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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#620 Jul 19, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesnt matter its just that nuggin troll trying to win some points with the atheists he pissed off last year.
Oh hey Skip, what scientific test did you perform to falsify God? How was it you were able to make the concept scientific?

Keep skipping, Skip.

Oh, and we DID land on the moon.
qakkkersd

Pittsburgh, PA

#621 Jul 19, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ………
Amazing its terrible

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#622 Jul 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh hey Skip, what scientific test did you perform to falsify God? How was it you were able to make the concept scientific?
Keep skipping, Skip.
Oh, and we DID land on the moon.
To put it into perspective, the strongest argument you have against me is that "we landed on the moon".

Anything else you'd like to tell us all captain obvious?

Burden of proof???(yep run away now!)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#623 Jul 19, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
To put it into perspective, the strongest argument you have against me is that "we landed on the moon".
Anything else you'd like to tell us all captain obvious?
Burden of proof???(yep run away now!)
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/medi...

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#624 Jul 19, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, he's closer than you think. He's just wording it extremely poorly.
Male homosexuality has been shown to be more prevalent in down the line male offspring born to the same mother.
This holds true even when the offspring is raised in a separate single child environment.
This suggests that the repeat exposure to the testosterone from the male fetus is causing a reaction in the mother (think "allergic" or "immuno") which in turn has an epigenetic effect on the fetus.
To say that the child is "defective" would be incorrect, but I would say "not normal". In the same way that a child with two different color eyes or a birthmark would be "not normal". No negative assessment, just a deviation from the norm.
I do not question that sexuality may have external causes. Our immune system is constantly working to avoid disease but that is expected and would only constitute a strain to the body if it malfuntions and allows infection. When it is working properly the immune system is just another component of the body, not a strain. A strain to the body would be if the immune system stoped working. In my opinion it is incorrect to argue that homossexuality is the result of a strain caused by the normal functioning of the immune system.

It has been shown that having homossexual relatives may be a positive survival strategy and females who produce some homossexual offspring may have a selective advantage. Equating homossexuality with a malfunction of the female immune system is, in my opinion, incorrect.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#625 Jul 19, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not question that sexuality may have external causes. Our immune system is constantly working to avoid disease but that is expected and would only constitute a strain to the body if it malfuntions and allows infection. When it is working properly the immune system is just another component of the body, not a strain. A strain to the body would be if the immune system stoped working. In my opinion it is incorrect to argue that homossexuality is the result of a strain caused by the normal functioning of the immune system.
It has been shown that having homossexual relatives may be a positive survival strategy and females who produce some homossexual offspring may have a selective advantage. Equating homossexuality with a malfunction of the female immune system is, in my opinion, incorrect.
Like I said, the original poster may have been misleading with his terminology. However, I believe your definitions are equally misleading.

A strain to the immune system would be anything with which the immune system needs to cope. If you are exposed to the flu virus and I am not, then your immune system is more strained than mine.

Is it strained to the breaking point? No. But it's still a strain.

Remember though that reaction the mother is producing which results in the epigenetic change is not necessarily immuno. That's just an easy analogy to draw.

What the evidence shows is that repeated exposure to the testosterone causes changes which result in increases in homosexuality among later male descendants.

Whether or not this has been selected for by evolution is neither here nor there. We've long since left the era in which selective pressures are effective. How many people do you know who wear glasses?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#626 Jul 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Burden of proof is still upon the idiot (ie. you) who makes the false claim that "god is possible"

I will repeat your stupidity to your face every single time Dude.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#627 Jul 19, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, the original poster may have been misleading with his terminology. However, I believe your definitions are equally misleading.
A strain to the immune system would be anything with which the immune system needs to cope. If you are exposed to the flu virus and I am not, then your immune system is more strained than mine.
Is it strained to the breaking point? No. But it's still a strain.
Remember though that reaction the mother is producing which results in the epigenetic change is not necessarily immuno. That's just an easy analogy to draw.
What the evidence shows is that repeated exposure to the testosterone causes changes which result in increases in homosexuality among later male descendants.
Whether or not this has been selected for by evolution is neither here nor there. We've long since left the era in which selective pressures are effective. How many people do you know who wear glasses?
What a load of creationist boll*cks.
LCN Llin

United States

#628 Jul 19, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of creationist boll*cks.
Enjoy when you post as your protector
LOL

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#629 Jul 19, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, the original poster may have been misleading with his terminology. However, I believe your definitions are equally misleading.
A strain to the immune system would be anything with which the immune system needs to cope. If you are exposed to the flu virus and I am not, then your immune system is more strained than mine.
Is it strained to the breaking point? No. But it's still a strain.
Remember though that reaction the mother is producing which results in the epigenetic change is not necessarily immuno. That's just an easy analogy to draw.
What the evidence shows is that repeated exposure to the testosterone causes changes which result in increases in homosexuality among later male descendants.
Even if the female body reacts to male fetuses and that has an effect on later males descendants, that is not due to a malfunction in the mothers biochemistry. I do believe that is a consequence of evolution. The premise is incorrect.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether or not this has been selected for by evolution is neither here nor there. We've long since left the era in which selective pressures are effective.
If homossexuality in Homo sapiens is in any way a evolved adaptation, it predates the modern era. The selective pressures were in place a long time before medicine and technology. Also, you are assuming the entire human population lives in industrial, technological advanced countries. That is hardly the case. And yet, even if that were the case, selective pressures would always be present even if they are man made. Artificial selection is just a type of selection.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
How many people do you know who wear glasses?
About half the people I know over 35 years old wear glasses or contact lenses. Were I live, eye cirurgy is expensive and uncommon.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#630 Jul 19, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
About half the people I know over 35 years old wear glasses or contact lenses. Were I live, eye cirurgy is expensive and uncommon.
Since I notice you are not a native english speaker, I just want to point out that the correct english word here is 'surgery', not 'cirurgy'. No harm, no foul.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#631 Jul 19, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if the female body reacts to male fetuses and that has an effect on later males descendants, that is not due to a malfunction in the mothers biochemistry. I do believe that is a consequence of evolution. The premise is incorrect.
<quoted text>
If homossexuality in Homo sapiens is in any way a evolved adaptation, it predates the modern era. The selective pressures were in place a long time before medicine and technology. Also, you are assuming the entire human population lives in industrial, technological advanced countries. That is hardly the case. And yet, even if that were the case, selective pressures would always be present even if they are man made. Artificial selection is just a type of selection.
<quoted text>
About half the people I know over 35 years old wear glasses or contact lenses. Were I live, eye cirurgy is expensive and uncommon.
We have been able to opt out of most evolutionary pressures for much longer than the modern industrial era.

It's unlikely that there would be evolutionary selection for this trait, as that selection would have to occur along the female line and the trait effects male children.

In order for it to be selected for the following would need to occur.

A female with this trait would have to have both female and male children, and a sufficient number of male children so as to produce a homosexual one, and that homosexual child would have to convey some special adaptative advantage to the other female offspring which were not available from her straight brothers.

That's a lot of bits that have to fall in line to make that work.

Now, it's possible that this trait in females is linked to some other issue like increased fertility or robust immuno response preventing children from getting ill when newborn.(All that is COMPLETELY speculative, mind you). In which case there would be pressure for that trait and this other trait is coming along for the ride.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#632 Jul 19, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Burden of proof is still upon the idiot (ie. you) who makes the false claim that "god is possible"
I will repeat your stupidity to your face every single time Dude.
Got anything that hasn't been addressed yet already?

Apparently not.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#633 Jul 19, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of creationist boll*cks.
Last I heard he wasn't born again. Nor was there any fundie BS in his post.

Oh by the way, lizard creatures are real too. Want evidence?
LCN Llin

United States

#634 Jul 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Last I heard he wasn't born again. Nor was there any fundie BS in his post.
Oh by the way, lizard creatures are real too. Want evidence?
-skeptic- is most amusing when she posts under the other name :-)
CH2O2

César, Portugal

#635 Jul 19, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I notice you are not a native english speaker, I just want to point out that the correct english word here is 'surgery', not 'cirurgy'. No harm, no foul.
Thank you.
CH2O2

César, Portugal

#636 Jul 19, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
We have been able to opt out of most evolutionary pressures for much longer than the modern industrial era.
That may be the case for "natural" pressures. But even man made pressures, i.e. artificial selection, is still a evolutionary preassure. We may be replacing natural selection by artificial selection it is still selection.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
It's unlikely that there would be evolutionary selection for this trait, as that selection would have to occur along the female line and the trait effects male children.
In order for it to be selected for the following would need to occur.
A female with this trait would have to have both female and male children, and a sufficient number of male children so as to produce a homosexual one, and that homosexual child would have to convey some special adaptative advantage to the other female offspring which were not available from her straight brothers.
That's a lot of bits that have to fall in line to make that work.
Not really the case. Many animals have homossexual partners. One hypothesis is that the homossexual individuals, by not reproducing, have more free time and resources to help their sibillings giving them a greater chance of survival. The sibillings will share some of the same genes with the homossexual individuals. When these genes happen to be in a female, she has greater chances to produce more homossexual individuals.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, it's possible that this trait in females is linked to some other issue like increased fertility or robust immuno response preventing children from getting ill when newborn.(All that is COMPLETELY speculative, mind you). In which case there would be pressure for that trait and this other trait is coming along for the ride.
It is possible.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#637 Jul 20, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
One hypothesis is that the homossexual individuals, by not reproducing, have more free time and resources to help their sibillings giving them a greater chance of survival. The sibillings will share some of the same genes with the homossexual individuals. When these genes happen to be in a female, she has greater chances to produce more homossexual individuals.
<quoted text>
It is possible.
Except that homosexuality is witnessed in animals which do not have kin-bonding. There's no evidence that one penguin aids another penguin (aside from it's offspring) at all, much less that it has a special relationship with it's close relatives.

And that's one of MANY MANY examples of animals expressing homosexual behavior without expressing any altruism.

Like I said,_if_ there is any selective pressure for this trait, it's far more likely to be a situation where the trait is a side effect of a different issue.

But we've strayed from the initial point which is this:

Homosexuality in men is a side effect of the mother's reaction to the fetus. It's present from birth and unchangeable. It's not a choice. It's not a gene found in gay people. A homosexual man isn't more likely than a hetero-man to produce homosexual offspring.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#638 Jul 20, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that homosexuality is witnessed in animals which do not have kin-bonding.
Homossexuality seems to exist in a huge list of animals. Many of them do have kin-bonding. Even when kin-bonding does not happen throughout life it is common during the stage when the young are dependent of the parents and their homossexual kin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_...
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no evidence that one penguin aids another penguin (aside from it's offspring) at all, much less that it has a special relationship with it's close relatives.
But crows and parrots exhibit that behaviour. And many other animals do to.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
And that's one of MANY MANY examples of animals expressing homosexual behavior without expressing any altruism.
homossexuality seems to have many different causes. kin altruism is not the only one.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said,_if_ there is any selective pressure for this trait, it's far more likely to be a situation where the trait is a side effect of a different issue.
That can be one of the reasons for homossexuality. But not the only one.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
But we've strayed from the initial point which is this:
Homosexuality in men is a side effect of the mother's reaction to the fetus.
That is not always the case. I am gay but I have no brothers. That could not possibly be the reason for my sexuality.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
It's present from birth and unchangeable. It's not a choice.
I agree.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a gene found in gay people.
It may not be a single gene but it definately has a genetic and hereditary component. Homossexuality in twin brothers (both brothers) is a lot more common than would be expected if it were not hereditary.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
A homosexual man isn't more likely than a hetero-man to produce homosexual offspring.
But the sister of a homossexual man is more likely to produce homossexual offspring. Homossexuality does have a genetic component.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#639 Jul 20, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
But crows and parrots exhibit that behaviour. And many other animals do to.
That's correlation, not causation.
Crows and parrots also both have beaks, but that doesn't cause homosexual activity among those birds.
But the sister of a homossexual man is more likely to produce homossexual offspring. Homossexuality does have a genetic component.
Which contradicts the statement that a gay man is no more likely to produce gay offspring how exactly?

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
A Universe from Nothing? 10 min Eagle 12 34
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 26 min Regolith Based Li... 40,322
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 29 min IB DaMann 190
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 51 min karl44 15,810
News Why I quit atheism 1 hr Eagle 12 387
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 hr _Susan_ 255,927
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 12 hr woodtick57 20,580
More from around the web