Homophobia, or Justified ignorance

[Ctholhic]

Toawa, that is true. My conclusion hasn't perceptibly affected how I act, because it doesn't necessitate such a change.

However, I do reject predeterminism, science currently recognises sources of random information, including ones that permeate the structure of organisms. Radioactive decay does not appear to be predetermined currently, so the results of the activity of the brain should not be entirely predetermined due to containing a source of noise inside a chaotic system. The actions of beings with processing organs are pretty predictable, but not entirely so in my view.

Rather, my statement of the rejection of free will creates the further conclusion that humans are not special, that life is not special because their actions are the results of things operating within the rules observed applying to other objects.

Yes, I may be using the wrong term to describe what I believe, and people could probably come up with some arguments as to how the recognisation of sources of random data allows one to come up with the position that the soul exists, but I'd say they're wrong.

[Oniphire]

*rubs JohnnyTwoEyes the OTHER way*

What makes these the best forums EVAR: gropings/rubbings/tentacoo wapings can happen at any time as the result of any discussion. <3

[Swordsman3003]

You can get accostumed to writing with the other hand the same way I'm sure you could get accostumed to sleeping with the sex you don't prefer

On Abortion:

I am an atheist. Hard. I also, coincidentally, have very few "moral" values.

I've read pretty much all the arguments against abortion, and frankly there is not a single one that persuades me. Nearly all of the rely on metaphysics.

If you are in any way going to try and argue against abortion based on the concept of a soul as the defining aspect of a human, just forget it. That kind of arguement is based on an imaginary concept.

If you are going to claim that fetuses are human, killing humans is wrong, and therefore abortion is wrong, you are going to have a great many issues to adress. If anyone here is anti-abortion, feel free to address these. [and yes, you are anti-abortion. Anyone who's not deranged is "pro-life". It is you who are anti-abortion.]

1. Define what a human is. If you define humans in a way that can be construded to include animals, you have failed. Also, if you say that humanity is based on DNA, do realize that there are non human things that possess human DNA, such as a disembodied organ.

2. Now that human is defined, show how not only a fetus meets that requirement, but also a 40 celled, spherical blastocyst meets the criterion.

3. If you have managed to show how the fetus is human, please explain what kinds of circumstances justify killing a human.

4. Show how an abortive procedure does not meet the definition of a just reason to kill another human.

If you can do all 4 steps, then there is an argument against abortion.

[Lulujayne]

*shakes the hand of Swordsie*

Well put.

And by the by JetSetLemming, my post was very restrained compared to how that statement made me feel. Also I asked questions of Spiral Zero (waiting for a response ) so it was very far removed from a rant. Believe me, when I rant, I RANT.

1. The thought of someone being able to call me a murderer to my face, and truly believing that I am this, makes me sick. If women who have made this choice are truly murders, then apparently we're akin to Geoffory Dahmer, Son of Sam (etc.) and worthy of recieving a lethal injection - which incidentally, makes a murder of someone else, but let's not worry about that, this thread is already convoluted enough without debating about capital punishment

2. I live in a country where, 'though abortion has recently become legal, socially it's up there with having the plague. I know women here that have been shunned by their close friends and family just for even raising the idea that it might be an option for their situation. Also, considering the level of poverty over here (among other things) the stakes are alot higher than ideological arguments between "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" fanatics.

[Major Maxillary]

People who are homophobic very often have repressed homosexual desires.

[JohnnyTwoEyes]

People who are homophobic very often have repressed homosexual desires.

Man, who DOESN'T have repressed homosexual desires nowadays?

Besides the gays, I mean.

[Harper128]

First off, to all who responded to my comments, I do thank you for the well thought out consideration you have given.

To JohnnyTwoEyes:
I do actually agree entirely that saying homosexuality is simply a choice, with no outside influencing factors, is far too great of a simplication. As is suicide. There are most often many outside influencing factors which are attributable to a person commiting suicide, not just their homosexuality. And it could be that those outside factors are attributable to both "choices", I wonder if anyone has done a study on that.

As to the study I was refering to, I had been made aware of it through a PBS program. Again, I do state that I have not had a chance to view the actual data, therefore the results may have been skewed. And, even if they had not, the sample chosen to recieve results from may have been.

I do believe that, for the most part, we are in agreement here. Choice is ultimately involved, but as to what degree other factors are an influence, I cannot say.

There are a lot of scientific studies showing that homosexual behavior is common in the animal kingdom

Now, first of all, I'm going to assume this refers to their behaviors, not their attractions, after all, I'm doubting they spoke to the animals to find out just who they were attracted to. In any case, do you have a link to the study? I do believe that I have heard of this one, but I haven't seen it for quite some time and I could do with a refresher on it. Also, check out the book I mention at the bottom of the page.

Back to Warmachine:

Lets see, according to the Christian God, it corrupts the soul. That is why it is harmful. As to how it is harmful, that I cannot explain, as I don't have the expertiese in that area to explain it adequately. However, people have known for a long time that rust is harmful to iron and iron implements, and they could tell you what to do to keep the items from getting rusty, but they couldn't explain how the rust formed.

Assuming you're talking about the christian god, he creates humans with the capacity for reasoning and moral judgement and expects us to follow his commands without using our reasoning or moral judgement?

Umm, aren't those commands suposed to be the basis upon which a Christian's morals are founded? Then the violation of those commands would go against a Christian's morals, would they not? Sorry, poor point of argument. However, <a href="http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/christ.htm">this article</a> does start to make a rather convincing argument from the brief scan I have made of it. And I hope to get a chance to read it completely in the near future.

What does expressing the love of your brother have to do with homosexuals expressing their love? My statement about encouragement of expression of sexuality was describing 'a form of love', specifically homosexuality, not love in general.

I was responding to the statement:

The world needs more love and understanding.

And the point is that love does not need to be expressed sexually to be expressed. I may love someone without making love to them. Conversly, I may make love to someone without loving them.

In your case of humanism, are you refering to Educational Humanists, Secular Humanists or Religious Humanists? Secular Humanists do, in fact, believe in a higher power. In any case, according to <a href="http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/manussa/coreprin.htm">Victor A. Gunasekara</a>

The question of homosexuality may be cited on which there is no complete agreement even amongst humanists.

But, the point (about the car) is that you cannot tell someone to argue based on morals and then tell them that they must exclude the driving force behind their code of morals (in this case God).

But, lets also look at a few other, non-Christian religions, shall we? How about Taoism.

he Taoist tradition holds that males need the energies of females, and vice versa, in order to bring about balance, completion and transformation. These energies thought to be best obtained through heterosexual relations. Passionate homosexual expression is usually discouraged because it is believed to not lead to human fulfillment.[1] However, homosexuality is not explicitly forbidden by the Taoist Holy Books, the Tao Te Ching and the Zhuangzi.

So, Taoism, not forbidden, but frowned upon, and, if my wife is any judge, very highly frowned upon, at least in Taiwan.

Buddhism:
From the Dalai Lama:

In his book "Beyond Dogma," he has written that "homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact." Buddhism prohibits oral, manual and anal sex for everyone - both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Also from the Dalai Lama:

However, these restrictions refer only to members of the Buddhist faith. 4 From "society's viewpoint," same-sex relations can be "of mutual benefit, enjoyable and harmless." He supports human rights "regardless of sexual orientation."

But, from Theravada Buddhism:

Some Buddhists conclude that sexual misconduct would include adultery, child molestation, incest, rape, sexual abuse in any form, and sexual harassment. Further, consensual sexual activity by a committed couple is not misconduct (whether engaged in by a heterosexual or homosexual couple).

and from Zen Buddhism:

Zen Buddhism does not "make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual" sex. It encourages sexual relationships that are "mutually loving and supportive."

Although

Many women, gays and lesbians have been attracted to Buddhism because of its relative lack of misogyny and homophobia, when compared to some other religions. But others report "virulently anti-gay sentiments and teachings from religious teachers in Tibetan and other Buddhist" schools.

Personally, I believe that this is mainly due to cultural, not religious, teachings.

Hinduism appears a bit confusing, both accepting of it and not...discussing both male, female, and a third sex which, umm, is not completely explained well enough, I think. At least for early Hinduism, homosexuality appears to have been well accepted. However, in contemporary society it is not well accepted, although they do have a group which are considered to be a third gender, Hijras. Interesting...read up and draw your own conclusions, I think.

Shall I even go into Islam? I'll let someone else handle that one. However, I did read that anal sex is considered forbidden in any relationship, not sure about oral sex.

Scientology, apparently was originally against homosexuallity, but has since changed it's mind. Although, apparently, in order to be a member of its clergy, a homosexual would have to remain celibate.?!? Anyone with more/better information?

Wicca? Personally, I'm not getting into this one, too many differing opinions about Wicca and what it is in general. However, Wicca does seem to be quite open and accepting of homosexuality.

From Positive Atheism Magazine:

Homosexuals are no different from anybody, and deserve the full rights that anybody deserves, on the same terms as anybody.

Since Liberty is always associated with the concept of responsibility, homosexuals must be held to the same standards to which a society holds the members of its majority.

Any other major belief systems that you wish to bring up? I'd love to hear more.

To Indigo Violent:

First off, I did not claim that evolution had anything to do with morals. I do note that evolutionary theory is largely based upon our drive to reproduce and pass along our genes.

The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection (which includes ecological, sexual, and kin selection) and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on the genetic variation created by mutation, genetic recombination, and gene flow. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce.

As you may have noticed, exclusively homosexual relationships tend to rule out passing along the genetic code. This would seem to go against our reproductive instinct and work against evolution, would it not? (Inclusive fitness aside) And, if genetic markers are part of what make a person homosexual, would this not tend towards removing them from the gene pool? That was the point. No offspring, no passing along the markers. No passing along the markers, no continuation. Mutation/aberation/difference/whatever (everyone seems to want to use their own term there) dies out.

Evolution, however, does not explain the world as it is. It does attempt to explain how the world has reached this state, it is a Theory after all, not a proven fact, and attempts to help explain what the world will, or should, become. It is also a basis of belief for where our species came from, one of the base precepts for just about any religion, which is what often places it at odds with religous belief systems.

There is, however, some research which does suggest that a genetic marker may be partially responsible for homosexuality which is passed along on the X chromosone contributed by the mother, at least for homosexuality in males. You know, that would have been a good argument to use. Ah well, perhaps a debate for a later time.

To Ctholhic:
First off, it the evolutionary comment was the reason you posted, I believe that's good enough to justify it. In any case...

You must have trouble explaining ants, wolves, termites, and a whole range of other organism social structures.

Please explain further, if you would.

Ant and termite social structure I am not quite familiar enough with to argue well from an evolutionary standpoint, but wolves? A pack of females with a dominant alpha male who has "proven" his fitness by physically dominating or intimidating others. As to ants and termites, well, that can get into another discussion on how their "social structure" is hardwired into their system (i.e. the drones, queens, etc...). Any further dicussion on the topic I am open for, although that might be fit for its own thread.
Oh, and I am Christian, so "Because God said so" is suposed to be good enough to explain anything for me, although I usually prefer something more substansive than that.

Inclusive fitness...I had not heard of this, so forgive me for not including it into my original arguments. It is an interesting theory and I will attempt to do some more research into it before attempting to seriously debate it. However, from my own familial experiences, it does not seem to be as strong in some families as it may be in others. But, this would tend to be supportive of the theory that Homosexuallity is partly genetic. (Some interesting reading in that manner.)

As well, most social tendencies, at least amongst humans, are learned tendencies, as can be seen through the differences in different cultures. Just one generation in the USA of children from most Asian cultures hold highly different social tendencies than their parents. Watch The Joy Luck Club for an example.

And, finally (for the moment) it has been noted that inclusive fitness, at least as displayed by humans, is:

generally done in the hope of reciprocation at some point in the future

. Not through genetic code, or a desire to further their bloodline or genes, but so that they will recieve benefits later. Sounds rather selfish actually, personally, I hope this is rather wrong but fear it is much more common than not.

Sorry for wandering hither and yon a bit, unfortunatelly, finals week is far to close.

However, to close(I have been surfing the web looking up information), I do want to ask if anyone here has read Evolution's Rainbow Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People by Joan Roughgarden? It sounds like it would be an interesting read about sexual diversity, I, unfortunately, don't currently have the time to do it.

Alright, that's all from me for now, interesting topics.

[Swordsman3003]

Harper:

Here you say regarding homosexuality

As well, if you are in support of evolution, it would be wrong. As evolutionists point out, our whole drive is focused towards procreation and passing along our genes. Homosexuallity is a bit of a dead-end in that respect, is it not? Therefore, if you would rather engage in recreational sexual activites with someone of the same sex which will prevent you from passing along your genes, you must be flawed. Sounds resonable, does it not?

But then you said

First off, I did not claim that evolution had anything to do with morals. I do note that evolutionary theory is largely based upon our drive to reproduce and pass along our genes.

While it is true that you did explain one of the principles of evolutionary theory, you are wrong when you said that you didn't claim anything about evolutionary morals. You said that supporters of evolution must think that homosexuality is "wrong." When people use the word 'wrong' to talk about homosexuality, they usually are referring to the definition of something wrong being 'immoral'. Now, in your case, I am sure you are using it to mean "not functioning properly" or "incorrect." So while you are justified in using the word 'wrong', you should consider that when someone reads your sentence, they are going to assume that you were using the moral sense of the word, since you are talking about homosexuality.

Furthermore, even if you are using "incorrect" as the definition, you are still..heheh...wrong. Evolutionary theory does not deem anything as being "incorrect." Many, many times in the past have things popped up that seem contradictory to the theory, such as insects that do not reproduce. The theory of gravity does not imply that flight is 'wrong', and the theory of evolution does not imply that not reproducing is wrong.

A better phrase might be "homosexuality seems pointless, from an evolutionists point of view."

[Swordsman3003]

I find people are more likely to read my posts if I break them up.

RE: Harper

Evolution, however, does not explain the world as it is. It does attempt to explain how the world has reached this state, it is a Theory after all, not a proven fact, and attempts to help explain what the world will, or should, become. It is also a basis of belief for where our species came from, one of the base precepts for just about any religion, which is what often places it at odds with religous belief systems.

Let me rewrite this paragraph with some correct information.

Evolution attempts to explain the world as it is, how it came to be, and what may happen in the future. Evolution is a theory, the next thing below 'law' in science, meaning it is something regarded as truth, but impossible to prove as fact; it accurately explains many previously inexplicable aspects of the world we live in. Evolution is no more a 'belief' than the theory of gravitation is a 'belief'. It is a conclusion, an explanation to the things scientists observe. Many religions have beliefs that extend beyond morality, such as a history described in religious texts. The ideas of evolution are of contradictory to these histories, because many people believe that if their religious histories must be defended if their religious morality is to have any validity.

Also, you said

Oh, and I am Christian, so "Because God said so" is suposed to be good enough to explain anything for me, although I usually prefer something more substansive than that.

Pretty much any explanation is more substansive than "Because God said so." Waving away something not well understood as an act of god(s) is pretty much humanity's default explanation. My point is, saying that you prefer better explanations than that is akin to saying "I prefer tempuratures above zero dergees kelvin." It is meaningless.

[Katjapurrs]

Alrighty, first of all, for me, arguing homosexuality vs. heterosexuality is like trying to build a house of cards while walking across a spinning "floor" in a fun-house while on acid. (having been in relationships arguably as a straight man, a bi man, a straight female, a bi female, a lesbian, and a transbian look it up if you don't know the definition of the last.. fairly self-explainitory though....), so i'm not going to try and be a full participant in this discussion, i would however like to nitpick your argument and point out a few things here and there, and also answer any questions you might have that i could offer from my experiences..

so... cheap shot #1:

There are a lot of scientific studies showing that homosexual behavior is common in the animal kingdom

Now, first of all, I'm going to assume this refers to their behaviors, not their attractions, after all, I'm doubting they spoke to the animals to find out just who they were attracted to.

Asking the animals is hardly necessary. "Humans are the only species capable of blushing, and generally the only one that needs to". Unlike humans, animals rarely hide their motives. If a cat wants to mate with another cat it does it (or at least attempts to do it... usually their mate's motives or attractions (or lack there of in some cases) is usually fairly obvious to determine also by their response. Your argument is understandable, but mistaken; as humans tend to anthropomorphize their worse attributes into animals, long before we give them credit for their freewill.
==============================================



(not quite as)Cheap Shot #2:

Section about Christian/Taoist/Buhhdist/Zen/Islamic views on homosexuality and it's permissibility vs. benificiality

Religious Texts are Not Universal Law.

True... while those are what the texts of those religions say, what is the actual atmosphere of the groups as it relates to equality in the face of real life diversity? Religious texts are like "the theory", but the actual interaction with other followers and how their religion affects their worldviews is "the practice". For example; Christianity had some (although given weak) arguments against homosexuality in it's "theory", in real life practice however the "practice" part of it seems... rather diverse actually... some Christian churches cater to the GLBT community, welcoming and not only accepting a gay lifestyle, but celebrating it. Other Christian churches spout messages so full of hate and discrimination that children grow up thinking it's ok to kidnap, torture, maim, and eventually leave for dead another human being simply because they were born with the wrong genitalia. (and upon reading the article it sounds like "blind justice" went to the same church.)

Keep in mind, I'm not broadly accusing Christianity as being a tool for wide-spread crowd control, and political advantage, or even as a source of hate-mongering filth... There are plenty of churches that take a somewhat more balanced approach to their theory and teach their followers to love their neighbors... that is to say, for any given group, any given "theory" (i.e. texts, oral tradition, conjecture on scientific theory) there will be a variety of real-world outcomes, some positive, some negative. The truth, verifiability, or even the content of the theory is irrelevant. Any collection of moralistic tales and proverbs could serve as the basis of a religious text (Aesop's fables would work great), because the value of a religion is it's "practice", what effect a religion has on it's followers and the rest of the world. The texts are like white noise, on their own they would seldom tell you EXACTLY what to do in an any given situation in the real world , it's up to you to know how to interpret your "theories" and how to use them as a moral compass to guide your actions, attitudes and beliefs. This is your "Practice".

Personally, i believe all religious texts were created by man, in fact, most religions admit that their texts were at one time penned by men, but claim that they were inspired by their deity. This is however, difficult if not impossible to verify, ultimately the origins of religious texts are unimportant. In most contexts, as their value is tested by how they are interpreted and implemented in society, and in the rare cases where origin of religious texts is necessary, as to promote a religious theory to the status of law, in order to force the views of a single religion on individuals outside of the purely voluntarily participatory group of it's followers is both fool's errand, in that it is impossible to prove the existence of god, which you would have to prove before you could prove that he wrote something, and ultimately... destructive to your own faith.

-Katja

[Indigo Violent]

First off, I did not claim that evolution had anything to do with morals.

What Swordsie said. Your context seemed to imply that if I accept evolution, I must think that homosexuality is (morally) wrong because it runs counter to the theory of natural selection.
I'm not sure I grasp what you're really trying to say, if not that. What I'm getting is that you think homosexuality is incompatible with evolution, which is nearly as bizarre to me. Please clarify.

[BriHahn]

Although, one could argue, regarding evolution, that homosexuality in humans is an evolutionary response to our overpopulating the planet. Whatever it is that controls our instinct to propagate the species sees that the earth is struggling to support the numbers of people we already have, and therefore something in us is subtly altered to allow for greater ability to choose the same sex to have sex with. After all, we are nothing but a more evolved species of animal, are we not? We are greatly controlled by our instincts. In lesser animals, when there is overpopulation in one area, either migration or homosexual behaviors tend to occur. I'm generalizing, but I think you might get my point. We can't migrate (until general space travel and colonization of other planets is possible), so we have greater evidence of homosexual behaviors to help save the species.

Just a thought.

[Fnyunj]

Evolution and Homosexuality:
Evolution is not about passing along an individual organism's genes. There is a concept in evolutionary biology called "altruism" - where an individual organism will sacrifice itself for the survival of another.

And homosexuality exists in nature. There are plenty of examples. Whether this is an example of "altruism" - or some other mechanism, it's hard to say. I don't think I've heard a theory on that yet. There's also some data out there that says that homosexuality increases when the male-female ratio in a population gets out of kilter, or when there is overcrowding. There's also some species of amphibian (frogs) which CHANGE SEX, when the male-female ratio gets off kilter (for example, when too many females in a particular pond suffer predation, some males will change to female - I guess it's not too hard given the mating mechanism for frogs).

Love is a *good* thing:
I didn't want to turn this into a lecture, (and this should be "basic catechism" or Confirmation class lesson 1) but Greek has three words for the English "love".
Ero - means romantic (or sexual) love.
Phileo - means brotherly-love.
Agape - "God's Perfect Love" (that's how I was taught - from a New Testament perspective, but the word Agape probably predates Christianity).
Parts of the New Testament were written in Greek, and all three of these words were used in various places.
It's fairly common for people to think "Love your neighbor" as "Eros your neighbor" - when the word used in the bible is "Agape your neighbor". Translated to English - this meaning is lost, and only recoverable through a contextual study, which is still open to interpretation. Agape is clear. If your neighbor is cold, give him the shirt off your back. If your neighbor is hungry, give him the food off your plate. Walk a mile in his shoes. The Golden Rule. Etc. "Love your neighbor" doesn't mean stick your pokey thing in his keister. Then again, maybe it does, if you're prone to mastrubation. . .

Morals?:
Morality is a sub-discipline of the subject of Ethics. The study of Ethics teaches several "systems" useful for determining Right and Wrong. None of these systems can give you an absolute answer. One of those systems is Morality - and it's taught as a system that varies depending on one's culture and religious beliefs (and no, I'm not implying that Atheists have no Moral code - what I meant; in my previous post, was that there is no "value" of a human soul, in Atheism's Moral Calculus).

In Ethics, Morality is used as an aid, but ideally, the goal of Ethics is to teach the student all of the major systems of beliefs, so they've got a full toolbox. Use the appropriate tool. Or tools. Not all Ethical dilemmas have Moral answers. A Moral answer is only absolute to the degree that a person believes it is absolute.

And here is where you get the term "Moral Relativism" that's used by the rightwing media pundits to rail against the "evil commie academic left" - because Moral Relativism says that no system of Moral Codes is greater than any other. Sometimes these same people with proceed to say that OUR system "of Judeo-Christian values" - whatever that means, IS better than others, because look at how far our society has progressed; the unspoken conclusion you're supposed to draw is that either our system of Morals is better because God blesses us more, or because it's sufficiently unrestrictive as to allow us to prosper (in effect, Mammon, the money-god, has blessed us). The second one is delicious, because of course, NOBODY admits they worship money. They, instead, pervert scripture to imply that God rewards the righteous with money, (and therefore, since we're Richer, we're blessed, and our Morals are better). Oh, they'll go on to say that the Moral Relativists are nihilists, they believe in nothing, and are frankly, just jealous because God didn't reward them (because they're evil). Is there a One True God? Whose God is it? The Christian God? Who the hell is that? The Catholic God? The Southern Baptist God? The Unitarian God? The Mormon God? The Rasta Farian God? If all of these Christian religions are good, then why are Mormons not welcome to take Holy Communion in a Catholic Church?
The argument against Moral Relativism is pretty compelling in those terms, but the counter to it is to accept the proposition that one person's God is more "Real" than any others. And for certain concepts of Heresy, it's even worse. Because if God is defined and described in Scripture - and if one does not agree 100% with the Scriptural definition, one is a Heretic. One believes in a "private" version of God (and this is usually only punished when someone's individual concept is different enough on a point of theology that gets attention; ie. a POLITICAL point). So if this is true, I challenge you to now take 10 Biblical Scholars, and question them on their definition of God, on church-doctrinal issues. I guarantee you, you'll get 10 different answers. They may all honestly feel they're believing what God intends - but if Biblical Scholars don't get it right, what chance does a Layman have - or worse - a Layman who is too lazy to actually READ the entire Bible, and re-read it periodically as a refresher? My concept of God was very different at various points through my last re-reading of the entire Bible. As it was before I read it the first time. And as it was when I sit here today, having not re-read the Bible in over 5 years. Who is God? What does He stand for? What is important to Him? How involved in my life is He?

I don't have to worry about what God thinks. He knows how confused we are, and how many conflicting messages we get. I think He cuts us all a lot of slack. My opinion on how deserving any one of us is of that divine slack, does not count for squat, either. I hope I make the right Moral choices. But I also try to make an Ethical weighing in my actions as well. (a good example of another Ethical system is "the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people" - but there are many other such systems). That's the best we (as individuals, and as a civilization) can do. When you're stumbling around in the darkness, you flip as many light switches as you can. Maybe you can't see everywhere, but it's better than stubbornly sticking to ONE light on the mistaken belief that it's the only worthwhile one.

So riddle me this:
Is Homosexuality (the behavior, not the attraction-state) UnEthical?
Or is The Closet UnEthical? (The Closet being the place where homosexual people keep their private proclivities, while they publicly live a "normal" life).
Well, ask Rev. Ted Haggard's wife and kids. Ask his congregation. Ask the tens of millions of American Evangelicals whom he represented as a LEADER. What's worse - One guy getting it on with another guy? In the privacy of their own hotel room? Or one guy, pretending to be something he's not, lying to a woman, starting a family and having 5 kids, lying to his congregation every single day - lying to himself and lying to his God? Secretly hating himself so much that he lashes out at others in some of the most hateful ways you can imagine. A lot of guys in this situation commit suicide. (One of the great pioneers of computing, and a true hero of WWII, Alan Turing, offed himself because he was gay, and the government he helped save, told him he was immoral, and made him take hormone injections to suppress his desires). Some abandon their families. And they live in shame, every day, all for having natural feelings and urges that they are taught are bad. And they sharpen those skills. They practice the fine art of lying, feeling guilty, hating, punishing, revolting, every day, day in, day out. Until it becomes second nature. And this guy had unprotected sex with a male prostitute, at least once a month, for at least 3 years - while snorting crystal meth. And then he went home to his wife. How guilty do you think he feels now. I wonder how bad he would have felt had he contracted HIV and passed it on to his wife.

[Ctholhic]

To Ctholhic:
First off, it the evolutionary comment was the reason you posted, I believe that's good enough to justify it. In any case...

You must have trouble explaining ants, wolves, termites, and a whole range of other organism social structures.

Please explain further, if you would.

Ant and termite social structure I am not quite familiar enough with to argue well from an evolutionary standpoint, but wolves? A pack of females with a dominant alpha male who has "proven" his fitness by physically dominating or intimidating others. As to ants and termites, well, that can get into another discussion on how their "social structure" is hardwired into their system (i.e. the drones, queens, etc...). Any further dicussion on the topic I am open for, although that might be fit for its own thread.
Oh, and I am Christian, so "Because God said so" is suposed to be good enough to explain anything for me, although I usually prefer something more substansive than that.

I may be wrong on the wolves part, but for termites & ants, only a small selection of the population ever mates, the rest contribute to the inclusive fitness without producing offspring. This behaviour will only survive if inclusive fitness bears a significant enough role in evolution; if the value of a non-reproducing member of the species contributes sufficiently to the reproducing members that it compensates sufficiently for the loss of their ability. I had vague memories of wolf packs being mainly sexually repressed and the alpha couple reproducing solely, but I may be misremembering things.

Inclusive fitness...I had not heard of this, so forgive me for not including it into my original arguments. It is an interesting theory and I will attempt to do some more research into it before attempting to seriously debate it. However, from my own familial experiences, it does not seem to be as strong in some families as it may be in others. But, this would tend to be supportive of the theory that Homosexuallity is partly genetic. (Some interesting reading in that manner.)

It doesn't necessarily support the genetic conclusion, it allows for any degree of integration between social and genetic imperatives; given that memes propogate through the population as well as genes and are affected by the same inclusive fitness.

As well, most social tendencies, at least amongst humans, are learned tendencies, as can be seen through the differences in different cultures. Just one generation in the USA of children from most Asian cultures hold highly different social tendencies than their parents. Watch The Joy Luck Club for an example.

And, finally (for the moment) it has been noted that inclusive fitness, at least as displayed by humans, is:

generally done in the hope of reciprocation at some point in the future

. Not through genetic code, or a desire to further their bloodline or genes, but so that they will recieve benefits later. Sounds rather selfish actually, personally, I hope this is rather wrong but fear it is much more common than not.

Evolution doesn't care about motive, generally.

[Kite-san]

Agape - "God's Perfect Love" (that's how I was taught - from a New Testament perspective, but the word Agape probably predates Christianity).

quickie starter, i knows the word is greek, and when i did a semester on mythology, the lecturer for it translated agape as 'mutual loyalty'

as far as my $.05 (no pennies here) goes on our two big issues...

homosexuality. bah, all a bunch of idiocy going back and forth. s'all the same bits, it's just arranged differently. as far as i'm concerned, for the making of the sexins, the physical gender is about as relevant as the particular position one is planning on attempting.

abortion... whether the unborn is human or not doesn't particularly matter. i don't see where there's some overarching 'right' or 'wrong' to say one shouldn't kill people, either. i certainly don't want to -be- killed, nor do i want people i care about to be killed, but i don't pretend that there's some inherent 'wrongness' in killing, even though i accept the arguement of 'everbody's got someone who cares about them' and as such there's the mutual agreement that we really aren't going to go around making with the stabbity for no particularly compelling reason.

"in [number between oh, say 2 and 9, one month left probably ought to be birth+adoption time, but i point out the numbers are arbitrary] months, my life will be completely changed in a way which i am unprepared to even conceieve, much less cope with" is in my mind sufficient reason for an incidence of stabby (metaphorically speaking), as otherwise the blastula, gastrula, embryo, or fetus will in deed become a child, and become so into a world in which they are wholly without someone who personally gives a fuck (okay, gives TWO fucks, since someone already gave one, ha ha) rather than simply cares in terms of "it's wrong".

if i may be forgiven for the vaguely moralistic terminology, i have no doubts whatsoever that the world would be a better place if abortion were sufficiently legalized and societally accepted to the point where the only peopel having kids were those who wanted them. want them and aren't capable? there's always surrogacy.

[Harper128]

Heh, ok, I'm going to try and make this quick (or quicker than my last post anyway.)
I did not intend wrong to be meant in a moral stance but in a non-reproductive stance therefore it will (or should, see the article I mentioned before for a possible genetic reasoning as to why it hasn't) remove itself from the gene pool, at least in exclusively homosexual relationships, not in ambisexual relations, sorry for not making that clear sooner.

Personally, one of the problems that I have with evolutionary theory is that it is so widely inclusive (which may be one of the reasons that it remains a Theory). It states that ANY change in the gene pool is part of evolution. That should mean that the removal of an entire species is also evolution. (Passenger pigeons come to mind) And, since evolution is a natural process, we shouldn't be worried about removing a few more, right? (Sorry, sorry, rant for another time, another place.)

And, Swordsman3003, it is a theory, and it has changed over time, along with the beliefs associated with it. i.e. it was believed that smart apes came before walking upright, that was what scientists, for the most part, believed that evolution predicted. The discovery of "Lucy" has changed that belief. As well, with more advanced scietific instruments, we have been able to further study genetics and genetic changes. I would supose that what is currently know and believed about evolution has changed considerably since Darwin submitted the Origin of the Species. (Yes? No? Something inbetween? Specifics?) This is actually one of the advantages evolution has by remaining a theory, it is open to change.

Oh, to katjapurrs:
First, further define please, are you claiming that animals have free will? Yes or no? It can also be noted that we tend to anthromorphize our best attributes onto animals as well, such as love and caring. (I'm not trying to argue their capacity for such things, just pointing out that we attribute them with motives both good and evil)

Yet scientists say we should be wary of referring to animals when considering what's acceptable in human society. For instance, infanticide, as practiced by lions and many other animals, isn't something people, gay or straight, generally approve of in humans.

And, the point of the religious beliefs was to point out what other religions believe about how homosexuallity may affect a person spiritually, not pointing to any of them as being an ultimate truth.

Back to Ctholhic:

I had vague memories of wolf packs being mainly sexually repressed and the alpha couple reproducing solely, but I may be misremembering things.

There may be breeding outside of the alpha pair based upon:

* How dominate the alpha pair are:

- Sometimes the alpha female will become aggressive to the other females in the pack
- Other males that mate may be chased from the pack by a very dominate alpha male
* Mild winter's, adequate food supplies, Habitat conditions (In the arctic multiple litters is the norm, due to the harsh conditions, more litters means more chances for survival.)

* Disruption of pack hierarchy:
- when the social order of the pack changes some researchers have noted that sometime subordinate females may mate.

Rather strange that adequete both ends of the "scale" are included as reasons for multiple matings. Mild winters, harsh conditions...

However, it does tend to passing on only the "fittest" of the gene pool. I also read about submissive females being forced to miscarry in order to wetnurse.

As to the memes being passed on for homosexuals through inclusive fitness...I would ask how they have been sustained for so long across such a wide area when, for such a long period, homosexuals were repressed and/or removed from society, not to mention often shunned by those who should be included within their inclusive fitness grouping?

Oh, on that note, have there been any studies across cultural bounderies about the memes of different sexual orientations? Might be interesting to see how similar and different we are throughout the world.

[Ctholhic]

For the same reasons that any contributing genes have survived, because when homosexuality was not acceptable, it wasn't spoken of; homosexuals had token wives and kept their activities out of the public eye, furthermore it's near to impossible to isolate the causes except by massive statistical analysis. When you can't reliably determine whether or not an event has occured, you cannot begin to hope to test for the preconditions leading to it.

[Swordsman3003]

Harper:

Personally, one of the problems that I have with evolutionary theory is that it is so widely inclusive (which may be one of the reasons that it remains a Theory). It states that ANY change in the gene pool is part of evolution. That should mean that the removal of an entire species is also evolution. (Passenger pigeons come to mind) And, since evolution is a natural process, we shouldn't be worried about removing a few more, right? (Sorry, sorry, rant for another time, another place.)

Ok, I thought before that you knew something, but right there in the first sentence you give away that you are a dumbass when it comes to scientific terminology. The theory of evolution is and ALWAYS WILL BE a theory! In science, there are pretty much three things. Hypotheses, Theories, and Laws. Laws are observations, such as the law of gavity, which merely states that "there is gravity, and it follows this equation." A hypothesis is something which attempts to explain why observations or laws are a certain way. A theory is basically a hyphothesis that has been around for a very long time, accumulated a lot of evidence, and never been disproven. Are you saying you are not prepared to being something produced by science unless it has been promoted to "law"? Do you realize this CANNOT happen?

And regarding your second sentence:
You stated this part pretty accurately. What is your point? Species going extinct are part of evolution. Yes. This is true. I wouldn't mind this except you go on to say "And, since evolution is a natural process, we shouldn't be worried about removing a few more, right?" Did you even bother to read what I said in my other post? Evolution says nothing more about what we should worry about then the theory of gravity! YOU MUST CEASE INSISTING MORALS CAN BE DERIVED FROM SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION.

And, Swordsman3003, it is a theory, and it has changed over time, along with the beliefs associated with it. i.e. it was believed that smart apes came before walking upright, that was what scientists, for the most part, believed that evolution predicted. The discovery of "Lucy" has changed that belief. As well, with more advanced scietific instruments, we have been able to further study genetics and genetic changes. I would supose that what is currently know and believed about evolution has changed considerably since Darwin submitted the Origin of the Species. (Yes? No? Something inbetween? Specifics?) This is actually one of the advantages evolution has by remaining a theory, it is open to change.

Again, what the hell is with calling something 'just a theory'? That is the weakest insult I have ever heard regarding an idea. Secondly, stop calling the ideas about evolution 'beliefs'. There is a stark difference between plain 'beliefs' and 'scientific conclusions'. Does it make you feel better, or make it seem easier to argue against science, if you lump it in with other beliefs like the belief in Zeus, or the belief in aliens.

Now you move on to attack the theory by claiming that it has changed over time. [sarcasm alert] Gee, reading that, I thought to myself "Of course! Changing your mind is possibly the worst thing you can do! It is basically admitting you're wrong, and everyone knows you can never do that, under any circumstance. If someone ever admits they were wrong, even once, we can NEVER LISTEN TO THEM AGAIN, since they are obvious DUMBASSES!" [sarcasm over]

Of course the theory has changed since Darwin came up with it almost ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS AGO! I can just as easily say that you should be impressed that any scientific theory has lasted so long with only MINOR changes!

And regarding the last line "This is actually one of the advantages evolution has by remaining a theory, it is open to change."

What you should say is "One of the advantages of science in GENERAL is that science is open to change, whereas religions are not."

[Indigo Violent]

Personally, one of the problems that I have with evolutionary theory is that it is so widely inclusive (which may be one of the reasons that it remains a Theory).

Hey, let's go sky-diving. I'll pack your 'chute. Sure, I've never done it before, but hey, universal gravity's just a theory, right?

[Putaro]

You know, the whole homosexuality would be eliminated from the gene pool because homosexuals don't reproduce argument is completely retarded.

1) How many gay parents do you know? I know quite a few (and I'm not talking adoption or turkey basters either). Quod erat demonstrandum.

2) There are many genes that when you get 1 copy of them are an evolutionary advantage but when you get 2 copies of them are not evolutionarily advantageous (e.g. sickle cell anemia).