Rabbitisrich Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 We have evolved from living in caves and not being able to treat diseases - how is homosexuality part of that evolution? I just struggle with the answer to my question - how would the human race continue if it started with two dudes? Doesn't make sense to me. That's because you are focused on direct effects. A starting point of Adam and Eve makes that direct effect very important. What about the a small group that has just been kicked out of the garden? Will propogation always be supported by each person having children simply because they can? Can you imagine scenarios where overall birthing potential is improved by some people refraining from giving birth and focusing resources elsewhere? This is not a defense of homosexuality as being "natural" but rather to point out that the "two dudes" argument is very narrow in approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbitisrich Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I was just thinking that a bunch of people located around the world in different countries and time zones having a discussion in almost real-time over a global computer network is completely unnatural and should probably be banned as it is almost certainly an abomination in the eyes of the almighty god. It just comes down to preference in the end. That was my point with Enoch1. I couldn't understand how the "God" universe changes the mechanics of how people make decisions. It just adds another factor, rather than imbuing "objectiveness" into morality, whatever that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Eric, Perhaps I missed a previous explanation, and perhaps this question is ignorant....but how could the human race expand had it begun with either two dudes or two women? Yes using the example of an infertile woman is a neat little trick, but in all seriousness, how is homosexuality inherently natural if said act cannot inherently reproduce? An infertile woman was inherently created to reproduce.... Before going any further, I gotta ask: Why is any of this important? Pretty much everything we do goes against what would happen in nature. We build houses, we find cures for diseases, we cook food, drive cars, use contraceptives, watch TV and listen to recorded music, read books, wear clothes, have weapons to kill predators and each other, fly in planes, wear glasses, get surgery with anesthetics, take antibiotics and do large scale agriculture of species that have been selectively bred over generations to be molded to our needs, etc. So why is it suddenly so bad if something isn't how it would be in nature? Do you live in a cave? Not that homosexuality isn't natural, as it's found in lots of other species, as well as humans (those who think it's a choice are funny; did they choose to be heterosexual? And if it was a choice, who would make that choice when it's so much harder to live like that? Maybe those that had to force themselves to make the choice and constantly claim it's a choice (such as preacher Ted Haggard) are actually just repressed homosexuals who don't realize that real heterosexuals don't have to choose, that they are just naturally attracted to the other sex). The fact is, homosexual have kids; lots of gay men are in the closet and have kids with women, and lots of gay women live with men and have kids. They also share genes with their sibblings and help increase the chances of survival for nephews and nieces. They're part of the gene pool. But it's also very possible that straight parents have gay kids. It's only recently that more have come out of the closest to live strictly with the other sex, but they've always been there, as documented in ancient roman times and greeks and such. People who love each other and aren't hurting anyone. A total non-issue to me. Personally I think everything we do, even modern cities, is natural. A beaver, with the right tools, would build a better dam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 We have evolved from living in caves and not being able to treat diseases - how is homosexuality part of that evolution? If you look at the evidence, it is. There are gay people, gay animals. It has evolved. It can either have evolved as a primary adaptation or be the side effect of another adaptation, but however it happened, it did. Otherwise we wouldn't find all these gay people and animals all around the world through the ages. You don't have to know why humans have exactly the variety of hair colors that they do (why not other colors? Why did evolution pick those?) to see that it's what we got. The 'why' might be obvious or obscure, but the end result is the same. Once you've got that, the question is: If you were gay, how would you want to be treated? Then treat gays exactly like that. I just struggle with the answer to my question - how would the human race continue if it started with two dudes? Doesn't make sense to me. In that hypothetical scenario, with only two humans in the whole world being of the same sex, it wouldn't have started. But I don't see how that's relevant since things didn't happen that way and it's not like that situation is likely to happen now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 All that to say - last I checked the Almighty God's Word, the Bible, what we are currently doing is NOT at all an abomination. Homosexuality, assuming one believes the Word of God, is explicitly forbade, THUS it is an abomination to the Almighty God. So from that I'm getting that you either believe that there's a god that created gays just to mess with them, or that gays are heteros who just choose to be gay, or that people don't have a 'default' sexuality but must choose one. Is that correct? Which one is it? I'll also point out that you just called gays abominable, a pretty hateful term. Statistically speaking, there are bound to be many gays reading you on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 We have evolved from living in caves and not being able to treat diseases - how is homosexuality part of that evolution? If you look at the evidence, it is. There are gay people, gay animals. It has evolved. It can either have evolved as a primary adaptation or be the side effect of another adaptation, but however it happened, it did. Otherwise we wouldn't find all these gay people and animals all around the world through the ages. You don't have to know why humans have exactly the variety of hair colors that they do (why not other colors? Why did evolution pick those?) to see that it's what we got. The 'why' might be obvious or obscure, but the end result is the same. right.. genes mutate..sometimes it is trivial like hair color, height, eye color obesity and sometimes important things like like sexuality..In always there will always be people who are bit different from the norm. Gay people are born gays..they just realize/reveal it late because of social pressure..A straight person just doesn't become gay because it is allowed. The Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters by Matt Ridley is a good book to read.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmichaud Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 We have evolved from living in caves and not being able to treat diseases - how is homosexuality part of that evolution? If you look at the evidence, it is. There are gay people, gay animals. It has evolved. It can either have evolved as a primary adaptation or be the side effect of another adaptation, but however it happened, it did. Otherwise we wouldn't find all these gay people and animals all around the world through the ages. Once you've got that, the question is: If you were gay, how would you want to be treated? Then treat gays exactly like that. I just struggle with the answer to my question - how would the human race continue if it started with two dudes? Doesn't make sense to me. In that hypothetical scenario, with only two humans in the whole world being of the same sex, it wouldn't have started. But I don't see how that's relevant since things didn't happen that way and it's not like that situation is likely to happen now. As long as human beings have been on this earth there has been a tendency to reproduce..... I promise you as long as there has been a tendency to reproduce there has been homosexuality. Homosexuality has not evolved, it has always been. My only point regarding how "natural" homosexuality is is to demonstrate how hard you have to work to prove human beings were created to be homosexual. If it can't pass the test of a very plausible scenario that the earth started off with Adam and Eve, it becomes very difficult....yes of course I'm close minded to think the earth could have possibly started off with two people.... None of this has to do with how homosexuals should be treated - how is granting homosexuals all the rights of every other citizen while preserving the sanctity of marriage wrong? Crazy how the founding fathers came up with a definition of marriage.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 As long as human beings have been on this earth there has been a tendency to reproduce..... I promise you as long as there has been a tendency to reproduce there has been homosexuality. Homosexuality has not evolved, it has always been. My only point regarding how "natural" homosexuality is is to demonstrate how hard you have to work to prove human beings were created to be homosexual. If it can't pass the test of a very plausible scenario that the earth started off with Adam and Eve, it becomes very difficult....yes of course I'm close minded to think the earth could have possibly started off with two people.... None of this has to do with how homosexuals should be treated - how is granting homosexuals all the rights of every other citizen while preserving the sanctity of marriage wrong? Crazy how the founding fathers came up with a definition of marriage.... I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying you believe that humans were created whole, and that they originated with Adam and Eve (presumable a few thousand years ago)? If that's the case, I think we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that, because I don't feel this will be a very fruitful discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmichaud Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 All that to say - last I checked the Almighty God's Word, the Bible, what we are currently doing is NOT at all an abomination. Homosexuality, assuming one believes the Word of God, is explicitly forbade, THUS it is an abomination to the Almighty God. So from that I'm getting that you either believe that there's a god that created gays just to mess with them, or that gays are heteros who just choose to be gay, or that people don't have a 'default' sexuality but must choose one. Is that correct? Which one is it? I'll also point out that you just called gays abominable, a pretty hateful term. Statistically speaking, there are bound to be many gays reading you on this forum. I said homosexuality the act, not the people. No different than pornography. In and of itself pornography is an egregious abomination - those that participate aren't abominable. Did I just offend the entire porn industry? You do realize a good portion of the American electorate is fought over this issue, right? Homosexuals must have a huge problem with nearly half the country, not just some dude outlining the conservative case on an anonymous investment board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmichaud Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 As long as human beings have been on this earth there has been a tendency to reproduce..... I promise you as long as there has been a tendency to reproduce there has been homosexuality. Homosexuality has not evolved, it has always been. My only point regarding how "natural" homosexuality is is to demonstrate how hard you have to work to prove human beings were created to be homosexual. If it can't pass the test of a very plausible scenario that the earth started off with Adam and Eve, it becomes very difficult....yes of course I'm close minded to think the earth could have possibly started off with two people.... None of this has to do with how homosexuals should be treated - how is granting homosexuals all the rights of every other citizen while preserving the sanctity of marriage wrong? Crazy how the founding fathers came up with a definition of marriage.... I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying you believe that humans were created whole, and that they originated with Adam and Eve (presumable a few thousand years ago)? If that's the case, I think we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that, because I don't feel this will be a very fruitful discussion. Correct. And I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Another couple interesting pieces. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poem_of_the_Man_God "Using a computer planetary simulation system, VanZandt noted that the only possibilities for the observation Valtorta described during the month of March would be AD31 and AD33. After considering other elements in the narrative VanZandt concluded that the date AD31 had to be rejected, leaving March AD33 as the only possibility. Given that according to the narrative the Night at Gadara was one year before the Crucifixion of Jesus, the observation places the date of Good Friday during April AD34.[21] According to VanZandt the estimation of the joint observability of these three stars and the position of the moon during that time would have been almost impossible without a computer system." And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified "miracle", the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely.[25] That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometres (11 mi) away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.[25] Despite these assertions, not all witnesses reported seeing the sun "dance". Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others, including some believers, saw nothing at all.[26] No scientific accounts[clarification needed] exist of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have "danced", and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than 64 kilometres (40 mi) out from Cova da Iria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbitisrich Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 As long as human beings have been on this earth there has been a tendency to reproduce..... I promise you as long as there has been a tendency to reproduce there has been homosexuality. Homosexuality has not evolved, it has always been. My only point regarding how "natural" homosexuality is is to demonstrate how hard you have to work to prove human beings were created to be homosexual. If it can't pass the test of a very plausible scenario that the earth started off with Adam and Eve, it becomes very difficult....yes of course I'm close minded to think the earth could have possibly started off with two people.... Forget closed-minded, it's just not a very useful thought experiment. You are ignoring the specificity of that situation, and imputing your conclusion to reproduction in the real world. Is the real ecosystem a series of Adam's and Eve's deciding to reproduce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmichaud Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 "Is the real ecosystem a series of Adam's and Eve's deciding to reproduce?" Perhaps i dont understand the question....Is it not? How else do we reproduce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I said homosexuality the act, not the people. One doesn't go without the other. That's like saying that the heterosexual act is an abomination, but that heterosexuals are just fine. They can be heterosexuals, they just can't ever do anything about it. Does that make sense to you? In the same way that being hetero means you are attracted to the opposed sex and that sometimes (if you're lucky) that leads to sex, being gay means you are attracted to the same sex and that sometimes (if they're lucky) it leads to sex. Being gay is like being a man or a woman or black or white, it's not something you choose. Saying that gays are fine but that the gay acts are abominable is like saying that women are fine but that menstruating is an abomination, or that being a man is fine, but having an erection is abominable. It's blaming people for who they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbitisrich Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 "Is the real ecosystem a series of Adam's and Eve's deciding to reproduce?" Perhaps i dont understand the question....Is it not? How else do we reproduce? Adam and Eve were alone. The importance of their individual decision to have children was essential to the growth rate of the human race because they were the human race. Once you start getting into groups in different ecosystems, the Adam and Eve analogy becomes inapplicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twacowfca Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 We have evolved from living in caves and not being able to treat diseases - how is homosexuality part of that evolution? If you look at the evidence, it is. There are gay people, gay animals. It has evolved. It can either have evolved as a primary adaptation or be the side effect of another adaptation, but however it happened, it did. Otherwise we wouldn't find all these gay people and animals all around the world through the ages. You don't have to know why humans have exactly the variety of hair colors that they do (why not other colors? Why did evolution pick those?) to see that it's what we got. The 'why' might be obvious or obscure, but the end result is the same. Once you've got that, the question is: If you were gay, how would you want to be treated? Then treat gays exactly like that. I just struggle with the answer to my question - how would the human race continue if it started with two dudes? Doesn't make sense to me. In that hypothetical scenario, with only two humans in the whole world being of the same sex, it wouldn't have started. But I don't see how that's relevant since things didn't happen that way and it's not like that situation is likely to happen now. So. . . If this trait is inevitable, it must be heritable. By what method of reproduction is it passed on to future generations and selected as being reproductively fit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 So. . . If this trait is inevitable, it must be heritable. By what method of reproduction is it passed on to future generations and selected as being reproductively fit? I'll quote myself from earlier in this thread: If you look at the evidence, it is. There are gay people, gay animals. It has evolved. It can either have evolved as a primary adaptation or be the side effect of another adaptation, but however it happened, it did. Otherwise we wouldn't find all these gay people and animals all around the world through the ages. You don't have to know why humans have exactly the variety of hair colors that they do (why not other colors? Why did evolution pick those?) to see that it's what we got. The 'why' might be obvious or obscure, but the end result is the same.[...] The fact is, homosexual have kids; lots of gay men are in the closet and have kids with women, and lots of gay women live with men and have kids. They also share genes with their sibblings and help increase the chances of survival for nephews and nieces. They're part of the gene pool. But it's also very possible that straight parents have gay kids. It's only recently that more have come out of the closest to live strictly with the other sex, but they've always been there, as documented in ancient roman times and greeks and such. Not that the why or how is that relevant once it's there. I mean, it's interesting to know, but even if you don't know, it's still there and the question becomes 'what do you do?', to which I answered: Imagine you were gay, then ask yourself how would you want to be treated? Then treat gays exactly like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmichaud Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Liberty, As I explained, I believe homosexuality is a sin, something God has forbade. Because I believe it as a sin, I believe it is no different than drunkenness, lying, stealing or murder (obviously there are varying degrees of sin...). I believe we ALL sin - thus I don't believe I am ANY different than a homosexual. I just struggle with other types of sin - equally bad, just different. This just opens up a whole different can of worms, as to debate it, we must agree on sin and its various forms. All I'm trying to say is that fundamentally I separate the sin from the sinner - I don't judge someone that goes out and gets trashed or cheats on his/her spouse any differently than someone who is a homosexual (actually I try not to judge at all, as I have more than enough of my own problems - you know, pick the beam out of your own eye before removing the splinter from someone else's?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Liberty, As I explained, I believe homosexuality is a sin, something God has forbade. Because I believe it as a sin, I believe it is no different than drunkenness, lying, stealing or murder (obviously there are varying degrees of sin...). I believe we ALL sin - thus I don't believe I am ANY different than a homosexual. I just struggle with other types of sin - equally bad, just different. This just opens up a whole different can of worms, as to debate it, we must agree on sin and its various forms. All I'm trying to say is that fundamentally I separate the sin from the sinner - I don't judge someone that goes out and gets trashed or cheats on his/her spouse any differently than someone who is a homosexual (actually I try not to judge at all, as I have more than enough of my own problems - you know, pick the beam out of your own eye before removing the splinter from someone else's?). Well, as long as you refrain from judging others... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turar Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Ya'll might enjoy this one. What an unnatural abomination! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Crazy how the founding fathers came up with a definition of marriage.... I believe Thomas Jefferson proposed that homosexuals (if caught having sex) should be castrated. His reasoning went that execution (the existing punishment of the day) didn't fit the crime. I wouldn't put too much weight on their morals with regards to tolerance -- those were dark times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration In 1778, Thomas Jefferson wrote a bill in Virginia reducing the punishment for rape, polygamy or sodomy from death to castration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moore_capital54 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Gay people are born gays..they just realize/reveal it late because of social pressure..A straight person just doesn't become gay because it is allowed. Actually there is much debate about this. Pavlovian Conditioning in my view proves that homosexuality can actually be introduced into any person's sexual preference, think Jails or stranded islands. I think the scientific community's attempt to rationalize that people are born gay is totally baseless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Actually there is much debate about this. Pavlovian Conditioning in my view proves that homosexuality can actually be introduced into any person's sexual preference, think Jails or stranded islands. I think the scientific community's attempt to rationalize that people are born gay is totally baseless. Hetero prisoners don't become gay, they just sometimes sleep with other men because their options are rather limited for very long periods of time, and in some situations sex can be used as a weapon (it has been in all wars throughout history, and not always man on woman). That's not the same thing at all as becoming gay. I'm pretty sure that if they had a choice, they'd sleep with a woman (and they do when they come out). For example, if I had sex with a man right now, either willingly or by force, it wouldn't make me gay. I'd still be attracted to women. I'm pretty sure that same would be the case for you. Don't confuse the act and the sexual orientation/attraction. Of course, some prisoners are gay to begin with and when they come out they are still gay. But if you have a closeted gay man who has sex with a woman for years and even has kids, that doesn't make him straight either. In other words, sometimes heterosexual people can have gay sex and homosexual people can have heterosexual sex. That doesn't change their sexual orientation. In fact, as far as I know most gays report that their first sexual experience is with someone of the opposite sex (though I'm quoting from memory, so I could be wrong on that -- maybe it depends on where they live (rural vs big city)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbitisrich Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Gay people are born gays..they just realize/reveal it late because of social pressure..A straight person just doesn't become gay because it is allowed. Actually there is much debate about this. Pavlovian Conditioning in my view proves that homosexuality can actually be introduced into any person's sexual preference, think Jails or stranded islands. I think the scientific community's attempt to rationalize that people are born gay is totally baseless. Sorry for being grotesque, but acts of self-love are not romances of the hand. I suspect that people in prison are not actually attracted to other men... though who knows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twacowfca Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Gay people are born gays..they just realize/reveal it late because of social pressure..A straight person just doesn't become gay because it is allowed. Actually there is much debate about this. Pavlovian Conditioning in my view proves that homosexuality can actually be introduced into any person's sexual preference, think Jails or stranded islands. I think the scientific community's attempt to rationalize that people are born gay is totally baseless. I disagree. Jesus himself said that some people are born eunuchs, meaning without normal male genetalia or strong male characteristics. This means that some males may not be attracted to the opposite sex. But what we do with what we have been given as far as sexual expression is well within the power to control. Like Jimmy Carter, I may have lust in my heart for another woman, as the preacher in Hawthorn's story lusted after Hester Pryn. But that doesn't mean I have to express those feelings in a harmful way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts