Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9101 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 904,466 Year: 1,347/14,231 Month: 271/1,076 Week: 4/376 Day: 4/78 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
subbie
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(3)
Message 121 of 1309 (722973)
03-25-2014 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by lokiare
03-25-2014 8:23 PM


lokiare writes:
This is all pure speculation. Is there any science that has identified a homosexual gene or allele?
To the best of my knowledge, they haven't identified a tall gene, a fat gene, a pretty voice gene or a hair color gene. By your reasoning, therefore those things can't be natural.
Is this making sense even to you?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:23 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:36 PM subbie has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 7488
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 122 of 1309 (722974)
03-25-2014 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Theodoric
03-25-2014 6:20 PM


I do not have to give you chapter and verse ... except you did ask.
In her Message 14 is her initial misunderstanding. Pressie was answering how/where homosexuality fit into evolution. I am not sure Pressie meant that he was equating asexuality with homosexuality though that is what he said. I don't think he gave sufficient thought to this statement. Faith took it at face value as equating homo with asexual and objected that homosexual acts are not at all the same as asexual acts.
Eventually we get to her Message 30 screaming that homo is not equivalent to asexual and insisting that homo sex is not reproduction. She is right of course, though I still think neither Pressie nor Faith realize the disconnect that had taken place and why.
Your response in Message 32 didn't help correct either of the misunderstandings and exacerbated, IMHO, the further disconnect of the issue.
Frankly, Theo, I'm not sure you see the erroneous equality Pressie stated, unwittingly imo, and thus why Faith could misunderstand his point. Further, we agree that Faith's philosophy on homosexuality is biased and bigoted, but I do not believe that was her motivation in reacting to Pressie's erroneous statement in this thread. That, I feel, was your misunderstanding.
Regardless. I see as I see. We are allowed to disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2014 6:20 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 03-26-2014 1:28 AM AZPaul3 has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(7)
Message 123 of 1309 (722975)
03-25-2014 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by lokiare
03-25-2014 7:33 PM


Re: Same old, same old.
Actually the new testament was written during Roman times when homosexuality was an oddity, but not persecuted or even looked down upon. So they were going against social norms, not with them.
Have you heard of eunuchs? People usually think that just means a castrated man, but that's not wholly correct. It also included uncastrated men, or people who just don't get married, including priests.
The eunuchs played certain social roles, many which were helped by them being nonsexual.
I think the homosexuals were included in the grouping. And practically, if the guy likes cutting hair and won't bang your mistress then it wouldn't really matter if he was gay instead of castrated.
Anyways, I bring it up because you mention the new testament. Take a look at Matthew 19:
quote:
12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by othersand there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus mentions three types of eunuchs, going backwards:
-for the sake of heaven, these are the priests
-made that way by others, these are the castrated
-born that way, ?
Sounds like he's talking about the gays there. It can't be men who are born without testicles, that so rare and negligible that it isn't worth mentioning. But as you said, in roman times there were plenty of gay men skipping around. So it makes sense that they are mentioned.
What do you think about Jesus saying they were born that way, as opposed to it being a choice?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 7:33 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 244 by Raphael, posted 04-01-2014 5:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3142 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 124 of 1309 (722976)
03-25-2014 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Omnivorous
03-25-2014 6:00 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
lokiare writes:
The key thing to take away is that not liking something is not persecution or bigotry.
You're half right: bigotry is indeed an inner state, not a behavior; persecution and other discriminatory acts are behavior.
I am astonished that you will not defend your premise that only biologically determined characteristics should be protected by law, preferring to claim the question is an attempt to "box you in".
But you have boxed yourself. Without that premise, your argument is nonsense.
I find some religious tenets abhorrent: may I refuse service to anyone I suspect of embracing them?
Actually, the 'box' is something of your creation. My premise isn't that it shouldn't be protected by law because its 'biologically determined characteristics', its that its a choice (sometimes imposed from the outside through the environment). The fact that a homosexual can change into a heterosexual by choice proves that it is a choice. Now compare that to all the things that the law declares as 'civil' rights, things like age (no choice), sex (no choice), race (no choice), etc...etc... It doesn't compare. You are comparing apples to oranges.
lokiare writes:
So the equivalency would be for every restaurant to be required to have a vegetarian option or be considered to be persecuting vegetarians.
No, the equivalent would be refusing to serve salads to vegetarians because they won't eat the meat.
What if that restaurant doesn't have salads or the materials to make them? Suddenly they are persecuting those poor vegetarians that chose to eat salads instead of meat.
It also has to do with what people consider persecution and bigotry. I once went to a forum and expressed my dislike of all of the homosexual lobbying that was putting homosexual scenes in every show. I said something along the lines that I was not entertained by it anymore than someone who doesn't like scenes of romantic comedy in their serious political thrillers. Shortly after I was severely 'persecuted' for having an opinion.
One frequently hears that a chorus of condemnation is an affront to free speech rights. That's as ridiculous as your attempt to allocate equal treatment under the law on biologic grounds.
It is also typically the complaint of bigots.
Wow, Appeal to equality (somehow being able to say I don't like something is equated with a homosexuals right to force their beliefs on me), Psychogenetic Fallacy ("Chorus of Condemnation" because some other group did it, I must be using the same tactic, despite the facts presented), Straw Man (biologic grounds, no where did I say that.), and argument from incredulity (Claiming something is ridiculous without presenting facts to prove it so) all in the same two sentences. I applaud you for your efforts.
Please present facts, surveys, or other data to back up your claims and/or ideas to further the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 6:00 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by subbie, posted 03-25-2014 8:40 PM lokiare has replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3142 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 125 of 1309 (722977)
03-25-2014 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
03-25-2014 6:01 PM


... A christian bakery is now being sued and threatened with criminal conduct for choosing not to serve a homosexual couple for example. ...
Nope. A PUBLIC bakery discriminated against a couple based on the bigoted beliefs of the owner.
And you are now ignored until you present some facts to back up your use of the word bigoted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 6:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2014 12:16 AM lokiare has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 126 of 1309 (722978)
03-25-2014 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by lokiare
03-25-2014 8:37 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
lokiare writes:
Now compare that to all the things that the law declares as 'civil' rights, things like age (no choice), sex (no choice), race (no choice), etc...etc... It doesn't compare. You are comparing apples to oranges.
And you are leaving out religion.
Are you just stupid, or are you being deliberately disingenuous? Or is there a third choice that's not occurring to me at this time?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:37 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:42 PM subbie has replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3142 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 127 of 1309 (722979)
03-25-2014 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by DrJones*
03-25-2014 6:01 PM


quote:
Which is odd, since its purely a mental state brought on by environment and chemical reinforcement, which can be reversed.
Like religion. I'm glad you can see how it is now time to sweep away all the false religions protected by law and force everyone to convert to the true faith and worship the king of kings, lord of lords, Odin the Allfather.
Or, we could protect everyone from general discrimination and not make special laws for homosexuals or Christians.
Provocation will only get you more facts. Your tactics seem shallow to me.
Also nothing like Religion. Religion is a personal belief system (from a secular viewpoint). A person can have homosexual urges and still think its wrong or be of a particular religion. False dichotomies are false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by DrJones*, posted 03-25-2014 6:01 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by DrJones*, posted 03-25-2014 8:44 PM lokiare has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2235
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


(4)
Message 128 of 1309 (722980)
03-25-2014 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by lokiare
03-25-2014 8:42 PM


quote:
...and not make special laws for homosexuals or Christians
great so now you agree that sexual orientation should be as protected as your choice of faith.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:42 PM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3142 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 129 of 1309 (722981)
03-25-2014 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by frako
03-25-2014 6:10 PM


Because it is getting to the point where it is coming into direct conflict with the laws that protect the free exorcise of religion. A christian bakery is now being sued and threatened with criminal conduct for choosing not to serve a homosexual couple for example. So it actually is our business. You'll notice that we didn't really care until that point. We tried to convert them, but that was it.
Well my religion says that i cannot do business with black people, and now i can be sued, Nazis tried to make them white with blue eyes and the world condemned such experiments and prosecuted the scientists.
Strange, my religion doesn't tell me I can't do business with homosexuals, only that homosexuality is a sin (which leads to death). Choosing not to serve homosexuals is an attempt to show dislike for the specific act of homosexual marriage. Also nice Reductio ad Hitlerum, its always nice to see people compare a religion to Nazi beliefs, even though the two aren't comparable. One being a religion and the other being a political viewpoint.
Just to be clear I've had homosexual friends in the past, and never discriminated against anyone in my life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by frako, posted 03-25-2014 6:10 PM frako has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3142 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 130 of 1309 (722982)
03-25-2014 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Taq
03-25-2014 6:15 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?
Sure, hope you don't mind a link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/04/110428123931.htm
quote:
Individuals carrying just one copy of the sickle mutation (inherited from either the father or mother) were known not to develop sickle cell anemia, leading rather normal lives. However, it was found that these same individuals, said to carry the sickle cell trait, were in fact highly protected against malaria, thus explaining the high prevalence of this mutation in geographical areas where malaria is endemic.
My example is that every restaurant is forced to serve vegetarian options on their menus.
False. Vegetarians can order anything off the menu, just like anyone else. There is no discrimination. If it were comparable, you would not let vegetarians enter your restaurant.
Ok, so if they sold only heterosex cakes and decorations, then they shouldn't be sued? "I'm sorry, we only sell cakes that have a male and female name on them and a heterosexual couple decoration on top. You are just out of luck?"
I don't think that would fly anymore than the vegetarian example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Taq, posted 03-25-2014 6:15 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 9:05 PM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3142 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 131 of 1309 (722983)
03-25-2014 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Phat
03-25-2014 6:29 PM


Re: Rights versus Responsibilities
I can speak from personal experience.
Really? So you've voluntarily gone through sexual therapy to try to become a heterosexual and failed? Can you tell us the specifics of why it failed or anything of that nature (if its too personal don't worry about it).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Phat, posted 03-25-2014 6:29 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Phat, posted 03-26-2014 12:54 AM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3142 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 132 of 1309 (722984)
03-25-2014 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Taq
03-25-2014 6:41 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.
Can you be sure? Did all of those homosexual people voluntarily go through therapy to attempt to not be homosexual?
I agree that being sexually abused as a child is not a choice for the child. It is a choice for the adult. For the child it falls under social environment, but can be corrected for using therapy.
Again, can anyone provide some proof in the form of studies, facts, or articles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Taq, posted 03-25-2014 6:41 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 9:01 PM lokiare has replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3142 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 133 of 1309 (722985)
03-25-2014 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Omnivorous
03-25-2014 6:50 PM


Re: Bare links and paste jobs
lokiare writes:
It is a choice, not an easy choice. Many homosexuals are caused by sexual abuse as children (as the studies I linked show).
You seem appalled to find that this forum spurns bare links and cut-and-pasted blocks of text as evidence in scientific debate.
A bare link is exactly what it sounds like: a link to awebsitethatagreeswithme.com, without any summary of specific data, studies or methodologies. In effect, you tell your readers to refute a mass of material at which you have vaguely gestured, making no effort of your own.
Similarly, your cut-and-paste laundry list of quotes and claims offers none of your own analysis or any reason for a reader to think they are true.
Neither of these are valid means of conducting scientific debate.
Cite your study: a link to the actual text is useful. Summarize the data and the analytical methodologies; tell us why you think it is sound.
Did you truly believe that linking to that list of material, or simply pasting it here, amounted to scientific debate? That the expression of an opinion elsewhere can be validly characterized as a fact?
Are you saying those studies don't exist or that you want me to make a wall of text with a post taking up several pages with quotations and specific links to specific research?
If you want to refute the facts I've presented go ahead. I may at some point do just what you ask for, but have fun trying to read the whole thing in less than a few hours or so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 6:50 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 3851
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(3)
Message 134 of 1309 (722986)
03-25-2014 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by lokiare
03-25-2014 8:57 PM


Re: choice??
lokiare writes:
Again, can anyone provide some proof in the form of studies, facts, or articles?
You made an assertion that you refuse to support with evidence.
No one has any obligation to refute what you cannot support.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:57 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:44 PM Omnivorous has replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3142 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 135 of 1309 (722987)
03-25-2014 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Omnivorous
03-25-2014 6:54 PM


lokiare writes:
Please do not express theory as if it were fact. Its misleading and prevents the discussion from moving forward.
Oh the irony.
Yes I know. Its like people don't understand what is a theory (evolution of specific animals from specific ancestors with very little proof to back it up) and what is fact (a long list of studies that point to a specific outcome).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 6:54 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 9:09 PM lokiare has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023