So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all? Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?
Well, gay people can still make babies. When a gay man puts his penis into a lesbian's vagina... well, I'm sure you know how babies are made.
Is homosexuality a choice or is it some biological process.
Sexual attraction sure feels biological to me. I mean, when my girlfriend gets naked in front of me, I just start getting an erection. I don't think about it. I don't choose it. It just happens.
If it is a biological process it should have been eradicated by evolution right?
No, not necessarily. Why?
If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism).
Or like, say, your religion? And if its a result of your environment, then it isn't necessarily a choice. If you get hit by a car and you're disabled, then that wasn't a choice. But will still make sure businesses have an entrance ramp so you can wheel yourself in there, despite the fact that you were a product of your environment.
So which side does it fall under and what are the scientific and lawful implications?
Society is going the route of it legally being a protected class, like race or gender.
So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all?
Homosexuality sure does fit into the theory of evolution. It's very basic. All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled eukaryotic species. That species reproduced both sexually and asexually, depending on the conditions being favourable for asexual reproduction and other conditions being favourable for sexual reproduction.
PRESSIE COMPARED HOMOSEXUALS TO ASEXUALLY REPRODUCING CREATURES.
But in what way? He certainly didn't imply that homosexual intercourse could produce children.
ASEXUALLY REPRODUCING CREATURES REPRODUCE.
HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT REPRODUCE EXCEPT BY NONHOMOSEXUAL SEX.
Oh, so you've dropped the "period", and you admit that homosexuals can reproduce.
So now what was so bad about the comparison? Gay people can reproduce.
Its my understanding that homosexuals don't get aroused (as opposed to bisexuals) when around the opposite sex.
Have you gained that understanding by being gay?
I'm never seen gays describing themselves by what they weren't getting aroused by. Hey-oh!
So short of modern chemicals that stimulate an erection it really should have been evolved out, unless it doesn't come from genetics and is purely or mostly environmental.
False dichotomy. Its not either genetic or environmental. And even if it is genetic, that doesn't necessitate that it should have evolved out. Look at altruism.
Sure, but as I've said before. Its more akin to a mental psychosis reinforced by brain chemistry.
Which could have a genetic basis.
So if you were attracted to the same sex it would most likely be a reinforced reaction rather than something stemming from your genetics.
Why wouldn't that stem from your genetics?
Well if you assume its some kind of disability as you compare it to above then sure, if seeking treatment for it, they should not be discriminated against
We are not going to force treatment for a disability onto a person before we recognize them as having basic rights.
(really no one should be discriminated against, but what some consider discrimination or bigotry is merely disagreement)
One of the basic rights that we don't discriminate from the disabled, is free and open access to all businesses that serve the public. If you want to open a new business, you will put in a wheelchair ramp or you won't be allowed to open.
However there is no special equipment needed to be installed for homosexuals only costly products and services
What costly products and services?
And really, why would a business refuse to make money doing what they do?
Comparing it to religion is kind of a false comparison. I don't remember any wars over homosexuality or any mass persecutions (it was merely viewed as a mental illness up until the 60's).
Its a legal comparison. The law says I can't discriminate against you because of your religion, which is entirely your choice.
Which is odd, since its purely a mental state brought on by environment and chemical reinforcement, which can be reversed.
Yeah, society can get kinda odd.
Even queer, some might say
Here I'll list the contents of that short website which includes many studies since apparently I'm not supposed to link to facts (weird).
Your supposed to describe the facts in your own words, and then link to them as support.
Its in the Rules.
So quoting the whole page didn't really help much either. It'd take me a long time to go through each one of those and dismantal it. What kind of evidence did they use to determine it? Is your interpretation accurate?
The first two are from the same guy who says: "Welp, we couldn't find the gay gene"
That's not evidence that its not there.
The next few are the same tone, that they couldn't find the genetic factors. Didn't find it in the brain.
There's no scientific evidence of homosexuality being genetic, 18 years ago in 1996.
Honestly, that's not very convincing. When we figure it out, its just going to be more complex than we've been looking so far.
Regarding behaviors and brain chemistry, I think its all in the genetics.
Can you explain to me what a 'bare link' is? What I linked is literally a list of studies that have been done on the subject.
A bare link is just a link by itself, without any description of them from you.
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?
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.
I don't say anything when, broad assumptions, and speculation are concerned, nice try though.
Whaaat? You've said lots of stuff based on broad assumptions and speculations.
You know, like that being gay is a choice and that homosexuals can be cured.
You based gay being a choice on some old studies that failed to find a gay gene. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And you base there being a cure for gayness on the anecdotes of people who say they were cured, while ignoring those who say they cannot be.
You also completely mis-speculate the meanings of our laws when you say that refusing gays is like refusing to serve a vegan-only cake.
If you offer your service to the public, then you have to offer that service to everyone. (you can require that everyone wear clothes for health and safety reasons, that's not discriminating against anyone in particular).
If you don't offer any vegan services, then that's okay, you don't have to. But if you are selling salads, then you cannot refuse to sell one to someone just because they are a vegan. That's discrimination.
And if you didn't want to discuss speculation and assumptions, then why did you put Creo and ID in title, and why did you bring up the New Testament?
I do have a question about a contradiction you seem to have made.
quote:Its my understanding that homosexuals don't get aroused (as opposed to bisexuals) when around the opposite sex.
So, hetersexuals don't get arroused by the same sex, right?
quote:I've already refuted this and exposure to a visual and auditory media is known to influence individuals. I personally don't want to be subjected to things I don't like and I certainly don't want to be influences subconsciously by them.
Wait, couldn't you just choose to not like the gay porn? If you might be influenced by it, then how does it remain a choice? And if you're a heterosexual, then you won't be able to be arroused by gay porn, so why the worry?
One more thing:
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.
No, that's not what we are looking for. No bare links. No long copy and pastes. Describe the evidence in your own words, and then provide the links to the studies as support.
And go for quality over quantity. We don't need a whole bunch of bad studies, we need one really good one. Pick your best one, expound it in your own words, and then provide us a link to it.
From a "religious" side of things, as a Christian, neither conclusion is at odds with the Biblical perspective. If it is not genetic, as the studies provided, then that makes sense Biblically, and if it is a choice, then that also makes sense. Personally I believe it is a combination of all factors.