Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 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 3650 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

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 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

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 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

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 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

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 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

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 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 3650 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

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 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

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 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

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 153 of 1309 (723007)
03-25-2014 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by subbie
03-25-2014 8:40 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?
A third choice. Religion is not comparable to homosexuality because religion (for the non-religious) is a set of beliefs that guide your entire life (for Christians its a personal relationship with God and is undeniable). Homosexuality is simply a choice of sexual partners it does not inform the rest of your life.
To tell you the truth, I wouldn't care if they took the 1st amendment and made it a new amendment changing the words homosexual for religion. I don't care if you establish homosexuality (legally, no sexual abuse or other tactics), or the free exercise thereof. Just don't try to force it on me or into my establishments. Don't try to force my church to marry homosexuals and don't force my Christian baker friend to make cakes for a homosexual wedding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by subbie, posted 03-25-2014 8:40 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by subbie, posted 03-26-2014 2:30 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 239 by ringo, posted 04-01-2014 12:49 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 246 by onifre, posted 04-02-2014 10:21 AM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 155 of 1309 (723009)
03-25-2014 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Omnivorous
03-25-2014 9:01 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.
Actually I did, however I'll go through tomorrow or in a few days and do the whole 3 page wall of text thing with a long list of studies that have been done, excerpts from them, and links to the sites where they can be found. Its getting late here though so I'm going to try to finish up posting what's in the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 9:01 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 9:48 PM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 158 of 1309 (723013)
03-25-2014 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by AZPaul3
03-25-2014 9:12 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.
On the first page of that link is one of the studies disproving another of the studies:
Just a moment...
quote:
Several lines of evidence have implicated genetic factors in homosexuality. The most compelling observation has been the report of genetic linkage of male homosexuality to microsatellite markers on the X chromosome. This observation warranted further study and confirmation. Sharing of alleles at position Xq28 was studied in 52 gay male sibling pairs from Canadian families. Four markers at Xq28 were analyzed (DXS1113, BGN, Factor 8, and DXS1108). Allele and haplotype sharing for these markers was not increased over expectation. These results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality.
This happens over and over. A study is put forth, someone peer reviews it showing its incorrect or the study itself is inconclusive. I'm asking for you to present at least one study that shows a genetic link to homosexuality. I have already looked and have been unable to find one that wasn't inconclusive or discredited.
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.
Nope sorry. The chemical reinforcement would prevent me from doing this. Also nice way to slip the insult "go suck cock" into a cleverly disguised post. Isn't that a violation of some forum rule some where?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 9:12 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2014 9:57 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 168 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 10:19 PM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 159 of 1309 (723014)
03-25-2014 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by hooah212002
03-25-2014 9:25 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?
No, we as Christians are being forced to cater to someone making a mockery of one of our sacred traditions (namely marriage). I've never heard of anyone refusing to serve fast food to a homosexual, only certain things that deal with our religious beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by hooah212002, posted 03-25-2014 9:25 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by DrJones*, posted 03-25-2014 9:56 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 164 by hooah212002, posted 03-25-2014 10:11 PM lokiare has not replied

lokiare
Member (Idle past 3650 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 162 of 1309 (723017)
03-25-2014 10:00 PM


I'm going to bed now. I will be back in a few days to present multiple studies that prove my premise.
I've had about enough logical fallacies, so from here on out I'm just going to name the fallacies in your post and move on, no point in even responding. If you can repost the same info without the insults, name calling, or logical fallacies I'll respond then.
See you in a few days. Do me a favor and try not to get the thread locked before I can post the info.

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by hooah212002, posted 03-25-2014 10:13 PM lokiare has not replied
 Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2014 10:17 PM lokiare has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024