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
CH2O2

Portugal

#847 Jul 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
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.
[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]
Irrelevant for our discussion. I can't imagine why you brouth it up.

[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]
Gays are gay. It's not a phase. It's a condition from birth.
Which suggests a genetic cause.
Nuggin wrote:
I was simplifying for effect.
No, you were not. You were incorrect and you just don't want to admit it.
Nuggin wrote:
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.
Humans do not reproduce by female parthenogenesis. You can't calculate the odds without considering the equal participation of the father. Your calculation is incorrect.
Nuggin wrote:
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
What about the fathers contribution? What if the father is 123a/123b? You are incorrect.
Nuggin wrote:
Get it?
I get it. But you still don't.
Nuggin wrote:
You're assuming that all version of the gene have the same effect. There's no reason to believe that.
No, I don't assume that. Dis I say that? No, I didn't.
Nuggin wrote:
You can't cure the homosexual by retroactively removing the suspect allele from his mother AFTER his birth.
Theoreticaly you can. We just do not have the technology yet. But there are other ways to control the expression of a gene. Diabetes is a good example. You just inject the protein the gene would produce. Another way is pre-natal testing. Women could choose abortion. Please understand I do not support any of these methods of "curing" homosexuality but they exist in the realm of possibility.
Nuggin wrote:
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.
That is just speculation. You have no evidence that would be the case. Going back to our hypothetical scenario, which as I have been explaining is supported by the available data, the "gay gene" is a necessary condition for male homosexuality. Whithout the "gay gene" the environmental/womb conditions would not cause homosexuality. That is our best hypothesis.

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#848 Jul 24, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That's pretty interesting :)
We can always ramp up our discussion ;p
We better leave it at this level for the time being. I think a ramp now might shoot the discussion right over my head. I'm am still going back to what you have previously posted to make sure I am digesting it properly.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#849 Jul 24, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which suggests a genetic cause.
Epigenetic. The DNA of the homosexual is not responsible for his homosexuality.

The rest of it is just you being petulant

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#850 Jul 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Sociobiology is outdated and universally panned in the social sciences at this point. Take it with a grain of salt :)

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#851 Jul 24, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Sociobiology is outdated and universally panned in the social sciences at this point. Take it with a grain of salt :)
That seems to summarize the more recent (last 10 years) reviews I have come across. I will keep it in mind when I get around to reading it. It isn't high on my next to read list, CH2O2's question just reminded me and I associated it with your other discussion. It is what I do when I am getting tired. It is also how I remember something I can't recall readily.

I hope you don't mind, but I was curious about your avatar. Does it represent anything or is it just a popular picture pulled from the web? If I am being nosey, just say so and I will forget it.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#852 Jul 24, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Sociobiology is outdated and universally panned in the social sciences at this point. Take it with a grain of salt :)
Every science is outdated if you look at its origin and not what comes after it.

Sociobiology is actually quite good at explaining a great deal of human (and other animal) behavior. Everything from city organization to traffic flow to trade routes.

It bridges the gap between economic anthro and bio.
Thinking

UK

#853 Jul 24, 2013
My views are more British than American. But it is fair to say that Japan is still perceived as unrepentant and cruel by my parent's generation, whereas my generation perceives Japan as merely isolationist.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
And thanks for your comments and insights - I wasn't aware of how the situation was portrayed in America.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#854 Jul 25, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
Your comments are not valid because you're a mentally ill creationist.
Note how the left uses name-calling instead of engaging the arguments? That' the only way they can win, on personality, not policy.

“Sara for Fun (( M 2 F ))”

Since: Aug 10

Bahrain

#855 Jul 25, 2013
At the beginning we should know that there are two terms in meaning and different composition verbal comparability action for a convergence of views.
Atheism: the doctrine espoused by himself.
Homosexuality: an act undertaken by a person to himself followed by his lust.
Do u Agree?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#856 Jul 25, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Every science is outdated if you look at its origin and not what comes after it.
Sociobiology is actually quite good at explaining a great deal of human (and other animal) behavior. Everything from city organization to traffic flow to trade routes.
It bridges the gap between economic anthro and bio.
I fail to see how sociobiology explains traffic flow (I've seen other mathematical models do well at this) and think that World Systems Theory does a lot better at explaining trade routes.

That said, the three theories that the book Sociobiology, Triver's Reciprocal Altruism, Parental Investment theory and W.D. Hamilton's Inclusive Fitness theory are still used to this day in zoology. With fairly large modifications, they work in anthropology to some degree, although most anthropologists would disagree with that statement.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#857 Jul 25, 2013
Thinking wrote:
My views are more British than American. But it is fair to say that Japan is still perceived as unrepentant and cruel by my parent's generation, whereas my generation perceives Japan as merely isolationist.
<quoted text>
Please tell them that I think of Japan as cute :)

Hello Kitty Japan!

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#858 Jul 25, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
The above is not accurate. Genes code for proteins, not hormones. Hormones are produced by glands.
In mammals hormones are proteins, like insulin or steroids like testosterone.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Further, hormones do not govern sexuality. They're chemical messengers that influence arousal states, not sexual preference.
There is evidence showing testosterone levels during pregnancy influence sexual preference.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
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.
You are probably refering to Xq28. A "gay gene" has not been found but a consensus is far from being reached. The available data mostly statistical, suggests homosexuality has a genetic and heritable component. This is the fundamental point in my discussion with Nuggin. Does homosexuality have a heritable component and can it be subjected to environmental pressures? I believe that is the case.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Unless its a genetic cluster that responds to environmental context...
I believe that is most likely. Homosexuality seems to be too complex for it be a caused by a single Mendelian gene.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
...or if some of them are pleiotropic. Then your manipulations might do nothing or actually be harmful.
Please understand I do not support any type of manipulation or "cure" for homosexuality. In any case, the only reason we are unable to control the expression of pleiotropic genes is because we have not yet sufficiently developed genetics and related technology. In theory it is possible to allow the primary expression of a pleotropic gene in one tissue while, at the same time, negate it's secondary expression in another tissue.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#859 Jul 25, 2013
sarahomo wrote:
At the beginning we should know that there are two terms in meaning and different composition verbal comparability action for a convergence of views.
Atheism: the doctrine espoused by himself.
Homosexuality: an act undertaken by a person to himself followed by his lust.
Do u Agree?
No, I do not agree.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#860 Jul 25, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
Epigenetic.
Even epigenetics can be heritable and, thus subjected to selective pressure, which really is the core of our discussion.
Nuggin wrote:
The DNA of the homosexual is not responsible for his homosexuality.
You seem to keep "forgetting" to answer some questions i've assked you more than once.

1 - If not by a genetic factor, how do you explain the cause for 85% of homosexual males who do not have older brothers from the same mother?

2 - If not by a genetic factor, how do you explain the greater than average frequency of homosexual individuals in familly lines?

3 - If not by a genetic factor, how do you explain the greater than average frequency of identical twin brothers where both are homosexual?
Nuggin wrote:
The rest of it is just you being petulant
If I must endure your sarcasm, you should also handle a healthy dose of my petulance. Besides, reason in on my side, I should have the right to a little petulance.

But it seems

“Sara for Fun (( M 2 F ))”

Since: Aug 10

Bahrain

#861 Jul 25, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I do not agree.
You are not an Atheist, nor Gay, so this response.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#862 Jul 25, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
In mammals hormones are proteins, like insulin or steroids like testosterone.
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.

Hormones are, in no way, secreted by genes. 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.

Hormones are only secreted by glands.
<quoted text>
There is evidence showing testosterone levels during pregnancy influence sexual preference.
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.
You are probably refering to Xq28. A "gay gene" has not been found but a consensus is far from being reached. The available data mostly statistical, suggests homosexuality has a genetic and heritable component. This is the fundamental point in my discussion with Nuggin. Does homosexuality have a heritable component and can it be subjected to environmental pressures? I believe that is the case.
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." It's meaningless to write that because all human behavior contains a genetic component.
I believe that is most likely. Homosexuality seems to be too complex for it be a caused by a single Mendelian gene.
There are very few simple Mendelian genes. I'd guess that we'd discovered almost all of them already.
Please understand I do not support any type of manipulation or "cure" for homosexuality. In any case, the only reason we are unable to control the expression of pleiotropic genes is because we have not yet sufficiently developed genetics and related technology. In theory it is possible to allow the primary expression of a pleotropic gene in one tissue while, at the same time, negate it's secondary expression in another tissue.
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

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.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#863 Jul 25, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even epigenetics can be heritable and, thus subjected to selective pressure, which really is the core of our discussion.
Epigenetics, by definition, are environmentally cued. They're inheritable such that they work and the kinds of genes/controller genes they affect - and, in this light, they are selected - but in terms of their effect on bodies, they're basically an acquired trait.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#864 Jul 25, 2013
sarahomo wrote:
<quoted text>You are not an Atheist, nor Gay, so this response.
You're mistaken here.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#865 Jul 25, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
The DNA of the homosexual is not responsible for his homosexuality.
Lets analise this, again.

a)- Going back to the core of our discussion, you claimed:
Nuggin wrote:
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.
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.

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.

c)- Considering only those 15% male homosexual individuals, you claim it is the conditions during pregnancy, not genetics, which are the cause for homosexuality.

d) These conditions during pregnancy are biochemical in nature. Thus, it follows that these conditions should be expressed by the maternal genes.

e) Selective pressures in the environment favour individuals whose genes are good at making many copies of themselves through reproduction and surviving long enough to make yet more copies of those genes.

f) If biochemical conditions during pregnancy are due to maternal genes which confer some advantage to the mother (like higher fertility), those genes can be favoured by natural selection.

g) Selective pressures act on females who have those genes favouring the maintenence of homosexual individuals in the population.

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.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#866 Jul 25, 2013
sarahomo wrote:
<quoted text>You are not an Atheist, nor Gay, so this response.
I am both. Please don't presume to know what I am better than myself.

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 requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 18 min Dave Nelson 231,001
Evidence for God! 2 hr Uncle Sam 45
Heaven 5 hr _Bad Company 43
Our world came from nothing? 8 hr Carchar king 1,104
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 9 hr fadu singh 23,043
Former Atheist Academic Who Rejected God and Be... 17 hr Hooogle It 77
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Thu Ooogah Boogah 14,391

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE