So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all?
What makes you think homosexuality does not fit into evolution? What does "fit into evolution mean"?
Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?
Why should it? You do know about dominate vs recessive genes, yes?
And what makes you think homosexuality is solely a genetic effect? Do you know about epigenetics?
Is homosexuality a choice or is it some biological process.
The brain is a powerful and complex organ that we are woefully unable to understand. The genetic and epigenetic makeup, the structure and biochemistry, are beyond our present state of knowledge.
But I will reiterate what has been said here. If homosexuality really is a choice that can be consciously made then you could make that same choice. If you're like me the very thought is ... well ... icky, disgusting. I cannot make that "choice" because I do not have that choice.
If I don't have that choice, and if deep down you find that you do not really have that choice, then what makes you think anyone else does? Your religiously motivated, biased and bigoted web sites? Probably not the best sources for researching reality.
Let's establish this one fact. Sexual orientation, from hetero through homo and every shade in between, is not by conscious choice. The orientation is the result of genetics, epigenetics, the structure and biochemistry of the body and brain. You have no choice in selecting your own sexual orientation and you have no choice in accepting the fact that neither does anybody else.
I'll leave the "why" via evolution to those more studied than I.
I, for one, understand your frustration here. I, also, think comparing human or mammalian homosexuality to bacterial or invertibrate asexual reproduction is far from appropriate given the discussion parameters. Even reptilian sex reversal, parthenogenesis and androgyny are inappropriate in this context.
I don't see how this got so far afield. I understood what you were saying and I think it appropriate. Purely homosexual acts cannot produce offspring. That does not mean that a human bisexual is limited to only the homosexual side of their orientation nor that homosexuals are incapable of producing offspring.
And how it came to jailing all non-productive couples is beyond anything I see you proposing, even as an extension of what I find to be your horribly biased and bigoted philosophy. I think the wheels just fell off over some assumed perceptions of what you were saying.
So, let it roll. Have a nice cup of tea and let the misperceptions subside.
As for the rest of the crowd, I think if you look carefully and objectively at these messages Faith was not headed in the direction you assumed and to which you reacted.
Sorry, fellas. I think you all took a wrong turn somewhere.
That is your assumption based on Faith's other views expressed in other threads. I can see how this could be assumed if, and only if, you take her statement out of the narrow specific context I see as her point expressed in this thread. I am not sure this is appropriate here.
Because it is getting to the point where it is coming into direct conflict with the laws that protect the free exorcise of religion.
Your free exercise of religion stops where you interfere with others' free rights of conscience.
... now being sued and threatened with criminal conduct ...
No. It is a tort action, not criminal. There is a major difference. It may become criminal at some time in the future just like racial discrimination is today. And it our secular society decides to criminalize this religious form of bigotry the all the better.
Someone's sexual orientation is none of your business. Keep your hate in your church, not in my marketplace.
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.
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.
Strange how its not discrimination to tell someone they won't be served an all vegetable plate, or that they won't serve people without shirts or shoes ...
Wow. Really reaching in desperation aren't you.
You won't get an all veggie plate here because we have no such product. We don't serve that, not because we are bigoted anti-veggie, but because our product mix, our business offering, our target audience and our profits are not in that sector. (You know as well as I that any restaurant in business will gladly accommodate the vegetarian simply out of good business practice so this analogy is bogus to begin with.)
No shirt, no shoes, no service is hardly bigotry against naked people and it does have health, insurance and modesty attributes of which you are unaware. Again, bad example.
As far as liver? What you do in your own home is up to you. No one disputes that. You can also keep swastikas up on your walls, bar any niggers from passing through your door and play Hitler's speeches in the background all you want during your no-liver diner. No one gives a shit.
Have all this up in your open-to-the-public-restaurant and the local sheriff may not be so accommodating.
This secular society, in aggregate, determines what level of your bigotry is acceptable in public and what level is not, not you or your church. Any "rights" you have stop where they interfere with other's more basic rights. Deal with it.
On the first page of that link is one of the studies disproving another of the studies.
Yep. Science is messy like that. Everyone re-doing everyone else's stuff and finding holes. Like I said, you are not going to find a definitive set of genes that say homosexual. If they exist we haven't found them, yet. But, like I also said, the available evidence points to bio-physiology, not conscious decision making, as the determinant of sexual orientation. Look at the other studies. There is nothing conclusive because the physiology is so complex, but the pieces are coming together. Nature, not nurture.
Unless, of course, you have some scientific study, with scientific data drawing science-based conclusions that disputes this. And you'll need a lot of them to outweigh the preponderance of the evidence pointing in the other direction.
The chemical reinforcement would prevent me from doing this.
So you admit to your having no other choice! Now, on what basis do you think a homosexual can defy their own chemical reinforcement?
Also nice way to slip the insult "go suck cock" into a cleverly disguised post.
I thought that was pretty clever. Glad it wasn't lost on you.
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.
Except we know that is bogus, don't we.
"Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation" 2009
quote:The American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates.
Even though the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual orientation identity, the task force concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends to have strongly conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual orientation. Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.
Most of the studies reviewed were not of sufficient scientific methodology to show any efficacy in their conclusions. The remaining science worthy studies concluded that sexual orientation intervention was not effective and in a number of cases inflicted psychological harm on the patient.
Its pretty hard to just run across one of these sources though because the billion dollar homosexual lobby actively fights against their publication.
Yes, of course, conspiracy by the all powerful Fraternal Association of Gay Societies. Should have known that inferior studies without scientific merit could not make it through peer review with FAGS in their way.
You know, it’s hard to be humble. I’m so accomplished in every way. Everyone looks to my answers giving deference to everything I say. In all subjects I am the expert. My intellect is high in the sky. I find it so hard to be humble so why the hell should I try.
Apologies to Mac Davis, though I don't know why. My version is so much better.
Edited by AZPaul3, : total re-write - much better. Captures my most basic humility.