Atheism and homosexuality

Atheism and homosexuality

There are 3861 comments on the Conservapedia story from Dec 5, 2011, titled Atheism and homosexuality. In it, Conservapedia reports that:

Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]'s original [[Intelligent design ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Conservapedia.

sarahomo

“Sara for Fun (( M 2 F ))”

Since: Aug 10

Bahrain

#867 Jul 25, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You're mistaken here.
then u should be 1 of them so? which part ur roles ? pls

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#868 Jul 25, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
No. Most hormones, including testosterone and estrogen, are cholesterol based, not protein based.
Very few hormones are protein based, and this class of hormones are called "peptide" and "protein" hormones. They include such hormones as oxytocin, prolactin, glucocorticoids and fibroblast growth factor, respectively.
I stand corrected.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Hormones are, in no way, secreted by genes.
I agree. I did not express myself well enought and that was what came out. Again, I stand corrected.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Genes produce proteins that 1) initially grow hormone glands when the body is developing and 2) act as signals or templates for cellular function and intra-cellular actions.
This is what I should have said. Thank you for the correction.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Hormones are only secreted by glands.
And by cells too?
Hidingfromyou wrote:
All such studies, every last one of them, were demonstrated false.
Except in mice and rats. Human sexuality is not influenced by hormones - that's outdated and uncritical science.
I'm not ready to accept this yet. I need more information.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
You are grossly oversimplifying. As I've written before, claiming that any particular behavior in humans has a genetic component is like saying "the sun exists."
To use your analogy, if I claimed the sun exists, It would not be a false statement. It would be a painfuly obvious one but true nonetheless. Likewise, I'm not arguing the genetic component of homosexuality isn't blatantly obvious. Nuggin is! I'm only disagreing with him.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
It's meaningless to write that because all human behavior contains a genetic component.
I agree, but apparently not everybody in this forum does. Thus, stating the obvious becomes necessary.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
There are very few simple Mendelian genes. I'd guess that we'd discovered almost all of them already.
Probably true.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Why is it theoretically possible?
You have to realize that you're not talking about a straightforward gene-protein-effect. You're talking about:
gene cluster-developing body in sociocultural setting of flexible learning organs - feedback to controller genes - continued development of flexible organ in cultural context
Regulating the expression of pleiotropic genes only seems a very complicate thing to do because genetics is in its infancy. But flying a plane over the Atlantic Ocean also seemed impossible just a hundred years ago. Just imagine what a 19st century man would think if he saw a plane flying over his head. "A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
Hidingfromyou wrote:
The second problem is that you're continuing to postulate homosexuality as a human universal. It's not. Same sex sexual behavior is, but homosexuality is a Western cultural construct. As such, you cannot presume a genetic basis or evolutionary argument.
That's like claiming that voting for liberals has a genetic component that we could "cure" if we had enough technology.
I admit I have not yet red the links you gave me on this subject. Before I do, and understand this definition of homosexuality you propose, I am unable to distinguish between homosexuality and same sex sexual behaviour. For me, they are still one and the same thing. Until such time, please read same sex sexual behaviour each time I write homosexuality. Perhaps that may help you understand what I wish to convey with my words.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#869 Jul 25, 2013
I'm more of a Totoro/cat bus sort...
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Please tell them that I think of Japan as cute :)
Hello Kitty Japan!

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#870 Jul 25, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
3 - If not by a genetic factor, how do you explain the greater than average frequency of identical twin brothers where both are homosexual?
Wow, how do I explain who two individuals sharing the same womb could both end up with the same epigenetic issue?

Gee, I'm not entirely sure... let me think.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#871 Jul 25, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets analise this, again.
a)- Going back to the core of our discussion, you claimed:
<quoted text>
My fundamental disagreament with your view is that you reject the ideia that homosexuality has a genetic heritable component which can be subjected to selective pressures.
Because any such component would not be expressed in the individual, nor in a gay offspring of that individual.
b)- You seem to focus your argument (ad nauseum) on the 15% of homosexual individuals whose sexuality is explained by the fraternal birth order effect. You do that because you know your argument fails if applied to the other 85% of male homosexual individuals and 100% female homosexual individuals. For the sake of the argument, I'll let you get away with that, for now.
You are clearly misunderstanding the biology involved.

Yes, a female who is exposed to testosterone multiple times is more likely to have a homosexual child.

That does not mean that the first exposure won't have the same effect.

It's just much easier to see when you look at birth order.

Saying that 85% of the homosexuals (does this include female? If so, toss out 50%) don't have older siblings is not evidence against the earlier data.

You would need to show that a significant number of homosexuals have multiple younger heterosexual male siblings in order to provide negative data.

Analogy: With each subsequent head injury, the patient is more likely to suffer permanent damage, that doesn't mean that the first brain injury can't.
c)- Considering only those 15% male homosexual individuals, you claim it is the conditions during pregnancy, not genetics, which are the cause for homosexuality
Again. Wrong. The other 85%, can easily also fall into this category unless they are the OLDEST of several children with multiple hetero males younger than them.

Do you have evidence of that?
d) These conditions during pregnancy are biochemical in nature. Thus, it follows that these conditions should be expressed by the maternal genes.
However, those genes do not need to be IN the fetus. they need to be IN the mother.
g) Selective pressures act on females who have those genes favouring the maintenence of homosexual individuals in the population.
Evidence for this?
Evidence that this is MORE selective than having offspring which reproduce?
Evidence that this isn't side effect of some other feature of the gene.

Example: A gene which allows women to produce more breast milk would be helpful for the survival of offspring. If the side effect is homosexuality in some children, this could still be selected for because the primary effect is more positive than the side effect is negative in terms of offspring reproductive success.
h) Furthermore, homosexual individuals, not reproducing themselves, have estra time and resources to share with females in their familly who also have these genes, who in turn reproduce, perpetuating homosexuality in the population (this has been observed in crows).
Homosexuality, can be subjected to selective pressures.
You are making SEVERAL gross assumptions here.

1) That homosexual males are going to devote resources to females in their family to a degree that promotes their survive. Evidence?
2) That homosexual males provide MORE resources than heterosexual males. Evidence?
3) That homosexual males provide SO MUCH MORE resources that it out balances having an additional offspring capable of reproduction. Evidence?
4) That there isn't a cultural backlash against the family of the homosexual which reduces reproductive success through death. Evidence?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#872 Jul 25, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Because any such component would not be expressed in the individual, nor in a gay offspring of that individual.
<quoted text>
You are clearly misunderstanding the biology involved.
Yes, a female who is exposed to testosterone multiple times is more likely to have a homosexual child.
That does not mean that the first exposure won't have the same effect.
It's just much easier to see when you look at birth order.
Saying that 85% of the homosexuals (does this include female? If so, toss out 50%) don't have older siblings is not evidence against the earlier data.
You would need to show that a significant number of homosexuals have multiple younger heterosexual male siblings in order to provide negative data.
Analogy: With each subsequent head injury, the patient is more likely to suffer permanent damage, that doesn't mean that the first brain injury can't.
<quoted text>
Again. Wrong. The other 85%, can easily also fall into this category unless they are the OLDEST of several children with multiple hetero males younger than them.
Do you have evidence of that?
<quoted text>
However, those genes do not need to be IN the fetus. they need to be IN the mother.
<quoted text>
Evidence for this?
Evidence that this is MORE selective than having offspring which reproduce?
Evidence that this isn't side effect of some other feature of the gene.
Example: A gene which allows women to produce more breast milk would be helpful for the survival of offspring. If the side effect is homosexuality in some children, this could still be selected for because the primary effect is more positive than the side effect is negative in terms of offspring reproductive success.
<quoted text>
You are making SEVERAL gross assumptions here.
1) That homosexual males are going to devote resources to females in their family to a degree that promotes their survive. Evidence?
2) That homosexual males provide MORE resources than heterosexual males. Evidence?
3) That homosexual males provide SO MUCH MORE resources that it out balances having an additional offspring capable of reproduction. Evidence?
4) That there isn't a cultural backlash against the family of the homosexual which reduces reproductive success through death. Evidence?
Ignored from birth.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#873 Jul 25, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
And by cells too?
The cells of glands, absolutely.
I'm not ready to accept this yet. I need more information.
The rest of your piece was well written, but instead of replying, since we were in agreement, I want to provide you with some links.

First, if you can get a hold of this special issue of the Journal of Homosexuality, 1995, it's fantastic and will dismiss a lot of the myths you may have heard. This is but one article in it:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J0...

Again, similar, 1997:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J0...

This one you can read the full pdf:

http://ctldev.boisestate.edu/programs/documen... (2002).pdf

Finally, this is a brilliant summary:

http://www.atkinson.yorku.ca/~jsteele/files/0...

Please notice the focus on how unusual our culture is, how strict biological determinist scientists are unable to get away from their own culture in their analyses, and how the cultural variables play a strong role in setting up the biology.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#874 Jul 25, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, how do I explain who two individuals sharing the same womb could both end up with the same epigenetic issue?
Gee, I'm not entirely sure... let me think.
Actually, within the same womb, chemical gradients play a fairly large role, so you can have significant differences between twins b/c of what side they're on.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#875 Jul 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I reject T.D.'s religious argument.
Many gays defend marriage as one man and one woman.
Many heterosexuals defend gay and lesbian marriages. The difference is we aren't the ones trying to re-write laws to get some special right s and exemptions like the anti gay religious right does.

You oppose having to have to pay for birth control in insurance policies for "religious institutions" but you sure are happy getting that tax exempt status so we have to pay for all the children you bring into the world and don't pay for.

What's this matter to you anyway?

You keep bringing up gender segregated marriages like there is some government plot to make you marry a dude!

Like many so called christians, your mouth is too full of lies for us to believe you love us.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#876 Jul 25, 2013
DNF wrote:
Many heterosexuals defend gay and lesbian marriages. The difference is we aren't the ones trying to re-write laws to get some special right s and exemptions like the anti gay religious right does.

You oppose having to have to pay for birth control in insurance policies for "religious institutions" but you sure are happy getting that tax exempt status so we have to pay for all the children you bring into the world and don't pay for.

What's this matter to you anyway?

You keep bringing up gender segregated marriages like there is some government plot to make you marry a dude!

Like many so called christians, your mouth is too full of lies for us to believe you love us.
Brilliant rebuttal. Well done.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#877 Jul 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I reject T.D.'s religious argument.
Many gays defend marriage as one man and one woman.
I didn't have a religious argument. It's only the arguments against it which are rooted in religion. They are not rooted in the idea of freedom which is guaranteed by the US Constitution. Which you oppose.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#878 Jul 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
"many gays"? Seriously? You have a link to such delusional folk, then?
Being the political sleaze that he is it's worth pointing out that technically probably 100% of gays support marriage between one man and one woman. It's just that probably a large amount also support gay marriage.

Of course how many support what is ultimately irrelevant to the law.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#879 Jul 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Note how the left uses name-calling instead of engaging the arguments? That' the only way they can win, on personality, not policy.
Um, Brian, perhaps you have never met Skippy the 'Skeptic'...

Also when we call you names, it's not a case of baseless ad-hom, it's merely accurate description. You then avoid addressing arguments you lost by whining like a good old fundie Christian martyr.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#880 Jul 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't have a religious argument. It's only the arguments against it which are rooted in religion. They are not rooted in the idea of freedom which is guaranteed by the US Constitution. Which you oppose.
I support equality, and same sex marriage. But defending equality based on a national constitution seems to me a weak argument. Any constitution is just a piece of paper written by men. We can change it any time we want. Equality should not need a piece of paper and should be the actual reason behind the argument. Besides, not all of us are US citizens. US constitution is irrelevant for the majority of the human population. Furthermore, I may be wrong, but it seems to me US citizens often invoke their constitution rights but they tend to forget that any right comes with equal duties and responsabilities. Just a thought.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#881 Jul 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Brilliant rebuttal. Well done.
Thanks.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#882 Jul 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, Brian, perhaps you have never met Skippy the 'Skeptic'...
Also when we call you names, it's not a case of baseless ad-hom, it's merely accurate description. You then avoid addressing arguments you lost by whining like a good old fundie Christian martyr.
Trying to talk to BrianG like a rational adult is like looking for the clean end of the turd.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#883 Jul 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Um, Brian, perhaps you have never met Skippy the 'Skeptic'... Also when we call you names, it's not a case of baseless ad-hom, it's merely accurate description. You then avoid addressing arguments you lost by whining like a good old fundie Christian martyr.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Name calling is still ad hominem and irrational. I prefer rational argument.

There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality; but that's not a right to marriage equality. There is no gender equality right in the US constitution. If you want to compete at the voting booth; I'm all in. If you want to get a court to rewrite law to redress the grievance of a mascot victim group; that's judicial activism.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#884 Jul 25, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
I support equality, and same sex marriage. But defending equality based on a national constitution seems to me a weak argument. Any constitution is just a piece of paper written by men. We can change it any time we want. Equality should not need a piece of paper and should be the actual reason behind the argument.
Absolutely. Ideally speaking we should all have equal rights no matter what. Unfortunately in the real world our rights are only what are allowed by our native laws. So without that piece of paper the authority is lost to enforce the law. Anarchy now reigns, and rights are dictated by those with the biggest force of arms. Silly that a simple piece of paper makes all the difference? Maybe so, but that's the way humans have operated for millenia. Don't blame me, I'm not the one who thought it all up. So the Constitution serves as a reminder as to what the rules and rights are. Get rid of it and all positions are valid. Any disagreements can be sorted out with pistols at dawn. Or perhaps sledgehammers. Thankfully bureaucracy generally (and probably unintentionally) makes it difficult and time consuming to make any radical changes.

I can't believe I just made an argument in favour of bureaucracy...

Darn it.
CH2O2 wrote:
Besides, not all of us are US citizens. US constitution is irrelevant for the majority of the human population.
Indeed. If you are not a citizen of a particular country affecting political change their can be problematic at best. Them's the breaks.
CH2O2 wrote:
Furthermore, I may be wrong, but it seems to me US citizens often invoke their constitution rights but they tend to forget that any right comes with equal duties and responsabilities. Just a thought.
Again, agreed. That's because there are those who claim those rights only apply to them and not any other groups, despite the fact they are also a citizen and subject to the same rules and rights. Which is why we can point them to the Constitution to remind them that they are violating it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#885 Jul 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Two wrongs don't make a right. Name calling is still ad hominem and irrational.
Descriptions are not ad-hom.
Brian_G wrote:
I prefer rational argument.
Incorrect.
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality; but that's not a right to marriage equality. There is no gender equality right in the US constitution.
Then you are saying that there's no need for women to have the same rights as men. Irrelevant to gay marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
If you want to compete at the voting booth; I'm all in.
Sorry, but you can't vote for slavery to come back. Well you can, but it would violate the Constitution, and so therefore your votes can be dismissed by the court.
Brian_G wrote:
If you want to get a court to rewrite law to redress the grievance of a mascot victim group; that's judicial activism.
If you're talking about changing state laws which disallow gay marriage then it is only judicial activism against that state law in that state. If you're talking about changing the Constitution to disallow equal rights to gays (and you are) that's judicial activism against the Constitution. Constitution trumps state laws. And the courts just ruled in favour of gay marriage. Don't like it? Move out to a theocratic state.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#886 Jul 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Two wrongs don't make a right. Name calling is still ad hominem and irrational. I prefer rational argument.
ALL evidence to the contrary.
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality; but that's not a right to marriage equality. There is no gender equality right in the US constitution. If you want to compete at the voting booth; I'm all in. If you want to get a court to rewrite law to redress the grievance of a mascot victim group; that's judicial activism.
First of all, your rights do not derive FROM the Constitution. The Constitution PROTECTS your rights.

Blacks were not "given the right to vote". The Government was BARRED from blocking the right to vote.

You were not "given the right to free speech". The Government was BARRED from interfering with your right to free speech.

The right for an individual to choose who they wish to enter into contract with is not something that the government should be determining beyond these qualifications:
- Mentally capable of giving informed consent?
- Age capable of giving informed consent?

That's it. That should be the criteria for ALL contracts, be they business partnerships or marriages. The race, age (above 18), gender, blindness, weight, whatever should not be a factor in determining if the people can enter into contracts.

Gay people are not being GIVEN the right to vote. The government is losing the ability to deny citizens equal access.

And, your argument, does not give a justification for you position.

You're saying "I don't want gays to be able to get married" but there is no BECAUSE... there.

If you want to convince us that the Government needs to bar some citizens from equal access, then you need to demonstrate a VERY solid reason for that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 min Freedomofexpression 9,844
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 4 min EdmondWA 34
News CEO's bonus cut 25% for his anti-gay, sexist ti... 22 min Clark 1
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 58 min EdmondWA 13
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr TomInElPaso 56,040
News Marching with Pride: Thousands take to the stre... 1 hr Duane Pride - New... 9
News Russian Activist Charged With 'Gay Propaganda' ... 2 hr Sophie 13
News Michigan sued after gay couples are rejected fo... 2 hr Dallas 17
News Worker fired for same sex 'No' vote hits out 5 hr Wondering 12
More from around the web