Evolutionary View on Homosexuals

[Mystech]

From what I've seen of it, it seems likely to come from child sexual abuse, and bad relationships with parents. One of the parents didn't fill a basic need for love. I don't know how many times I've heard this from homosexuals. I've also seen some that just plain chose to be gay.

I am truely sorry for someone that by no choice of their own, ended up with a family environment that would cause these kinds of problems. But they do have a choice about having sex or not having sex, just the same as straights, and it doesn't give them an excuse to sexually abuse someone else.

Good lord that's a lot of bigotry!

You know I know a lot of Catholics, and I've been watching the news, and it seems to me that the reason they are Catholics is because they were molested by priests as children.

I know it must be difficult for them to cope with the fact that they are worshiping a god who makes his agents on earth touch little boys and girls, but that doesn't give them an excuse to act like pricks and try to tell everyone how to live their lives.

Also, I hear that black people melt in the rain? I’ve never actually seen one, so can someone back me up on this?

Admit it, Woody "What you've seen" isn't real homosexual people, you're just listening to bigoted propaganda and trying to take it as some sort of fact to justify your own frighteningly irrational hatred.

 

[Woody]

I'm sorry Mystech but I know these people personally, or through other friends I know. I have not been a christian all my life you know. I had a rather detailed post of these people over my lifetime that were sexually abused, neglected, or just made a choice on their own, but unfortunately the forum had a technical difficulty and dumped my post. I met most of them before I became a believer, not afterward.

I do not feel like re-typing it. No, I do not hate homosexuals, I feel sorry for them. I do not agree with their lifestyle, but that is their choice not mine.

Rather than go through the entire list of examples I will give you just one:

My wife's cousin married a man that turned out to be bisexual. When he was a boy his mother physically and sexually abused him. He thought it was ok because that is what his mother did and he did not have a father. He had a son of his own whom he likewise physically and sexually abused, he thought it was ok because that's what his mother taught him. His wife divorced him, understandably, and he went to counselling concerning his son who was really screwed up understandably. He learned that he was wrong, and he confronted his mother about it. She never backed down as far as I know.

As I said, some things just come through experience, and I could give you many other heartbreaking stories.

Maybe, like spiderguy said, I should have asked the question differently. I am so used to being "nixed" by popular vote, that I've about given up on a straight forward approach.

I ask myself: what am I doing on this forum anyway? I'm not going to change them, and they certainly aren't going to change me. I thought this was supposed to be a religion forum, and I find out it's just a big snake pit, where everyone completely disagrees with the things I ever considered to be moral, just, and right, even before I came to faith.

Well did the bible speak when it said there will come a day when evil is spoken of good and good is spoken of evil. It looks like we are already there.

 

[spidergoat]

Abortion doesn't just stop a beating heart, it also breaks the heart of the would-be mother. It leaves scars that never heal. If you have a wife with a miscarriage you know what I'm talking about.

My mom had a miscarriage, and no, it wasn't a happy occaision, but she has dealt with it just fine.

You are responsible for stopping a beating heart every time you eat a hamburger, boo hoo.

George Bush is responsible for killing both innocent mothers and foetuses when he bombed Iraq, I don't see him turning himself in for murder.

 

[Mystech]

I do not feel like re-typing it. No, I do not hate homosexuals, I feel sorry for them. I do not agree with their lifestyle, but that is their choice not mine.

What "lifestyle" is that exactly? To the best of my knowledge there isn't a lot different with the lives of homosexuals and the average person save for the gender of the persons they engage in romantic relationships with. Also, how the hell can you think its a choice? Why would anyone chose to have to take shit from the likes of you?

 

[Repo Man]

Woody, not all of those good looking women you tried to pick up on were lesbians. Some of them just told you that so you'd go away.

If you're using the old testament to condemn gays, what is your stance on kids who talk back to their parents?

20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html

 

[Leo Volont]

How did you measure this "soul" as it "entered" the test subjects? What was your sample size?

It is something that seers have seen. Are you now saying that we are not to believe the evidence from our direct senses? Are we now not to cross the street until we have scientifically calibrated sensors telling us that there are no cars coming, and then how are we to believe our eyes and ears when the Scientific Equipment beeps and flashes the All Clear? At a certain point we must grant validity to the senses, unless of course you are convinced we live in something of a Matrix Style Illusion.

Besides, the 'Theology' which outlaws abortion assumes that the Soul is conjoined to the infant from conception. It would certainly ameliorate the opposition to abortion if these Religious Opponents to Abortion could be offered Religious Evidence that nothing besides potential is being harmed by an Abortion done in the first trimester.

 

[Michael]

I have a question:

How does evolutionary theory handle the issue of homosexuality?

The evolutionary bases for homosexuality has been explained from the posts above.

But, I have a question:

How does Christianity handle the issue of the hermaphrodite?

What kind of God creates a law that states homosexuality is a “sin” and then creates a species whereby some of the individuals in the population have both sex organs?

Also, what does Christianity say of Klinefelter Syndrome (47,XXY. There are other, less common variations such as 48,XXYY; 48,XXXY; 49,XXXXY ; and XY/XXY mosaic)?

Individuals with Klinefelter Syndrome can have both the appearances of woman and man.

What does Christianity say of a person born with testicular feminization?

This individual would have been considered a barren woman up until 50 years ago (that is - they have all of the outward physical features of a woman) However, we now can genetic test them and find that they are actually XY but missing the receptor for testosterone. Genetically Man, Phenotypically Woman - What of them? What advice does you're God give them?

I could continue to list various syndromes and conditions but these three serve the point.

Everyone on this forum seems to think homosexuality is genetic.

The above examples are genetic. But, I’ll wait for you to determine for all of humankind whether or not they are homosexual of not.


Sexuality is a gradient from “typical male” to “typical female” and everything imaginable in-between.

The notion of homosexuality being a “sin” is just as ludicrous as saying “eating pork is a sin”. It’s just plain stupid. Some idiot in the ancient Middle East decided, I don’t like homosexuality so I’ll just say this imaginary God doesn’t like it and you know, while we’re at it, I never quite liked pork either

 

[Athelwulf]

"Stereotype" is the bad word used to describe the thing that is ordinarily understood to mean "generalization". We "generalize" whenever we look at a large representative set of particular datas, and make decisions upon the trends and appearances that are obvious to us. Indeed, not being able to ever know everything, the only way we have to interpret the World intellectually is through being able to "generalize", that is, to categorize our experiences into thinkable "stereotypes".

But if you don't think, you don't need to worry about it, which is almost always the case with people who accuse other people of "stereotyping".

Hmm . . . Them Fab Four have a great sense of interior design . . . Other gays must have that same great sense too!

 

[Leo Volont]

Hmm . . . Them Fab Four have a great sense of interior design . . . Other gays must have that same great sense too!

It seems so obvious that Gays dominate the Creative Industries. That supports the sweeping Generalization that Gays have such talents almost as granted.

But many generalizations have exceptional particulars. We have all met people who are atypical to their social and ethnic categories. I once met a brave, good and humble Frenchman!

But I can't really say that I have ever met a Gay person who did not have a Creative Edge over his straight counterparts. It has seemed to me that the ordinary Gay is simply always more creative than the ordinary Straight. This is not to say that the Straight Community cannot every so often toss up a very creative person of their own, but they should -- outnumbering Gays by a proportion of 10 to 1 we should suppose that there should at least be an equal number of Gays and Creative Straights, but this would still support the conclusion that if all numbers were even (say 100 Gays and 100 Straights in an auditorium to be tested for Creativity), Creative Gays would outnumber Creative Straights by almost 10 to 1.

 

[SnakeLord]

Well, I do know that before we got our dog 'done', he had this habit of attempting to bonk other dogs that were also male. This wasn't because he was gay, or that, (in accordance with woody's beliefs), he was abused as a young dog, or just simply sat down and chose to be gay... No no, it's all a lot simpler than that.

It's about hierarchy, power and dominance. You can see the same kind of behaviour in many prisons. Criminals don't bonk other criminals because they're homosexual. It's a power thing.

Personally I'd just prefer a game of chess or a punch up, but in the animal kingdom, (of which we are a member), true dominance is established via this method.

Do not be mistaken into thinking this describes every act of homosexuality, it doesn't - but it certainly plays it's part.

But I can't really say that I have ever met a Gay person who did not have a Creative Edge over his straight counterparts. It has seemed to me that the ordinary Gay is simply always more creative than the ordinary Straight. This is not to say that the Straight Community cannot every so often toss up a very creative person of their own, but they should -- outnumbering Gays by a proportion of 10 to 1 we should suppose that there should at least be an equal number of Gays and Creative Straights, but this would still support the conclusion that if all numbers were even (say 100 Gays and 100 Straights in an auditorium to be tested for Creativity), Creative Gays would outnumber Creative Straights by almost 10 to 1.

And your data to establish this as true? What testing methods have you employed? Is there a site with the statistics concerning this? Or is it possible you're just going by the 2 gay tambourine players you happened to meet in the pub last week?

What is it with you and the habit of just making it up as you go along?

 

[Leo Volont]

And your data to establish this as true? What testing methods have you employed? Is there a site with the statistics concerning this? Or is it possible you're just going by the 2 gay tambourine players you happened to meet in the pub last week?

Apparently Atheists use the same argument for everything... that there is no such thing as anything approaching reliable human knowledge that has not gone through double blind peer reviewed studies. This is tantamount to scientists claiming a monopoly in the business of Thought the way the Doctors have grabbed a monopoly on Medicine, and the way Lawyers had gotten a monopoly on Law. Now we are being told that we can't think until we hire scientists to conduct studies first.

I can't believe that this was the intention of the first Empiricists. To them Observation did matter. It was considered permissable to observe actual reality and to determine cause and effect relationships, patterns, trends. yes, when certain generalities would seem certain it was considered important to establish experimental demonstations, where possible, in the Lab, but the first step was always observation.

But it seems that the Modern Scientist precludes that step and nobody is allowed to see anything, to hear anything, or to speak when they do. The Modern Rationalist seems to want to make Monkeys of us (See no Evil, Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil).

 

[Thersites]

What practical difference does it make how far homosexuality and homosexual behaviour are hereditary or cultural? If an individual's behaviour does no direct harm to other people there is no reason why they shouldn't carry on doing it.
This is just a hypothetical explanation for the possibility that homosexual behaviour may be genetically induced. First of all, competition is not merely within a species but between a species and its environment and competition is between genes, not individuals. Individuals are the means genes use to compete with one another.
Humans are social and co-operative animals. A tendency to male homosexual behaviour would help males bond together and act as defence devices against more powerful males. This would not preclude heterosexual mating, of course, but even exclusively homosexual individuals would be useful: they would assist their brothers' and sisters' families with food etc, so that their own genes would benefit and be passed on with- of course- the hypothetical homosexual genetic tendencies. Equally, with females: homoosexual tendencies would promote co-operation among the females and- where they could avoid compulsory breeding and childbirth- childless women would help to feed and bring up their kin's children. In both cases the homosexuality of individuals would make it more likely that their nephews and nieces and their genes would survive.
If this hypothesis is correct then homosexual genes would be recessive and appear as exclusive homosexuality in a small proportion of the population and as opportunist practises in a larger proportion- which is what seems to happen.

 

[spidergoat]

Excellent point, Michael, who are hermaphrodites supposed to have sex with?

I can certainly appreciate Leo Volont's point about trusting our senses. Not all knowledge comes from science.

 

[SnakeLord]

Apparently Atheists use the same argument for everything...

Well that depends.. But you made a claim which you cannot support. You even hinted at the need for 'testing' yourself:

(say 100 Gays and 100 Straights in an auditorium to be tested for Creativity)

Without doing what you suggest, any result you come up with is make-believe and nothing more:

Creative Gays would outnumber Creative Straights by almost 10 to 1.

We can all do that, watch: (if you put say 100 atheists and 100 christians in an auditorium to have their brain cells counted), Atheists would have 10 times more brain cells than christians.

Are you now going to change your mind instantly and start arguing about the need for testing? Well Leo?

 

[SkinWalker]

I can certainly appreciate Leo Volont's point about trusting our senses. Not all knowledge comes from science.

All knowledge comes from science. Science is about using our senses of observation to note experiences. The simplest bushman in the Australian Outback is a scientist... he can look at an animal track and, because he's observed them many, many times, he can know what type of animal, which way it was going, how big it was, was it injured, how long ago it passed, was it walking/running/grazing, etc.

 

[duendy]

All knowledge comes from science. Science is about using our senses of observation to note experiences. The simplest bushman in the Australian Outback is a scientist... he can look at an animal track and, because he's observed them many, many times, he can know what type of animal, which way it was going, how big it was, was it injured, how long ago it passed, was it walking/running/grazing, etc.

Fine, you bring in the "simplest" Bushman ( i wonder if you can do what he did/does?), you also must know that they were open to enpspirited matter--ie, spiritualty in its real meaning of the term. do you mean western science ACCEPtS THAt aspect?

 

[SkinWalker]

Fine, you bring in the "simplest" Bushman ( i wonder if you can do what he did/does?),

Of course not, at least not right away. I don't have his years of experience and training from an elder who also had years of experience. But given enough observations, I could.

you also must know that they were open to enpspirited matter--ie, spiritualty in its real meaning of the term. do you mean western science ACCEPtS THAt aspect?

Of course Western science accepts that. In fact, Western science has studied it. Its called anthropology. You would have to be daft to infer that I was implying that Australian Bushmen were not as prone to fallacies of belief and superstition as you.

 

[spidergoat]

OFF TOPIC OFF TOPIC OFF TOPIC




"Science is about using our senses of observation to note experiences."
-----
What if the knowledge doesn't come through the senses? What if it only happens to you? Scientists don't consider the observation of a ghost to be proof of ghosts. That's a very broad definition of science, not including "double blind peer reviewed studies".




OFF TOPIC OFF TOPIC OFF TOPIC

 

[SkinWalker]

What if the knowledge doesn't come through the senses?

Then you are clearly talking about induction or deduction, neither of which is possible without initial observation(s) and/or experience(s).

OFF TOPIC OFF TOPIC OFF TOPIC [/QUOTE]

True... this is off topic. Perhaps a moderator could split the thread or we should stop/start a new thread (though I think that there are one or two in the philosophy forum that fit).

 

[spidergoat]

Then you are clearly talking about induction or deduction, neither of which is possible without initial observation(s) and/or experience(s).

uh, um, ok...I don't know

OFF TOPIC OFF TOPIC OFF TOPIC [/QUOTE]
True... this is off topic. Perhaps a moderator could

Naw, let's just use this one, IT'S A THREAD MUTINY!

It sounds like you are saying science is the same as perception?