Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 62 (9106 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 907,335 Year: 4,216/14,231 Month: 931/2,209 Week: 95/324 Day: 42/53 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 136 of 1309 (722988)
03-25-2014 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by lokiare
03-25-2014 8:51 PM


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?"
Actually, that just might work. The real problem, is in the refusal to sell them a cake.
"Hey, we sell cakes!"
"We'd like to but one."
"Oh, we don't serve your kind"
That's when it becomes a problem. And honestly, you could just lie.
"I'm sorry, just found out that we ran out of flour."
Nobody's gonna force you to work.
But they're gonna have a problem with you telling people that you won't serve them because they're gay. That's discrimination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:51 PM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 137 of 1309 (722989)
03-25-2014 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by subbie
03-25-2014 7:19 PM


lokiare writes:
Many homosexuals voluntarily go through therapies to become heterosexual and are successful.
The interesting question is whether you actually believe this, and why, or whether you are simply passing on someone else's lie without regard for its truth or falsity.
There is not question about it. It is well known by those that know where to look:
‘Ex-Gay’ Men Fight View That Homosexuality Can’t Be Changed - The New York Times
quote:
Mr. Smith is one of thousands of men across the country, often known as ex-gay, who believe they have changed their most basic sexual desires through some combination of therapy and prayer.
If you need more sources I'll be glad to comply. Its pretty hard to just run across one of these sources though because the billion dollar homosexual lobby actively fights against their publication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by subbie, posted 03-25-2014 7:19 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2014 9:16 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 170 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 11:59 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 172 by AZPaul3, posted 03-26-2014 12:34 AM lokiare has not replied
 Message 196 by subbie, posted 03-26-2014 5:41 PM lokiare has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3857
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(2)
Message 138 of 1309 (722990)
03-25-2014 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by lokiare
03-25-2014 9:01 PM


lokiare writes:
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).
So present your summary of the one scientific study that best supports your contention.
I doubt you've ever read the full text of a peer-reviewed study in your entire life.
But I could be wrong. Show me.

"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 135 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:01 PM lokiare has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 7838
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(4)
Message 139 of 1309 (722991)
03-25-2014 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by lokiare
03-25-2014 6:53 PM


I haven't been able to find a single reputable study that proves anything of the sort.
Of course not. Get with the philosophy of science. We can never prove anything. We can, however, shed light on an issue with evidence.
No, if you are looking for a definitive statement that this here gene causes homosexuality you will not find it. Again, the complexity involved in genetics (did you look at epigenetics as I suggested?) and the biochemistry of the body and brain preclude, as of our present understanding, pointing to any definitive set of parameters that can be assured to produce homosexuality.
What we have, however, are copious studies that all point in the direction of there being a bio-physiological determinant, not an acculturation or a conscious decision outside ones bio-physiology, in determining sexual orientation. On the contrary side, the only position papers on the subject, are the subjective evaluations of religiously motivated parties with no scientific basis for their conclusions.
Have a gander at some of these here.
But the very best scientific study you can find with definitive answers to sexual orientation being inbred rather than some on-again, off-again social choice is ... you.
You are your own laboratory. You are your own best experimental study.
The hypothesis: If you really like having sex with girls to the exclusion of all other folks (like boys), can you actually decide to go out and enjoy sucking some cock?
The null hypothesis is that, yes, regardless of your exclusive penchant for pussy, you really can decide on your own volition to go out and truly enjoy sucking on some cock.
Go ahead and run this experiment several times. Be sure to keep detailed notes. You can report your findings here.
Edited by AZPaul3, : splin guffs
Edited by AZPaul3, : mad nother change

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 6:53 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:52 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 8327
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 140 of 1309 (722993)
03-25-2014 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by lokiare
03-25-2014 9:07 PM


Again not a scientific study. Just stories and anecdotes. Still waiting for the science.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:07 PM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 141 of 1309 (722995)
03-25-2014 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
03-25-2014 7:30 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.
Correction: there is no reason that you accept\know and you haven't considered how it would benefit the breeding population. There are several ways that non-breeding people benefit the breeding population, one of which is providing more resources for group survival and protection. A woman with a gay brother and a husband would have three sources of food and protection for her children rather than two.
Having homosexual people does not add to the needs of the population, nor is it detrimental to the survival of the population.
If there is no detriment caused by homosexual people then selection would not operate against those traits. It would be neutral to selection.
I concede this point, well done. However this still all relies on the unproven supposition that homosexuality is genetic rather than purely environmental. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever being put forth in favor of that argument.
I already addressed this in a post above.
Nope. We have laws protecting lots of choices, especially choices in religious beliefs.
We have laws that protect everyone from general discrimination while allowing people to choose not to serve someone for personal reasons (whether it be not wearing a shirt or shoes, or because they have a firearm). The equivalent if you want to use religious terms would be if you were outlawed from saying religion isn't true and that its made up, or be forced to create a religious cake in your non-religious ceremonies. Possibly be forced to have a religious speaker at your atheist (or whatever) rallies.
I have no problem with free will or having people do what they want between consenting adults in their own homes. I do have a problem when I am forced to cater to something I don't believe is right. Akin to an animal rights activist being forced to slaughter a cow or something like that.
Ah the Ad hominem fallacy, where a source of information is defamed rather than the information provided.
Or the voice of experience in reading drivel and misinformation from a source over and over again.
If you find a source that misrepresents information do you quote it as valid information?
Free Republic - Wikipedia
quote:
Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum for activists, and chat site for self-described conservatives, primarily within the United States.[2] It presents articles and comments posted pseudonymously by registered members, known as "Freepers",[3] using screen names. The site is supported entirely by donations, with pledge drives known as "Freepathons" held each quarter.
Free Republic has been involved in several organized conservative campaigns including against CBS anchor Dan Rather and against the Dixie Chicks for their antiwar statements.[4] Freepers were instrumental in raising the question of a lack of authenticity in the so-called "Killian memos".
Not a scientific source of information, not an unbiased source of information, not a source that relies on facts but one which has an agenda.
How do you tell when a source presents factual information versus conspiracy theory and biased innuendo?
Experience or not doesn't matter, logic dictates that you refute the evidence and facts not the source. Which no one in this thread has decided to do up to this post.
It doesn't matter if they are the worst most lie filled organization around you should still refute their evidence. I've caught numerous evolutionists in many many logical fallacies, yet I don't write them off as a whole as dishonest and unable to be reasoned with. Everyone should do the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 7:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by hooah212002, posted 03-25-2014 9:25 PM lokiare has replied
 Message 144 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 9:27 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2014 12:47 AM lokiare has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(4)
Message 142 of 1309 (722996)
03-25-2014 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by lokiare
03-25-2014 9:18 PM


I do have a problem when I am forced to cater to something I don't believe is right. Akin to an animal rights activist being forced to slaughter a cow or something like that.
So you are being forced to fuck men in the ass?

Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:18 PM lokiare has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:54 PM hooah212002 has replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 143 of 1309 (722997)
03-25-2014 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by RAZD
03-25-2014 7:45 PM


Re: Research Studies
In order for natural selection to work, the gene has to be passed on, homosexual animals don't pass on genes.
Wrong.
Don't know much about evolution and how it works do you?
The gay uncle \ lesbian aunt share genes with their brothers and sisters, and so helping them survive means that those shared genes get passed from generation to generation, with some survival benefit from the extra pair of hands.
I've already conceded this argument with the condition that it is found that homosexuality is somehow genetic which has not been provided anywhere.
Actually relatives helping others in their families in social animals is seen whether the animals in question are gay or not. So this proposition doesn't even stand up to basic logic (are there other equally likely reasons that this could happen?). There is no genetic advantage to this that wouldn't be eclipsed by a heterosexual creature that helps take care of relatives young as well as its own. Thus being more likely to spread their genetic code to the next generation.
Let's talk about wolf packs. There is a dominant male and a dominant female, and only the dominant male and dominant female breed.
What is the benefit of the other wolves (male and female) in the pack? And why is this not similar to them being homosexual?
Then look at herd animals: again you have a dominant male that mates with the females in his herd, other males are left out. What is the benefit of having more males? Surely those other males could be gay and not impact the herd.
In herd animals and pack animals the males fight to see if they can become the dominant one and only the best becomes the dominant one. It isn't that they don't try to breed, its that the dominant one keeps them from breeding by interruption, injury, or by eating the offspring. So this argument is invalid as they all try to breed, but fail.
Bees have also been mentioned.
Bees are only fertilized once and then produce clones for the rest of their life. Bee DNA doesn't vary very much. Also there is a huge difference between social insects (who are greatly influenced by chemicals to the point of being stolen by other colonies, in fact there is an ant that steals larvae to populate itself) and social animals. I have yet to see a homosexual bee or ant.
If your argument were valid then none of these behavior patterns would be observed, there would only be monogamous paired species, so as this is not the case your argument is logically rather obviously invalid.
See above I addressed all your concerns. The argument stands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 7:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2014 7:58 AM lokiare has not replied
 Message 197 by Blue Jay, posted 03-27-2014 1:24 AM lokiare has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3857
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(2)
Message 144 of 1309 (722998)
03-25-2014 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by lokiare
03-25-2014 9:18 PM


lokiare writes:
Experience or not doesn't matter, logic dictates that you refute the evidence and facts not the source. Which no one in this thread has decided to do up to this post.
Bring some.

"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 141 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:18 PM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 145 of 1309 (722999)
03-25-2014 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Taq
03-25-2014 7:51 PM


Re: Research Studies
Actually relatives helping others in their families in social animals is seen whether the animals in question are gay or not. So this proposition doesn't even stand up to basic logic (are there other equally likely reasons that this could happen?).
Worker bees are female and entirely sterile. They do not have children. They make up more than half of the bee population in a hive. Only a single female in an entire hive is producing children.
Evolution has selected for this strategy on the part of bees. How do you explain this?
How does this in any way equivocate to homosexuality or the argument at hand? Are there homosexual bees?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Taq, posted 03-25-2014 7:51 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by hooah212002, posted 03-25-2014 9:33 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 190 by Taq, posted 03-26-2014 4:35 PM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 146 of 1309 (723000)
03-25-2014 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Omnivorous
03-25-2014 8:09 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
lokiare writes:
Refusing service isn't bigotry. Its refusing service.
They'd have loved you at the Woolworth's Lunch Counter in Greensboro.
Equating homosexuality to the civil rights movement is a false dichotomy. You are comparing a purely genetic set of traits to a non-genetic(according to all evidence shown in this thread) choice based mental affiliation (thousands have chosen to change back to being heterosexual). Have fun with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 8:09 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by NosyNed, posted 03-25-2014 9:37 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 154 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 9:43 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2014 10:11 PM lokiare has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(2)
Message 147 of 1309 (723001)
03-25-2014 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by lokiare
03-25-2014 9:28 PM


Re: Research Studies
Here you go. Googlez r hard.
Gay Insects
More gay animals. This time in book form
Unless it's gay bee porn you are after. Rule 34 dictates that it's out there, but I won't search for spicy bee on bee action at work

Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

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

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 148 of 1309 (723002)
03-25-2014 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by subbie
03-25-2014 8:27 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?
Let me help you out with this gap in your knowledge then:
Genes found that decide whether we will be tall or short | Daily Mail Online
quote:
While obesity is caused by a mix of genetic and environmental factors, about 80 per cent of variation in human height is determined by our genes.
This one falls under common knowledge, unless you want specific studies and further evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by subbie, posted 03-25-2014 8:27 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by hooah212002, posted 03-25-2014 9:38 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2014 10:01 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 182 by subbie, posted 03-26-2014 2:37 PM lokiare has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8981
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


(2)
Message 149 of 1309 (723003)
03-25-2014 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by lokiare
03-25-2014 9:31 PM


Evidence
You are comparing a purely genetic set of traits to a non-genetic(according to all evidence shown in this thread) choice based mental affiliation (thousands have chosen to change back to being heterosexual). Have fun with that.
I don't recall any evidence being presented by you. I have done some reading strongly suggesting that everything you have to say here is wrong.
Perhaps you can refer back to the posts of yours that have such evidence, please?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2014 9:40 PM NosyNed has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 150 of 1309 (723004)
03-25-2014 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by New Cat's Eye
03-25-2014 8:36 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?
I don't say anything when, broad assumptions, and speculation are concerned, nice try though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 8:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-26-2014 10:14 AM lokiare has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023