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: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#827 Jul 24, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe people can escape such enculturation?
Depends on where they are born, how recent the culture was founded, how pervasive it is, their level of exposure to other cultures and a host of other things.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#828 Jul 24, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
How you and Skeptic discuss is not a my problem thing and it's not an excuse for altering my words and deliberately putting them in quotes as if I wrote them.
I didn't do that.

I boiled down your argument. I did not change your words.

If you think I did, find the quote box in which it happened.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#829 Jul 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't do that.
I boiled down your argument. I did not change your words.
If you think I did, find the quote box in which it happened.
It wasn't apparent to me that's what you're doing, but if you say you were, I'll take it at face value.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#830 Jul 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on where they are born, how recent the culture was founded, how pervasive it is, their level of exposure to other cultures and a host of other things.
How recent the culture was founded? Cultures aren't founded, they simply change through time. Sounds like a Civilization game phrase

;p

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#831 Jul 24, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
How recent the culture was founded? Cultures aren't founded, they simply change through time. Sounds like a Civilization game phrase
;p
I'm sooooo addicted to C4 Warlords. It's a problem.

Anyway, I mean the Puritans founding the colonies in the US was a creation of a society in which their ideals could be the laws of the community.

Or, Australia as a dumping ground for criminals. Similar situation.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#832 Jul 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sooooo addicted to C4 Warlords. It's a problem.
Anyway, I mean the Puritans founding the colonies in the US was a creation of a society in which their ideals could be the laws of the community.
Or, Australia as a dumping ground for criminals. Similar situation.
That's true, and there are cultural shifts there - I wonder by how much?

C4 is fun! Once you start, though, the day goes by so quickly! What's your highest setting? I can't win on anything higher than the 2nd or 3rd - my brother made it on deity level, for which I will always hate him.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#833 Jul 24, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That's true, and there are cultural shifts there - I wonder by how much?
C4 is fun! Once you start, though, the day goes by so quickly! What's your highest setting? I can't win on anything higher than the 2nd or 3rd - my brother made it on deity level, for which I will always hate him.
I play while I'm watching DVDs or TV. I'm not looking for a challenge, just a distraction. I pretty much just play warlord level and always win by a mile.

Its like much more complicated solitaire.

Also, I have it set to conquest only.

And the Japanese won't ever trade technology! That's how I know they are perverts!
CH2O2

Portugal

#834 Jul 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
You're claiming that there is a common practice of male homosexuality in college which is abandoned when returning to the real world...
No, I am not. Where did you see me make that claim?
Nuggin wrote:
...on par with the "LUG" phenomena among girls in college?
Great. Let's see you evidence.
I have no ideia what you are on about.
Nuggin wrote:
Or are you being silly and irrational?
Nope I am not. But you are, accusing me of things I never said nor understand what they mean.
Nuggin wrote:
You don't know what "Lesbian Until Graduation" means?
I haven't a clue.
Nuggin wrote:
Which of these words is confusing you?
I understand the meaning of each word but not the meaning of the words together in context, nor why you brought it up.
Nuggin wrote:
Among which group?
Sigh. I had assumed you were familiar with genetics.
Okay, let's do this.
There are these things called "genes" which are present in both the mommy and the daddy.
When a baby is made...
Nuggin wrote:
...(go ask your parents how)...
Yes, I am gay. Nope, I have no interest in baby-making-sex. I can handdle a little sarcasm. But please let's try keeping the discussion at a civilized level.
[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]
...that baby gets either a gene from the mommy or the daddy.
It seem it is you who is not familiar with genetics. No, babies do not get a gene EITHER from the mommy OR the daddy. Babies get each gene from BOTH mommy AND daddy. With a few exceptions, each parent provides a copy (i.e. allele) of each gene.
Nuggin wrote:
Sometimes they get mommy's eyes or daddy's nose.
If there is a gene controlling the mother's immuno-response to repeat male children, then that gene is present in the mother and therefore has only a 50% chance of being passed along to the child.
You really need a better understanding of genetics. That is completely incorrect. Both mother AND father can have the same gene because each human has the same set of genes as the next humam, regardless of sex (except for the genes in the Y chromosome). A gene for the mother's immuno-response during pregnancy would probably not express itself in males, but it is still there in the male genotype and able to be passed to the next generation by the father.
Nuggin wrote:
Therefore...
Therefore, all your conclusions are based in false premises and are incorrect.
Nuggin wrote:
...only roughly half of gay males would carry this gene.
Also, half the straight children from the same mother would carry this gene.
Irrelevant even if it were a correct assumption.
Nuggin wrote:
Making this gene utterly useless for determining homosexuality in an individual and something which is being passed "down the gay line" to future generations.
This is incorrect at so many levels. Let me give you one reason. What you are saying is that this "gay gene" is essencial but insuficient for causing homosexuality. This means that a gay man is homosexual only when the "gay gene" is present simultaneously with all other environmental conditions and variables which allow the expression of this gene.
All you need to do to "cure" is remove this gene. It does not matter if the "gay gene" alone does not make 100% male carriers to be homossexual. What matters is that the gene must be present to make male homosexual individuals.
CH2O2

Portugal

#835 Jul 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
Wrong. A gay man and a straight man can have the exact same level of hormones and have different attractions.
The amount of testosterone is not the determining factor in sexual preference (apart from a severe lack possibly leading to a null choice).
You are thinking of hormones in the adult individual. But hormones have a role during pregnancy. The concentration of testosterone during preagnacy does seem to affect sexual orientation ("preference" is not very accurate).
Nuggin wrote:
Sigh. I'll go slow, see if you can keep up.
Humans have a host of features which are present which have been neither selected for nor against by natural selection.
I agree.
Nuggin wrote:
These could be things which are cultural constructs. These could be things which are irrelevant one way or the other. These could be things which are side effects of other features. These could be things which have been exempted by advances.
[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]
Not sure I agree with these examples, but let's move on.
[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]
There was a time in which how and when you wisdom teeth came in was a significant factor in survival. It's not any more.
[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]
Bad example. Wisdom teeth are being select. But today, they are being selected out since they constitute a small chance of death due to malformation and infection. The benefit is no longer higher than the disadvantage.
[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]
Any genetic component to homosexuality is so blurred by the happenstance needed and by the fact that it is present in the mother, not the subject, that selection is rendered moot.
Incorrect. You have to go back to getting a better understanding of genetics. But even if that were the case natural selection would still act (and does) on the mother.
Nuggin wrote:
But not in the homosexual individual. You can not "cure" homosexuality through genetics...
Please anderstand I do not want to "cure" homosexuality. There is nothing wrong to cure. But the expression of a gene can be controled. You are incorrect.
Nuggin wrote:
You can not "cure" homosexuality through prayer, psychology, homeopathy or anything else.
I agree. Nor would I want to.

“A have offended, Brickie, Dark”

Since: Jan 11

Blue, Suncore, Replay whoever

#836 Jul 24, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You now have my full attention. What are you currently working on?
I am currently working on a number of different projects related to insects. My current work revolves around general insect biology related to rearing, toxicology, the impact of transgene expression in plants, and transgenic insects expressing biologically inert genetic inserts. I am also interested in insect taxonomy, systematics, ecology and biodiversity. In particular, the Coleoptera of the central United States. Along the latter lines, I am in the process of filling in gaps found in the range of various species in the superfamily Scarabaeoidea. I have discovered about a half dozen species new to the State of Missouri and identified examples of species that should be here but were not previously found in the state. Many years ago, I worked on the ecology of insects and other invertebrates found in soil.

The molecular and genetic aspect of insects is a more recent divergence, but it has been a longstanding interest of mine. This and has lead to increasing interest in epigenetics that I have been discussing rather ham-handedly with "hidingfromyou."
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

#837 Jul 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I am currently working on a number of different projects related to insects. My current work revolves around general insect biology related to rearing, toxicology, the impact of transgene expression in plants, and transgenic insects expressing biologically inert genetic inserts. I am also interested in insect taxonomy, systematics, ecology and biodiversity. In particular, the Coleoptera of the central United States. Along the latter lines, I am in the process of filling in gaps found in the range of various species in the superfamily Scarabaeoidea. I have discovered about a half dozen species new to the State of Missouri and identified examples of species that should be here but were not previously found in the state. Many years ago, I worked on the ecology of insects and other invertebrates found in soil.
The molecular and genetic aspect of insects is a more recent divergence, but it has been a longstanding interest of mine. This and has lead to increasing interest in epigenetics that I have been discussing rather ham-handedly with "hidingfromyou."
How very interesting. Have you done any work with social insects?

“A have offended, Brickie, Dark”

Since: Jan 11

Blue, Suncore, Replay whoever

#838 Jul 24, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are thinking of hormones in the adult individual. But hormones have a role during pregnancy. The concentration of testosterone during preagnacy does seem to affect sexual orientation ("preference" is not very accurate).
<quoted text>
I agree.
<quoted text>
Incorrect. You have to go back to getting a better understanding of genetics. But even if that were the case natural selection would still act (and does) on the mother.
<quoted text>
Please anderstand I do not want to "cure" homosexuality. There is nothing wrong to cure. But the expression of a gene can be controled. You are incorrect.
<quoted text>
I agree. Nor would I want to.
Isn't sex determined by temperature and hormones during incubation in reptiles?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#839 Jul 24, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
No, I am not. Where did you see me make that claim?
I have no ideia what you are on about.
Nope I am not. But you are, accusing me of things I never said nor understand what they mean.
I haven't a clue.
I understand the meaning of each word but not the meaning of the words together in context, nor why you brought it up.
All of the above refers to your not understanding the differences between male and female homosexuality and the phrase "Lesbian Until Graduation".

"LUG" is a term coined by "real" lesbians in college to refer to the common practice of girls becoming lesbians while at school and dropping it after school.

While there certainly is a core group of 100% lesbians, there is a much larger group of "lesbians for the time being".

There is no equivalent term among males in college because there isn't an equivalent situation. Some males may come to school identifying themselves as straight up to the point where they come out of the closet.

However, there isn't a wave of "I'm going to be gay to be alternative" guys. It just doesn't happen.

Gays are gay. It's not a phase. It's a condition from birth.
It seem it is you who is not familiar with genetics. No, babies do not get a gene EITHER from the mommy OR the daddy. Babies get each gene from BOTH mommy AND daddy. With a few exceptions, each parent provides a copy (i.e. allele) of each gene.
I was simplifying for effect.

Unless the mother is carrying 2 copies of the allele, she has a 50% chance of passing it along.

The kid has a 50% change, therefore of getting one copy of it. Which gives him a 50% chance of passing it to his child.
You really need a better understanding of genetics. That is completely incorrect. Both mother AND father can have the same gene because each human has the same set of genes as the next humam, regardless of sex (except for the genes in the Y chromosome).
For sake of argument, we'll call the gene which can code for this issue "123" and it has sub-alleles of a (causes homosexuality under the right condition) and b (doesn't cause homosexuality under any condition).

The mother has
123a
123b

The father has
123b
123b

There's no way the kid is getting two copies of 123a.

Get it?
A gene for the mother's immuno-response during pregnancy would probably not express itself in males, but it is still there in the male genotype and able to be passed to the next generation by the father.
You're assuming that all version of the gene have the same effect. There's no reason to believe that.
This is incorrect at so many levels. Let me give you one reason. What you are saying is that this "gay gene" is essencial but insuficient for causing homosexuality. This means that a gay man is homosexual only when the "gay gene" is present simultaneously with all other environmental conditions and variables which allow the expression of this gene.
All you need to do to "cure" is remove this gene. It does not matter if the "gay gene" alone does not make 100% male carriers to be homossexual. What matters is that the gene must be present to make male homosexual individuals.
You can't cure the homosexual by retroactively removing the suspect allele from his mother AFTER his birth.

It's not a genetic condition in the homosexuals themselves. He could be carrying TWO copies of the NON-homosexual allele which he would pass on to his children. He would STILL be gay because of the conditions in the womb.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#840 Jul 24, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect. You have to go back to getting a better understanding of genetics. But even if that were the case natural selection would still act (and does) on the mother.
You are making MASSIVE assumptions about the nature of complex relationships and how natural selection would effect them.

There's no reason to believe that a late gay child is going to increase the mother's chance to have more children. There's no reason to believe that a late gay child is going to increase the likelihood of sibling survival MORE than would happen with a straight child.

And, there's certainly to reason to believe that the gay child (who is using resources) is ensuring the survival of more offspring in the next generation than would be ensured by the presence of a heterosexual member who is also producing children with a potential to survive.

It's FAR more likely that the gay effect is a side effect of some other feature which is more important.

See: Sickle Cell vs Malaria.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#841 Jul 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I play while I'm watching DVDs or TV. I'm not looking for a challenge, just a distraction. I pretty much just play warlord level and always win by a mile.
Its like much more complicated solitaire.
Also, I have it set to conquest only.
And the Japanese won't ever trade technology! That's how I know they are perverts!
hahaha, I never play them - usually the Americans :p or the Greeks.

RE: that fertility festival you linked to.

Spectators/believers purchase bronze penises - these are symbolic of male potency and virility. Later, a huge sculpture of a vagina is brought out - you're supposed to rub your bronze penis on it for fertility blessings (so it's not just a penis festival).

Anyways, this one guy went to do that, but stuck his penis into a hole in the sculpture and couldn't get it out. So he was frantically pulling and pulling on it! Freaking out b/c he was interrupting everyone behind him, and b/c his poor fertility was in danger of becoming lost!

Priestesses had to drag him away.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#842 Jul 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You are making MASSIVE assumptions about the nature of complex relationships and how natural selection would effect them.
There's no reason to believe that a late gay child is going to increase the mother's chance to have more children. There's no reason to believe that a late gay child is going to increase the likelihood of sibling survival MORE than would happen with a straight child.
And, there's certainly to reason to believe that the gay child (who is using resources) is ensuring the survival of more offspring in the next generation than would be ensured by the presence of a heterosexual member who is also producing children with a potential to survive.
It's FAR more likely that the gay effect is a side effect of some other feature which is more important.
See: Sickle Cell vs Malaria.
This is the problem when scientists argue about the evolution of "homosexuality" - they fail to realize that it's a culturally and historically bound sexual identity. It could not have evolved. Rather, same sex sexual behavior evolved for different reasons and then, with human behavioral flexibility and cultural variance, we see a variety of ways of doing same sex sexual behavior - of which, the Western cultural homosexuality is but one.

So, yes, you're correct in that it's an exaptation, but of using pleasure to promote social cohesion, not to solve some disease.

“A have offended, Brickie, Dark”

Since: Jan 11

Blue, Suncore, Replay whoever

#843 Jul 24, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
How very interesting. Have you done any work with social insects?
Only in search of myrmecophilous species of beetles. With your hobby, I am sure you are aware that there are a large number of different species of invertebrates that share ant nests with the ants. There are some cetoniine scarabs that I have yet to collect, but continue to search for. They are not unknown to my area, but they are unknown to me. That is the beauty of tiny animals. There are so many and such much to learn about the majority of them.

My search for these and other species have placed pressure on me to learn a little bit more about ants, but I am still not very good at identification beyond the more common species.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#844 Jul 24, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
All you need to do to "cure" is remove this gene. It does not matter if the "gay gene" alone does not make 100% male carriers to be homossexual. What matters is that the gene must be present to make male homosexual individuals.
The gay gene hypothesis entirely fails to explain cultures like the Etoro (and roughly 10% of PNG cultural groups) who regularly practice same sex sexual behavior and who view opposite sex sexual behavior unhealthy and dangerous.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#845 Jul 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I am currently working on a number of different projects related to insects. My current work revolves around general insect biology related to rearing, toxicology, the impact of transgene expression in plants, and transgenic insects expressing biologically inert genetic inserts. I am also interested in insect taxonomy, systematics, ecology and biodiversity. In particular, the Coleoptera of the central United States. Along the latter lines, I am in the process of filling in gaps found in the range of various species in the superfamily Scarabaeoidea. I have discovered about a half dozen species new to the State of Missouri and identified examples of species that should be here but were not previously found in the state. Many years ago, I worked on the ecology of insects and other invertebrates found in soil.
The molecular and genetic aspect of insects is a more recent divergence, but it has been a longstanding interest of mine. This and has lead to increasing interest in epigenetics that I have been discussing rather ham-handedly with "hidingfromyou."
That's pretty interesting :)

We can always ramp up our discussion ;p

“A have offended, Brickie, Dark”

Since: Jan 11

Blue, Suncore, Replay whoever

#846 Jul 24, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
How very interesting. Have you done any work with social insects?
I have been on a binge of reading lately, and have always wanted to read E.O. Wilson's Sociobiolgy.

Based on what little I know of that subject, I believe that in relation to your ongoing discussion of homosexuality, sociobiology would state that the individual recognizing some lack of fitness, but still desiring or needing all the connection of a mate, would seek out like individuals to fill that role. I know a very long sentence. Keep in mind that I don't have a full understanding of the theory by any stretch. I just recalled it from your question and it seemed fitting to mention it even if I may have butchered it in the attempt. Those of you that may know better can correct me if I am wrong and if I am, I hope you do.

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) 1 hr Eman 22,934
Heaven 2 hr Patrick 7
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr Patrick 5,938
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr _Bad Company 724
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Patrick 228,598
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr _Bad Company 1,023
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 8 hr Jaimie 154

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE