Homosexuality

[dagda]

If you will note I said secularist, not atheist. Now can you name a few of theses conflicting teachings and explain why you have jumped to the conclusion that atheists are more accepting people? Can you refrence a study or two as evidence of this theory?

[chatpilot]

I am not homophobic and have never been even when it was taboo to even speak of it.I have always been an accepting person and let people live their lives as they please.Of course religious people will never be accepting of homosexuality or anything that their fictional guy in the sky does not approve of.I have at least two homosexuals in my family that I can think of and have never cared nor bothered to discriminate against them.

I have had gay men hit on me but I tell them that I am not interested in men and they usually respecfully leave me alone.

---

Dagda I just read your post after I posted mine so this is a reply to your last post.Generally I think that atheist are more accepting of certain things.When it comes to homosexuality I think that it is a matter of individual upbringing and open mindedness.There are actually some christian sects that have been cropping up that are actually being pastored by Lesbian or gay ministers.Although I think that it is quite hipocritical to call oneself a christian and be gay at the same time.The reason I feel this way is that the bible clearly condemns homosexuality as I have demonstrated with the verses above and there are many more like those throughout the scriptures.That is what I mean about how christians like to pick and choose from the bible what they want to follow and accept and what does not go well with them they just ignore.There is no better hipocrite than a christian hipocrite.

[Tiberius]

If you will note I said secularist, not atheist. Now can you name a few of theses conflicting teachings and explain why you have jumped to the conclusion that atheists are more accepting people? Can you refrence a study or two as evidence of this theory?

You said "Many atheists feel uncomfartable around gay people." actually. Anyway, you were the one making the original claim, so you back up your assertion that "many" atheists feel uncomfortable around gay people.

As for my assertion that atheists are more accepting, my evidence I'm afraid is from my experience and that of others as I made clear. I find that most people who accept relative morality (which almost all atheists accept, the ones who don't usually disbelieve all concepts of morality) are more accepting of other people. Going on the concept of homosexuality, it is easy to see the main reason why people are against it is their religious beliefs (for instance churches were the key proponents of prop 8) and that most (if not all) atheists were arguing that marriage is about love, not about gender.

[Kyuuketsuki]

You said "Many atheists feel uncomfartable around gay people." actually. Anyway, you were the one making the original claim, so you back up your assertion that "many" atheists feel uncomfortable around gay people.

I for one am not particularly pro-gay people (don't see why I should be) but I believe they should have the same rights as anyone else (there are some limits to that, physiological more than anything) and I am not in the slightest bit uncomfortable around gays ... still the bastards stole a word I liked and for the record, I like lesbians ... lots hock:

As for my assertion that atheists are more accepting, my evidence I'm afraid is from my experience and that of others as I made clear.

"I'm not" (Monty Python's "Life Of Brian")

Kyu

[chatpilot]

The more literal christians tend to interpret the scriptures the less tolerant they are to the gay life style.Remember that anything that is displeasing to their imaginary guy in the sky is displeasing to his servants here on Earth.Most of them argue against the gay life style more from religious prejudice than from their own personal convictions.Then again when you think about it their own convictions are easily swayed through the art of indoctrination.

[g-mark]

Of course homosexuality is natural-

Show me your evidence this is true.

I give you this; Men and Women physically fit together naturally. Men & Men don't. Women & Women don't.

Personally, I am not homophobic and gay men usually can tell that i'm straight. Don't know how, but in my experience they can.

I say; because Men & Women fit togehther to reproduce it is natural. Men & Men can't reproduce as Women & Women can't. Therefore, it makes no logical sence to say that homosexuality is natural. It has no use in the real world. What is the use?

It has been proven that homosexual people have a chemical imbalace within the brain/body. You say what about the other animals that do it. They also lick their own butts, eat strange things, and chase their own tails just to name a few.

What is youe evidence that it is natural?

What is your logical justification that it is natural?

I work with some homosexual men, and they are nice people. But that is not the point of this debate.

[LEDO]

Of course homosexuality is natural-

Show me your evidence this is true.

I give you this; Men and Women physically fit together naturally. Men & Men don't. Women & Women don't.

Personally, I am not homophobic and gay men usually can tell that i'm straight. Don't know how, but in my experience they can.

I say; because Men & Women fit togehther to reproduce it is natural. Men & Men can't reproduce as Women & Women can't. Therefore, it makes no logical sence to say that homosexuality is natural. It has no use in the real world. What is the use?

It has been proven that homosexual people have a chemical imbalace within the brain/body. You say what about the other animals that do it. They also lick their own butts, eat strange things, and chase their own tails just to name a few.

What is youe evidence that it is natural?

What is your logical justification that it is natural?

I work with some homosexual men, and they are nice people. But that is not the point of this debate.

There is a mountain of evidence on the web, if you were ever seriously interested. Since all you seem tyo be is a nay-sayer, it would be a waste of our time to "prove" it to you as there is no proof you would accept. (If there is, tell us.) If you are interested, you might start with Desmond Morris' "Naked Ape" where he desribes homosexuality among apes as a means of survival.

[g-mark]

There is a mountain of evidence on the web, if you were ever seriously interested. Since all you seem tyo be is a nay-sayer, it would be a waste of our time to "prove" it to you as there is no proof you would accept. (If there is, tell us.) If you are interested, you might start with Desmond Morris' "Naked Ape" where he desribes homosexuality among apes as a means of survival.

What the fuck is a nay-sayer? Speak English will you.

Explain the means of survival using homosxuality amoung apes, and apply it to humans. Explain your proof and debunk my example.

[Eilonnwy]

Naysayer: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=naysayer

I'll weigh in on the homosexuality debate later when I have time to make a longer post.

[Eilonnwy]

Okay, time for long winded post, and apparently the first homosexual (More specifically bisexual) to actually weigh in on this thread.

First, to address the comment that homosexuality is natural. Natural has many definitions, just look at dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural But the first and most relevant definition is "existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge. " So essentially, if it's found in nature and not "artificial" it's natural. Since animals besides humans have been shown display homosexuality, it is safe to say homosexuality is natural. It's as simple as that.

However, I'm sure the people are more concerned with natural as being "born with" and "evolutionary advantageous". It's fallacious to think in those terms. You could argue that our personalities are natural and yet there is no specific genetic component. It's argued that personality is genetic or that personality is a result of upbringing, or a blend of the two. But at the end of the day, I would say most of us agree that our personality is intrinsic and not subject to change without changing a sense of "self"

Homosexuality is intrinsic to the nature of the person, whether it's genetic or not. There is a quote in the Iowa court decision that legalized gay marriage that talks about that: "Sexual orientation is someone’s identity and is not subject to change without changing a sense of self" This is the basic argument for why homosexuals should have equal rights, whether it's genetic or not.

It has not been definitively pinpointed to a specific gene, but there is evidence to suggest there is a genetic component. It's important to remember that traits physical or not, are not always pinpointed to a single gene. There have also been studies into prenatal care, environment, etc... For instances, if a woman who is pregnant with a female has high levels of testosterone, it's been found that the child will be more likely to be gay. It's also been studied that female relatives of homosexuals tend to have more children that woman with heterosexual relatives which may suggest there is something in the x-chromosome that promotes fertility and could contribute to homosexuality.

For more information on the biology of homosexuality, this page has a decent summery of various studies and the findings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and...rientation

The biggest thing to take away from this is that it is not specifically known what causes homosexuality (It's certainly not explained away as a chemical imbalance in the brain) but without knowing the specific cause we do know that is intrinsic to the nature of the person and to try and change that would change one's sense of self. No one should ever have to do that to live by their basic civil right of "pursuit of happiness". Hence, denying gay marriage or segregating it to "civil unions" is fundamentally wrong.

Now, to discuss the whole evolutionary aspect. It's very simplistic to think there has to be an evolutionary advantage for something to have evolved. Evolution does not have a "goal". It simple means change over time and what we have today as plants and animals are the changes that have produced these plants and animals, and that doesn't mean all the evolutionary traits animals and plants have are "good" or "advantageous" Natural selection is not perfect and does not only select "good traits".

Example: Almost every other animal has a gene that can produce Vitamin C. Human's and great apes have a Vitamin C deficiency. It's theorized that genetic mutations continued over time that eventually prevented our ability to create Vitamin C. If I remember correctly, the gene is in our genetic makeup, but it's essentially "broken" for lack of a better word. Why would this trait evolve? It's not very advantageous to no longer produce our own Vitamin C, yet here we are. Simply put, it evolved because we were eating fruits with high Vitamin C, so when the inability to produce Vitamin C came about it didn't get "selected" away. It was countered by our diet.

So, yes, men and women can have children. Gays cannot, but it's doesn't prevent the race from continuing if a substantial amount of the species are still breeding. Thinking of evolution in terms of what is "best" for the race is highly fallacious.

Personally, I know that even if I lived a heterosexual life I would still have attraction to women and vice versa. I could never change that about myself. So for me, it's natural. If people are uncomfortable with homosexuality, that's fine. But it's rather offensive to say things like:

gay people are funny and entertaining.

and

Chemically imbalaced I would say. But, yes they are amusing. Pitty they affect so many people.

Especially without clarification. Do you mean they have good a sense of humor and can be very comedic or that they fact that gay people exist is funny? If it's the latter, then I have some not so nice things to say. And what exactly is meant by "pity they affect so many people." I would like some clarification.

Anyway, hopefully this clarified the "homosexuality is natural" statement.


EDIT: Just read a blog article by Steven Novella, called "Gay Exorcism" because a church in CT tried exorcism the demons out of a young boy for being gay. Interesting article, I recommend reading: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=565 But I wanted to point out a quote from it:

The notion of a demon of homosexuality, of course, also introduces the pseudoscientific notion, promoted almost entirely by religious traditions that frown upon homosexuality, that being gay is a moral choice or something that happens to someone - like a demonic possession. Rather - homosexuality is simply a normal biological variant seen is virtually all species. The evidence also strongly suggests that it is not a choice - any more than heterosexuality is a choice.