." Classicist Eva Keuls describes Athens at its height of philosophical and artistic greatness as "a society dominated by men who sequester their wives and daughters, denigrate the female role in reproduction, erect monuments to the male genitalia, have sex with the sons of their peers..."

In medieval France, when men stressed male-male love, it "implied a corresponding lack of interest in women. In the Song of Roland, a French mini-epic given its final form in the late eleventh or twelfth century, women appear only as shadowy marginal figures: "The deepest signs of affection in the poem, as well as in similar ones appear in the love of man for man..." The women of Arab society, wherein male homosexuality has been widespread, remain in a notably low state in the modern world. This may be a coincidence, but common sense suggests a linkage. So, too, in traditional Chinese culture, the low state of women has been linked to widespread homosexuality. As a French physician reported from China in the nineteenth century, "Chinese women were such docile, homebound dullards that the men, like those of ancient Greece, sought courtesans and boys."

While traditional Judaism is not as egalitarian as many late twentieth century Jews would like, it was Judaism --- very much through its insistence on marriage and family and its rejection of infidelity and homosexuality --- that initiated the process of elevating the status of women. While other cultures were writing homoerotic poetry, the Jews wrote the Song of Songs, one of the most beautiful poems depicting male-female sensual love ever written.

A final reason for opposition to homosexuality is the homosexual "lifestyle." While it is possible for male homosexuals to live lives of fidelity comparable to those of heterosexual males, it is usually not the case. While the typical lesbian has had fewer than ten "lovers," the typical male homosexual in America has had over 500. In general, neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals confront the fact that it is this male homosexual lifestyle, more than the specific homosexual act, that disturbs most people. This is probably why less attention is paid to female homosexuality. When male sexuality is not controlled, the consequences are considerably more destructive than when female sexuality is not controlled. Men rape. Women do not. Men, not women, engage in fetishes. Men are more frequently consumed by their sex drive, and wander from sex partner to sex partner. Men, not women, are sexually sadistic. The indiscriminate sex that characterizes much of male homosexual life represents the antithesis of Judaism's goal of elevating human life from the animal-like to the Godlike."

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html

 

"Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners."

 

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/MarrHoVsHet.htm

[13]

 

‹ To all theists: Why do you believe? [kill em with kindness] Religion as Stockholm syndrome ›

Posted on: September 19, 2010 - 1:32pm #1
Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7588
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Book of Job, could you

Book of Job, could you participate in the discussion that results from your opening posts?  Cut and paste posting of sites you agree with isn't what we're hoping that this forum yields.

 

Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!

Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient


Posted on: September 19, 2010 - 2:38pm #2
Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 OK, you obviously need

 

OK, you obviously need this broken down into simple steps.

 

Step 1: Your genes define who you are biologically. Sex is hereditary. If your parents did not have it then neither will you.

 

Step 2: Your genes do not define who you are sociologically. The idea that there are gay genes is a political idea. It is born not of any fact but rather from those who have the specific agenda that gay is identical to black or Asian or whatever. Because of this theory, if one is gay, then one deserves to have rights which are at least as powerful as those who can't think of a reason why they should have more rights than others.

 

Step 3: Your genes tell you that having orgasms is a good idea. Past that, the idea that there are genes for liking men's butt holes makes about as much sense as there being genes for liking blow jobs and genes for compulsive beating off.

 

Step 4: There is no such thing as “gay”. There is such a thing as normal human sexual expression. Some people like some things. Other people like other things. Still other people think that something else is hot.

 

Step 5: if there is any genetic aspect that is relevant, it will be that we all like to have orgasms. Cumming is fun. Most of us like to cum and those who don't tend to not reproduce.

 

Step 6: Some people are into MOTSS. Other people are into MOTOS. There is, in point of fact a continuum of normal sexual expression. If someone is 90% straight, then the odds of their getting it on with the same sex are minimal. The same but opposite would be true for someone who is 90% gay.

 

Step 6a: You are not locked into a place on the continuum at birth. There are plenty of people out there who have large families and decide later in life that they want to do people who are the same sex. If they find someone else they can work with, then I am happy for them.

 

Having gone this far, I will now tell you where I stand on gay marriage.

 

Let them get married.

 

The usual argument seems to be about families. Well, my family is not so fragile that two dudes a thousand miles away have any bearing on what I have going on. If my family was that fragile, it would reflect on me and not on the two guys next door.

 

Then the next argument tends to go into the idea of the “rights and privileges of marriages”.

 

Every time that I hear that one, I am like “huh? What?”

 

Sure, there are tax credits and shared medical insurance that go with marriage. Those are financial things and not relevant to human sexual expression.

 

I suppose that a gay couple could get with a lesbian couple and have two marriages. After that, anyone can fuck whomever they want to and they all get the tax credits. Granted, that would be a kind of separate but equal thing. We all know that that is balls stupid but it is a trivial way to manipulate the system.

 

Where this really matters is not about the rights and privileges. It is about the consequences. I fail to see how a gay relationship cannot go sour as easily as a straight one.

 

If two dudes want to hook up and not get married, well, then they get to have some fun. Ten years later, they have to figure out who gets custody of the french poolde and tell their respective insurance companies what the deal is (well that could happen if insurance companies were not behaving like financial leeches).

 

On the other hand, if the same two dudes got married, then when the deal goes bad, they still have to do the same stuff. The difference is that the paperwork is pretty much the same. If stuff is the same, then how is it different?

 

If the deal is that same sex marriage is all about the stuff and never about the costs, then I would have a problem. Shall we create a concept of a civil union? Sure, if that floats the boat for someone who wants it. Just don't make it all about what is good to have and never about the costs. That would be the same as carving out a special section of the law, which is not what I am hearing the gays asking for.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Posted on: September 19, 2010 - 5:08pm #3
cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
1. There is a valid - though

1. There is a valid - though I don't think there has been any research - evolutionary reason for homosexuality.  Those non-breeding members of a family group would be available to contribute to the family but not compete with other member's children.  In other words, aunties and uncles without their own children were supportive of the children of other family members.  Sort of like a wolf pack where only the alpha pair breed and the rest of the pack supports those pups.

2. Would you agree that responding to human pheromones is not consciously controllable? 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060508_lesbian.html wrote:

Lesbian women respond differently than straight women when exposed to suspected sexual chemicals, according to a new brain imaging study.

The finding builds on previous research that suggest that gay men responded in a way more similar to heterosexual women than heterosexual men when exposed to a synthetic chemical.

The natural version of this chemical reportedly appears in high concentrations in male sweat.

The new study extends the research to homosexual women.

It found that lesbians' brains respond in a fashion more similar to that of heterosexual men than of heterosexual women when exposed to the sweat chemical and a synthetic chemical that has been detected in female urine.

"Both studies … indicate that the physiological response in brain regions associated with reproduction are different in homo- and heterosexual persons," Ivanka Savic, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, said in an email.

 

Now, if you can control your physiological response in brain regions associated with reproduction, I'm sure the researchers would like to meet you.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Posted on: September 19, 2010 - 7:02pm #4
Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

 

 

 

            I have to take you task for step 1;   My parants never had sex, not once.  They had seven children but never sex, I'm so sure of that I never even asked them.  So there!!!

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Posted on: September 20, 2010 - 1:15am #5
Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is an odd way

 

to disagree with Evolutionary Theory and variations in human sexuality. I take it you disagree with both. How unsurprising that is. Thanks for your contribution.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Posted on: September 20, 2010 - 12:59am #6
butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
BookofJob wrote:There is a

BookofJob wrote:
There is a common belief among liberals that people are born either gay or straight. Conservatives tend to believe that sexual orientation is actually sexual preference, which is chosen by the individual.

It's not black and white. Generally, it should be a combination of genetics, environment, and preference. For some people, it's very genetic. For others, it's only until they graduate from college.  

BookofJob wrote:
However, it is possible that a gene favoring male homosexuality could "hide" within the human genome if it were located on the X-chromosome, where it could be carried by reproducing females, and not be subject to negative selection by non-reproducing males.

Huh?

How would this "not be subject to negative selection by non-reproducing males?" If there is a "homosexual gene," which I think is a gross oversimplification, females with the X chromosome could still pass the gene in question to their male offspring. Males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome.

BookofJob wrote:
I can't imagine a genetic scenario in which female homosexuality would ever persist within a population.

What about the exact same scenario, except in reverse? Increased reproduction in males to compensate for homosexual females.

BookofJob wrote:
If homosexuality truly has a genetic component, DNA microarray studies (probably beginning with the X-chromosome) would not only definitively prove the point, but would identify specific gene(s) or loci that might be associated with those who express a homosexual orientation. Why haven't these studies been done?"

How would DNA microarray prove "the point?" This technology needs to be explained.

How do they know no studies have been done? Did they actually look this up?

BookofJob wrote:
I say "outcry" because there is certainly much quiet crying by women over this issue, as heard in the frequent lament from single women that so many single men are gay.

Lol. These Creationists are a little...out there with this one. I've never seen or heard of any single women "lamenting" that too many single men are gay. Any evidence for this?

BookofJob wrote:
The improvement of the condition of women has only occurred in Western civilization, the civilization least tolerant of homosexuality.

Aside from the Holocaust, I have to disagree and say that, currently, Western civilization, especially Western Europe, is more tolerant of homosexuality than anywhere else in the world.

What about countries currently under Sharia law, to any extent? The U.S. doesn't let them get married. Iran doesn't let them live.

BookofJob wrote:
Thus, for example, ancient Greece, which elevated homosexuality to an ideal, was characterized by "a misogynistic attitude," in Norman Sussman's words. Homosexuality in ancient Greece, he writes, "was closely linked to an idealized concept of the man as the focus of intellectual and physical activities...The woman was seen as serving but two roles. As a wife, she ran the home. As a courtesan, she satisfied male sexual desires." Classicist Eva Keuls describes Athens at its height of philosophical and artistic greatness as "a society dominated by men who sequester their wives and daughters, denigrate the female role in reproduction, erect monuments to the male genitalia, have sex with the sons of their peers..."

In medieval France, when men stressed male-male love, it "implied a corresponding lack of interest in women. In the Song of Roland, a French mini-epic given its final form in the late eleventh or twelfth century, women appear only as shadowy marginal figures: "The deepest signs of affection in the poem, as well as in similar ones appear in the love of man for man..." The women of Arab society, wherein male homosexuality has been widespread, remain in a notably low state in the modern world. This may be a coincidence, but common sense suggests a linkage. So, too, in traditional Chinese culture, the low state of women has been linked to widespread homosexuality. As a French physician reported from China in the nineteenth century, "Chinese women were such docile, homebound dullards that the men, like those of ancient Greece, sought courtesans and boys."

While traditional Judaism is not as egalitarian as many late twentieth century Jews would like, it was Judaism --- very much through its insistence on marriage and family and its rejection of infidelity and homosexuality --- that initiated the process of elevating the status of women. While other cultures were writing homoerotic poetry, the Jews wrote the Song of Songs, one of the most beautiful poems depicting male-female sensual love ever written.

These are some nice examples, assuming that all the facts presented are facts.

Overall, I do not think it would be very surprising if there is sometimes or even often an inverse correlation between the status of male homosexuals and females. Obviously, if you idealize homosexuality, then heterosexuality is not ideal. Conversely, a belief system that encouraged a bond between men and women (It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!), would frown upon homosexuals. But, I also think that women's rights and gay rights often go hand-in-hand. Both groups might suffer in a society where the powerful/majority oppresses those that it considers different/inferior etc.

I would be interested in hearing why this writer thinks this correlation exists.

BookofJob wrote:
In general, neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals confront the fact that it is this male homosexual lifestyle, more than the specific homosexual act, that disturbs most people.

From what I've observed, that's just not true. Most people that are disturbed by homosexuality in any way nowadays simply have some instinctual or religious issue with it. The homosexual lifestyle is a side issue.

BookofJob wrote:
This is probably why less attention is paid to female homosexuality.

Honestly, I think conservative, religious males pay more attention to homosexual males primarily because it grinds more on their instincts. Lesbians are hot.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Posted on: September 20, 2010 - 4:08am #7
rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
BookofJob wrote:  "Born

BookofJob wrote:

 

 

"Born Gay?

There is a common belief among liberals that people are born either gay or straight. Conservatives tend to believe that sexual orientation is actually sexual preference, which is chosen by the individual. This page represents a review of the scientific literature on the basis for homosexual orientation.

Homosexuality and Darwinism

I am not a huge fan of Neo Darwinian evolution. Nevertheless, there is some clear evidence that natural selection (and sexual selection) does act upon populations and has acted on our own species to produce racial differences.37 Natural selection postulates that those genetic mutations that favor survival and reproduction will be selected, whereas those that compromise survival and reproduction will be eliminated. Obviously, a gene or series of genes that produce non-reproducing individuals (i.e., those who express pure homosexual behavior) will be rapidly eliminated from any population. So, it would be expected that any "gay gene" would be efficiently removed from a population. However, it is possible that a gene favoring male homosexuality could "hide" within the human genome if it were located on the X-chromosome, where it could be carried by reproducing females, and not be subject to negative selection by non-reproducing males. In order to survive, the gene(s) would be expected to be associated with higher reproductive capacity in women who carry it (compensating for the generation of non-reproducing males). I can't imagine a genetic scenario in which female homosexuality would ever persist within a population.

Real genetic studies?

Within the last decade, genetic analysis of heritable traits has taken a huge step forward with the advent of DNA microarray technology. Using this technology, it is possible to scan large lengths of the human genome (even an entire genome wide scan - GWAS) for numerous individuals, at quite reasonable costs. This DNA microarray technology has led to the discovery of genes that are associated with complex diseases, such as Crohn's Disease, which is the topic of my research. If homosexuality truly has a genetic component, DNA microarray studies (probably beginning with the X-chromosome) would not only definitively prove the point, but would identify specific gene(s) or loci that might be associated with those who express a homosexual orientation. Why haven't these studies been done?"

 

 

 

Widespread Male Homosexuality presisting in a culture as an ideal for society. What's the historical results?

 

"The enemy of women

Yet another reason for Judaism's opposition to homosexuality is homosexuality's negative effect on women.

One of the most remarkable aspects of contemporary societies' acceptance of homosexuality is the lack of outcry from and on behalf of women. I say "outcry" because there is certainly much quiet crying by women over this issue, as heard in the frequent lament from single women that so many single men are gay. But the major reason for anyone concerned with women's equality to be concerned with homosexuality is the direct correlation between the prevalence of male homosexuality and the relegation of women to a low social role. The improvement of the condition of women has only occurred in Western civilization, the civilization least tolerant of homosexuality.

 

A final reason for opposition to homosexuality is the homosexual "lifestyle." While it is possible for male homosexuals to live lives of fidelity comparable to those of heterosexual males, it is usually not the case. While the typical lesbian has had fewer than ten "lovers," the typical male homosexual in America has had over 500. In general, neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals confront the fact that it is this male homosexual lifestyle, more than the specific homosexual act, that disturbs most people. This is probably why less attention is paid to female homosexuality. When male sexuality is not controlled, the consequences are considerably more destructive than when female sexuality is not controlled. Men rape. Women do not. Men, not women, engage in fetishes. Men are more frequently consumed by their sex drive, and wander from sex partner to sex partner. Men, not women, are sexually sadistic.

 

 

 

Ok , Im pretty liberal and I do not think people are born gay. Some do it because a friend they idolize is gay and they want to be like them. Some do it because they are sick of men/women crap and they decide they will be gay because they are too scorned by the opposite sex. Some do it because they live in areas where there are nothing but ugly men/women. Some because they live in an area that is prodomiately gay, so if you can't beat em join em. The list goes on but you get my drift.

How could there be a gay gene? That doesn't even sound logical at all. I love laffy taffy like nobodys business. If there's a gay gene there has to be a laffy taffy gene.

On "the enemy of women" could it be that these women are undesirable? Refer to above about living in areas where people are just ugly. Also that "lifestyle" bit is a bit false. I know more than one couple of gays that have been together for years and never cheated. On the men rape women do not, not true. Women can just as easily take advantage of men as men do women. There's a date rape pill and viagra. I'm pretty sure it's possible but I've never tried it. Also i have a friend who's mom raped him. She lost her rights and if I remember correctly went to jail. Women do engage in fetishes. Some like their toes sucked on. I don't understand it but hey who am I to judge? Woman also wonder from partner to partner. I know quite a few of them sadly. The term is nympho. the sadistic thing, I don't even know. Sadistic meaning what? That they like to draw pentagrams on their partners or is this in the rape category?

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Posted on: September 20, 2010 - 4:31am #8
Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Some people's

 

normal sexual expression is same sex. That's just how they are. I have friends who are gay on both sides and they are just flat out gay. They're not doing it for entertainment or convenience or to annoy their parents or whatever. The rest of us might have our moments of entertaining fantasy but gay people are definitely just plain, old gay. Believe me, I work in Surry Hills and sometimes drink at the White Horse. I know.

So is it genetic? I think it's got to be related to gene expression and brain structure or brain function in some way or other. What's normal for some people is not normal for other people tho' in the context of normal operations of both types of human brains, everything is working exactly as it should.

Sexuality is a splendid thing. So long as all the participants are happy and satisfied, all judgments about fetishes, tastes, kinks and bends should be suspended. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Posted on: September 20, 2010 - 4:55am #9
rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Well to add to it because I

Well to add to it because I forgot, Some are just gay. Some children you can look back to a time when they were two and you realize there were signs. Some people just aren't attracted to the opposite sex.

Btw why do gays get so much thrown at them? I don't understand why it's such a big deal. Love knows no color nor sex and you can't help who you fall in love with.  I'm for letting them get married. It's there life and you only get one so live it up how you want to. Also a lot of people can't stand the idea of them raising children. What's the problem? I know a couple that have a daughter with the same medical issues my son has. If it weren't for these two women this kid wouldn't have had a chance at survival. Her birth mother was from another country and left her to die because she didn't know what was wrong. Kuddos to these chicks!

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Posted on: September 20, 2010 - 9:29am #10
Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Geez, what's with all the

Geez, what's with all the cutting and pasting from that oxymoronic "catholic education" site ?

Now I too will post a link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5120004.stm

So there.


Posted on: September 20, 2010 - 10:05am #11
jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Geez,

Anonymouse wrote:

Geez, what's with all the cutting and pasting from that oxymoronic "catholic education" site ?

Now I too will post a link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5120004.stm

So there.

Science scares them unless Pope Wehrmacht approves?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Posted on: November 23, 2010 - 3:14pm #12
Pheonix
atheist
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson

rebecca.williamson wrote:

 

How could there be a gay gene? That doesn't even sound logical at all. I love laffy taffy like nobodys business. If there's a gay gene there has to be a laffy taffy gene.

... Thats EXACTLY what it is. There is not "single gene" that defines my attraction to hot girls. There is no gene that defines a chimpanzee's attraction to another chimp. Why do I not get off on sexy chimp pics? Because I am not programmed that way. Your preference for medium-rare stakes over partially chewed sod is not a preference you obtained because sod "scorned" you at some point. You like steak because you are programmed to, and cow's do not like steak because they are programmed not to eat other cow's.

 

A person can acquire preferences. Some people have really weird tastes. But the basic programing that allows a person to like or dislike something necessarily stems from genetics. Everything you mind does is made possible by the genes that determined its initial structure. Any biology class should explain this better.

 

Bottom line: Homosexuality cannot be reduced to a "gene" like hair color or skin color. But our preferences for things (take a sociology class) can be generalized. Humans have trends in behavior. Which means something common causes these behaviors. Do you like taffy because your friend did and you want to be more like him? NO! You like taffy because it is chewy and delicious, which are traits you are programmed to respond positively to. Some people dislike taffy because their programming focuses on the sticky, too-sweet qualities of taffy. This is an example of abnormal human behavior, probably caused by radiation or something.

Be as you wish to seem ~Socrates