Atheism and homosexuality

Dec 5, 2011 Full story: Conservapedia 3,862

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)

Full Story

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#787 Jul 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I reject T.D.'s religious argument.
Many gays defend marriage as one man and one woman.
Your comments are not valid because you're a mentally ill creationist.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#788 Jul 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's two different websites I found in 3 seconds, skipping past both Amazon and Ebay which also had them
http://www.dakimakurapillow.com/
http://www.animedakimakurapillow.com/
Clearly this is a much bigger thing than you are claiming.
Nope, it's not that big.

Also, and I know you have reading problems (see below) and misrepresentation problems (above and below), you'll note the pillows aren't sex toys. They're just images for anime fans.
And as for your "Oh, they are used women's underwear. That's perfectly normal" argument, I'm guessing you've spent too much time in Japan.
I never claimed it was normal. If you need to lie about my words, you don't have an argument.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#789 Jul 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, I am an entomologist...
You now have my full attention. What are you currently working on?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#790 Jul 24, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not claiming you are xenophobic, it's a fact!
He also seems to enjoy misrepresenting people's writing - in quotes - to the point of lying.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#791 Jul 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, I am an entomologist, but I am insatiably curious about other fields of science and my undergraduate work focused on cytogenetics. I am not so fully infested as to be rid of such interests. Plant biology is my local primary source of information due to access to a large number of available lectures on the subject where I work. I try to fit a few such in as often as I can, but since many lectures are current work, it makes my education sort of top down, rather than bottom up. I have to pay very close attention and keep a good record of terms and references for follow up. As with all things, I find ethnobotany to be very interesting. I have read some of ethnobotanist Richard Schultes work, but know him better through the writings of one of his students, Wade Davis. High adventure botany at its best. I am not familiar with guerrilla gardening. More high adventure?
I don't know the details of the mechanisms, there appear to be at least three, but there is a relationship between cytosine methylation and abnormal development. Development is not altered by the presence of different transgenes according to the data I have seen. This is seen in corn, Arabidopsis and rice and probably other plants, but I haven't gotten that far yet. Interestingly, I have heard, but not read of research in methylation in sorghum that produces off types that are taller and yield higher than the wild type parent. I gather from attendees at thess lectures, that it is interesting, but they don't yet know what to make of it.
I am not so much interested in epigenetics of plants specifically, they are the models for which I have ready access to current research through lectures. I am just trying to learn more on the subject and then bring it back into my own field and understanding.
Thanks very much for all the information. Your perspective is much different than mine practicing as you do in an entirely different field. You have provided me some interesting points for consideration and review. I appreciate it.
A pleasure to finally have an interesting conversation!

Your work sounds totally interesting - I can see why you'd want to use plant models first.

I suspect that transgenes are operating in some way, either large or small, outside of their host's epigenetic signaling. It's probably also possible that they could be more greatly affected by it.

The thing is, lots of genes express their proteins in concert with other genes - part of gene complexes. Transplanted genes might lack those signals and so produce neutral, stronger or weaker signals (i.e., different or unusual relative to their origin genome). I'm totally guessing, but I think it's important to remember that all genes evolved in the presence of other genes, gene to gene interactions, and epigenetics. When you move a gene from one genome to another, some of the signalling context to which it evolved within is altered.

So I wonder if that explains any of the unusual results people are finding?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#792 Jul 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
It was decided from outside Japan that retaining the Emperor would enable post war stability. Probably for the best, because it worked, but unsatisfying for the victims.
<quoted text>
Yeah, but it was decided thus by non-Japanese who didn't really understand Japan. They might have been correct. Morally, however, their decision was not correct - the Emperor should have been tried, along with most of the generals (not all, some tried to end the war, some argued against it) and definitely all those involved in the rape of China, not to mention those doctors who performed medical experiments on POWs and others.

The Japanese government should also issue a formal apology to China, to the women of its colonies, to Okinawa, and probably more. There are complicated reasons why it won't do that, of course, but I don't agree with them.
Thinking

UK

#793 Jul 24, 2013
How do you think 1945 Japanese people would have reacted to losing their living god? My parents were led to believe there may have been terrible unrest and suicides.

Mountbatten didn't agree with the US's decision to leave Hirohito in place one little bit, but the UK didn't really get a say.

I don't claim deep knowledge regarding territories disputed by Japan and China, but I understand there are several. I guess this is an obstacle to any apology.

As an outsider, from a culture less concerned about face, I think it would have been great if Japan had apologised to China some 20 or 30 years ago. Now that China is strong, any apology may look like political expediency - at least it will to my mindset.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but it was decided thus by non-Japanese who didn't really understand Japan. They might have been correct. Morally, however, their decision was not correct - the Emperor should have been tried, along with most of the generals (not all, some tried to end the war, some argued against it) and definitely all those involved in the rape of China, not to mention those doctors who performed medical experiments on POWs and others.
The Japanese government should also issue a formal apology to China, to the women of its colonies, to Okinawa, and probably more. There are complicated reasons why it won't do that, of course, but I don't agree with them.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#794 Jul 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
I don't know where you are getting your numbers.
Valenzuela C. 2009. "Sexual Orientation, Handedness, Sex Ratio, and Fetomaternal Tolerance-Rejection".
Nuggin wrote:
I also was quite clear that I'm referring to male homosexuality only.
OK. Let's go back to male homosexuality. How do you explain the 85% male homosexuals who do not have older brothers. I've asked you this question before and you choose to leave it unanswered.

[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]
Female homosexuality is completely different and, frankly, I'm starting to believe a good portion of it isn't "real".
Belief without evidence is silly and irrational. Would you not agree?
Nuggin wrote:
There's no male version of "Lesbian Until Graduation".
I don't know what that means.
Nuggin wrote:
Either you're gay or you aren't.
What about bisexuals?
Nuggin wrote:
Anyway, as I stated before any genetic component would not be something that shows up in the individual nor travels down the individual's lineage as heritable.

How do you know? Even researchers in this field wont make this claim. Why do you? I've also asked this before but you did not answer.
Nuggin wrote:
A gay son and a straight son are equally as unlikely to carry any genetic material governing sexuality.
Totaly false. Genetic material codes hormones. Hormones govern sexuality. Thus, genetic material governs sexuality.
Nuggin wrote:
In fact, any genetic component causing this might be present in 100% of the population but expresses itself differently depending on other factors. We can't know.
I agree. Just like I said, and you argued against in the beggining of our discussion, sexuality (and homosexuality) does have a genetic component which can be regulated by natural selection. Am I correct to understand you now seem to agree with me and dismiss your inicial claim?
Nuggin wrote:
We'd have to run an experiment where we take thousands of women and force them to produce male offspring one after another until one came out gay and then correlate that data to their DNA.
That would be one way to test it. A very unethical way, but a way nonetheless. But it is not the only way. All it takes is to identify one individual (or a significantly large enough group of individuals) known to have produced male homosexual offspring and test them for a "gay gene", or genes. The only reason we have not yet done it is our current degree of knowledge. The human genome project will probably unlock that door soon enough.
Nuggin wrote:
All futile...
Futile indeed. Nature does not require our understanding to exist. A "gay gene's" existance does not depend on our knowledge of it. The question here is: Does homosexuality have a genetic component?. The question is not: Do we know if homosexuality has a genetic component?
Nuggin wrote:

...since even if we did find a gene, it wouldn't be present in the homosexuals themselves.
[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]
Your logic, or lack of it, evades comprehension. I am lost for words.

[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]
Therefore there's no "gay cure" or "gay test"
If homosexuality does have a genetic component it's expression can be artificially regulated.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#795 Jul 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I reject T.D.'s religious argument.
Many gays defend marriage as one man and one woman.
"many gays"? Seriously? You have a link to such delusional folk, then?
Amused

Lowell, MA

#796 Jul 24, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the Japanese committed terrible atrocities in WWII, and the Emperor and his chronies should have been tried for war crimes.
The cronies were, or at least some of them. The emperor was not because (a) his complicity would be hard to prove in court and (b) more importantly, the emperor was useful to the US occupation of Japan after the war. The emperor's acquiescence to MacArthur's military rule and the new government formed under the new constitution written, essentially, by the Americans were key to giving both regimes legitimacy in the eyes of the Japanese people. The occupation would have gone poorly, and been met with much more resistance, if the emperor ended his career at the end of a rope, as the leaders of the military did.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#797 Jul 24, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
The cronies were, or at least some of them. The emperor was not because (a) his complicity would be hard to prove in court and (b) more importantly, the emperor was useful to the US occupation of Japan after the war. The emperor's acquiescence to MacArthur's military rule and the new government formed under the new constitution written, essentially, by the Americans were key to giving both regimes legitimacy in the eyes of the Japanese people. The occupation would have gone poorly, and been met with much more resistance, if the emperor ended his career at the end of a rope, as the leaders of the military did.
As I understood that bit of history, the military leaders were the tacit leaders of Japan anyhow, with the Emperor being a political figurehead.

Certainly, post WW2, he played that role pretty effectively.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#798 Jul 24, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
Genetic material codes hormones. Hormones govern sexuality. Thus, genetic material governs sexuality.
The above is not accurate. Genes code for proteins, not hormones. Hormones are produced by glands.

Further, hormones do not govern sexuality. They're chemical messengers that influence arousal states, not sexual preference.
That would be one way to test it. A very unethical way, but a way nonetheless. But it is not the only way. All it takes is to identify one individual (or a significantly large enough group of individuals) known to have produced male homosexual offspring and test them for a "gay gene", or genes. The only reason we have not yet done it is our current degree of knowledge. The human genome project will probably unlock that door soon enough.
It's been done. One researcher claimed to have found the "gay gene," but he received a lot of academic criticism. The consensus is that no "gay gene" exists.
If homosexuality does have a genetic component it's expression can be artificially regulated.
Unless its a genetic cluster that responds to environmental context, or if some of them are pleiotropic. Then your manipulations might do nothing or actually be harmful.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#799 Jul 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
How do you think 1945 Japanese people would have reacted to losing their living god? My parents were led to believe there may have been terrible unrest and suicides.
Mountbatten didn't agree with the US's decision to leave Hirohito in place one little bit, but the UK didn't really get a say.
I don't claim deep knowledge regarding territories disputed by Japan and China, but I understand there are several. I guess this is an obstacle to any apology.
As an outsider, from a culture less concerned about face, I think it would have been great if Japan had apologised to China some 20 or 30 years ago. Now that China is strong, any apology may look like political expediency - at least it will to my mindset.
<quoted text>
By 1945, a fair amount of the populace no longer supported the war. Support for the Emperor was high in some groups, and expected among the population, but I wouldn't argue that all Japanese considered him a living god - for one thing, he lost the war. Additionally, especially in Okinawa, a fair amount of people were anti-emperor, and more so after meeting American troops. Americans didn't eat us, steal our babies or whatever - but shared food, helped rebuild cities, etc. That instantly exposed the Emperor's deceits.

As for why the apology is not forthcoming, there are lots of reasons:

- Japan feels it apologized through AID packages to China
- an apology might be the road for war reparations, an expense contemporary Japan doesn't want to bear
- Japan has all kinds of insecurity issues with China, b/c of their shared history
- fundamentalism remains somewhat strong, especially among the "old boys" of the politicians
- more than the few territories Japan and China are disputing, but Asia is a ripe economic zone, with Japan trying to limit China's reach, and China trying to expand it - both are competing for labor markets and resources

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#800 Jul 24, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
The cronies were, or at least some of them. The emperor was not because (a) his complicity would be hard to prove in court and (b) more importantly, the emperor was useful to the US occupation of Japan after the war. The emperor's acquiescence to MacArthur's military rule and the new government formed under the new constitution written, essentially, by the Americans were key to giving both regimes legitimacy in the eyes of the Japanese people. The occupation would have gone poorly, and been met with much more resistance, if the emperor ended his career at the end of a rope, as the leaders of the military did.
That's true. At the same time, many historians argue that the Emperor and his cabinet were successful at manipulating MacArthur. The examples they list are the avoidance of trials (only 9 people were executed) and the power the Zaibatsus were able to hold onto.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#801 Jul 24, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
As I understood that bit of history, the military leaders were the tacit leaders of Japan anyhow, with the Emperor being a political figurehead.
Certainly, post WW2, he played that role pretty effectively.
Yes, the westerners restored the emperor to power in the 1860's after centuries where the military shoguns of the Tokugawa shogunate were the true leaders and the emperor a mere figurehead. The shoguns maintained the fiction that they were acting on behalf of the emperor and in his name. In reality, the emperor had no real choice but to rubber stamp the actions of the shogun.

The military leaders, however, still fancied themselves the heirs of the samurai, and the true power devolved back to them over time.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#802 Jul 24, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That's true. At the same time, many historians argue that the Emperor and his cabinet were successful at manipulating MacArthur. The examples they list are the avoidance of trials (only 9 people were executed) and the power the Zaibatsus were able to hold onto.
I don't see a real problem with that-- McArthur was far from perfect.

I would have hated to see things going entirely his way, anyhow.
Thinking

UK

#803 Jul 24, 2013
Thanks for the insight. With 20 20 hindsight, it's usually best to apologise sooner. But it rarely works out that way.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
By 1945, a fair amount of the populace no longer supported the war. Support for the Emperor was high in some groups, and expected among the population, but I wouldn't argue that all Japanese considered him a living god - for one thing, he lost the war. Additionally, especially in Okinawa, a fair amount of people were anti-emperor, and more so after meeting American troops. Americans didn't eat us, steal our babies or whatever - but shared food, helped rebuild cities, etc. That instantly exposed the Emperor's deceits.
As for why the apology is not forthcoming, there are lots of reasons:
- Japan feels it apologized through AID packages to China
- an apology might be the road for war reparations, an expense contemporary Japan doesn't want to bear
- Japan has all kinds of insecurity issues with China, b/c of their shared history
- fundamentalism remains somewhat strong, especially among the "old boys" of the politicians
- more than the few territories Japan and China are disputing, but Asia is a ripe economic zone, with Japan trying to limit China's reach, and China trying to expand it - both are competing for labor markets and resources

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#804 Jul 24, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Pharaohs were human beings not gods, fact.
Jesus was a human being, yet he's considered a deity by Christians.
Buddha was a human being, yet he's considered a deity by Buddhists.

The fact that a religion is centered around a flesh and blood figure doesn't mean that that figure is not a deity.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#805 Jul 24, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't the Nuggn show, just f*ck off you ignorant creationist troll.
You follow me here, Skippy.

Clearly this IS the Nuggin show. You can't leave because I'm much more important to you than even your own life.

So, back to the subject at hand.

Are you finally willing to admit that you were wrong when you said I lied about the fact that we went to the moon? Or are you still holding onto that ridiculous conspiracy theory?

What's next? 9/11 hoax?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#806 Jul 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I reject T.D.'s religious argument.
Many gays defend marriage as one man and one woman.
Name 5.

Provide links to articles/blog posts that they've written on the subject in the last 2 years.

Should be easy if there are "many" of them

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 14 min I can read 22,938
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 34 min Thinking 228,611
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Thinking 1,030
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 2 hr Thinking 155
Heaven 2 hr Thinking 8
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr Thinking 727
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 3 hr Thinking 5,939

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE