(October 28, 2015 at 4:16 am)RationalAtheist Wrote: 2.LGBT - I'm not sure how this got tied all up in atheism, I do still kinda find it (gross?) when I think about it, I don't know many LGBT people, those I do know I've felt a mutual respect as human beings, but I don't think there's a place in a religious society for this of course. But also, in an advanced civilization, I don't believe there's a place either (at least not at this time), and here's why. LGBT actions aren't consistent with procreation (which is necessary for the continuation of my species.) I am willing to admit & realize that my views may come from a place of ignorance and I'm interested in a re-alignment. As I've understood it gay people are born that way? (I believe this also applies to LBT?) and please forgive me of this, but really any other sexual preferences other than the ones associated with procreation? (bestiality/pedophilia/I believe there are others however uncommon) are also born this way? (i'm NOT trying to insult lgbt, but as a rational person i don't see how i can't draw similarity's). If this is true, then for example, if i were to be married some day in the future and we decided to procreate and we had 5 fetuses to choose from and 2 had the traits that were not hetero, I don't believe we would choose either of those two fetuses. Specifically for the continuation of our species.

Questions and points that may be helpful to consider:

• Why does it matter if our species continues?
  
• Why should this be used to judge whether something is good or not?
  
• Are there better ways to judge someone's worth than their ability to procreate?
  
• Isn't it better to determine whether an action causes non-consensual suffering to someone else?
  
• Bestiality and pedophilia cause suffering to other parties. Homosexuality does not. A homosexual is just as loving as a heterosexual one. What's wrong with love?
  
• In your example, if you had five fetuses, two of them were gay and you had to pick three and there was absolutely no discrimination in society, then why abort the two gay fetuses over the other three? Yes you would be increasing your chances of having grandchildren but gay people have contributed a lot to society in the past. Wouldn't the choice be essentially selfish rather than moral?
  
• Maybe your gay children would be more likely to make a major contribution to society that outlasts all of you because they do not have children taking up all their time (e.g like Tchaikovsky). How would you feel about this compared to missing out on some extra grandchildren? Would you still be proud of them?
  
• Would you love your child any less if it was been born without a womb or was otherwise naturally infertile?
  
• How does this differ from other forms of gender non-conformity such as sexual preference or gender identity? Neither is a choice.
  
• Did you choose to be heterosexual?
  
• What if you had a child who grew up to be a heterosexual adult and who decided not to procreate? Would their lives be a waste of your time and effort in raising them?
  

(October 28, 2015 at 7:21 am)Quantum Wrote:

(October 28, 2015 at 7:17 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Sounds to me that you led your political inclinations determine your religious beliefs and Christ was not truly central to your life.

It's too late for that kind of guilt trip, Chad, he's already an atheist

It's cognitive dissonance. He can't bring himself to admit that some people may reject his belief and therefore he has to resort to the No True Scotsman fallacy. Otherwise he'll have to contemplate the idea that they figured out something that he hasn't and that he might be wrong himself.

I don't know much about STEM cell research, but I know that it basically kills embryos in order to study them and that that embryo holds about 100 cells, none of which are conceivably made to feel any pain or anything at all compared to the brain of a fly which holds about 100.000 cells. And we swat flies like crazy.*

I made the mistake of not making any sense here, earlier on. Ignore the previous rambling about fetuses and such. I'm kind of tired and mixed up some words and some ideas. I don't know if we'll sacrifice fetuses for the purpose of research just because we do it when it comes to not wanting to have babies, but you're right to worry about it, in some sense - not that it would necessarily happen but we should discuss it when we have all the facts.

LGBT people are born the way they are, not 'made' this way. It's ok to be grossed out at the thought of them having sex/sight of them kissing, I guess. I would bet the feeling is mutual when it they're placed in the same situation contemplating your practices. Hell, you can even hate them for all I care. But they're human beings and they have a right to do whatever the hell they want with their personal lives, just as you are and just as you do. It's nonsense to think they won't have a place in an advanced society, at least in the context of only heterosexual people having a place in it. As long as we'll be a sexually active species there will be a place for any sort of orientation, but not for all practices(e.g. child molestation, zoophilia).


Of course we shouldn't murder. Thank goodness we're not all a bunch of psychopaths or we wouldn't have made it this far. But sometimes killing people might be necessarry. And I guess that answers your gun dilemma too. In a society completely devoid of any sort of fire weapons, psychopaths would wreak havoc left and right. There would be other means of doing so and the average citizen wouldn't be as able to protect himself against it. This is not true for every society, I guess. Some do very well with extreme gun regulations but others couldn't conceivably change that radically in a short period of time - like the U.S. So for the time being, at least in those societies where guns are deeply entrenched in the zeitgeist, there's no erasing that fact. But still, improvements could be made, of course.*

Sadly, I don't know much about this topic. But as a final thought, I do believe I should have the right to own a gun to protect myself and my assets, should there be the need to do so. At least in today's society, I believe that's a necessary option to have. But I also think getting one should be a very difficult process - they shouldn't be giving them out like candy.*


I don't really think that you would help society by procreating right now. Wait a couple of centuries to see if the population/resources ratio is a good one and then make as many babies as you want. At least that's my take on it.


I like it very much that you're being honest despite holding some small amount of controversial views. That's good. Keep it up and post some more. =).

*The asterisk marked paragraphs are to mark those things that I learned/changed my mind about after reading one author in particular - Sam Harris.

Quote:2.LGBT - I'm not sure how this got tied all up in atheism, I do still kinda find it (gross?) when I think about it, I don't know many LGBT people, those I do know I've felt a mutual respect as human beings, but I don't think there's a place in a religious society for this of course. But also, in an advanced civilization, I don't believe there's a place either (at least not at this time), and here's why. LGBT actions aren't consistent with procreation (which is necessary for the continuation of my species.) I am willing to admit & realize that my views may come from a place of ignorance and I'm interested in a re-alignment. As I've understood it gay people are born that way? (I believe this also applies to LBT?) and please forgive me of this, but really any other sexual preferences other than the ones associated with procreation? (bestiality/pedophilia/I believe there are others however uncommon) are also born this way? (i'm NOT trying to insult lgbt, but as a rational person i don't see how i can't draw similarity's). If this is true, then for example, if i were to be married some day in the future and we decided to procreate and we had 5 fetuses to choose from and 2 had the traits that were not hetero, I don't believe we would choose either of those two fetuses. Specifically for the continuation of our species.

I have 2 questions. The first is, do you really think we are at risk of going extinct as a species?

The second is, why do you think sex should be only about procreation in a time where we can procreate without even having sex?

(October 28, 2015 at 7:35 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(October 28, 2015 at 4:16 am)RationalAtheist Wrote: 2.LGBT - I'm not sure how this got tied all up in atheism, I do still kinda find it (gross?) when I think about it, I don't know many LGBT people, those I do know I've felt a mutual respect as human beings, but I don't think there's a place in a religious society for this of course. But also, in an advanced civilization, I don't believe there's a place either (at least not at this time), and here's why. LGBT actions aren't consistent with procreation (which is necessary for the continuation of my species.) I am willing to admit & realize that my views may come from a place of ignorance and I'm interested in a re-alignment. As I've understood it gay people are born that way? (I believe this also applies to LBT?) and please forgive me of this, but really any other sexual preferences other than the ones associated with procreation? (bestiality/pedophilia/I believe there are others however uncommon) are also born this way? (i'm NOT trying to insult lgbt, but as a rational person i don't see how i can't draw similarity's). If this is true, then for example, if i were to be married some day in the future and we decided to procreate and we had 5 fetuses to choose from and 2 had the traits that were not hetero, I don't believe we would choose either of those two fetuses. Specifically for the continuation of our species.

Questions and points that may be helpful to consider:

• Why does it matter if our species continues?
  
• Why should this be used to judge whether something is good or not?
  

You sound morally confused to me. That's what reading bad philosophy will do to you, I guess.

Also, bestiality is not the same as pedophilia. Pedophilia means sexual feelings towards children. Bestiality is an act. They are not the same. I think you meant to say child molestation or child abuse.

Quote:2.LGBT - I'm not sure how this got tied all up in atheism, I do still kinda find it (gross?) when I think about it, I don't know many LGBT people, those I do know I've felt a mutual respect as human beings, but I don't think there's a place in a religious society for this of course. But also, in an advanced civilization, I don't believe there's a place either (at least not at this time), and here's why. LGBT actions aren't consistent with procreation (which is necessary for the continuation of my species.)

Quote:Also, full disclosure, about 15 years ago my girlfriend and I decided to get an abortion ourselves because we felt we were unprepared to care for a baby

If it is your opinion that there's no place in civilization for actions that aren't consistent with procreation then why have an abortion?
I know you felt unprepared but surely the bottom line would be that there's no place in civilization for things that don't result in another baby to feed.
 
Just out of curiosity would you also say that sex between people using contraception, masturbation, mutual masturbation, oral sex and other actions like this have no place in civilisation?
In a world that's overpopulated surely the best thing for civilization is people who can enjoy sex all their lives and never have children.

(October 28, 2015 at 4:37 am)ignoramus Wrote: I hear half atheist and half Christian ... you're getting there...

(values, yes, maybe...but not in belief's...I think there's a key point they'll say I'm missing to be able to call myself even a fraction of a christion hehe)

(October 28, 2015 at 4:40 am)robvalue Wrote: Regarding LGBT, you're talking in general about characteristics not actions. We're still understanding exactly how these things come about, but it is generally agreed that it is not a choice. Judging someone's worth on whether or not they can reproduce would only make sense to me if we were on the brink of extinction and had very limited resources. At the moment, we actually have huge problems with overpopulation. So this argument really doesn't work. Also, they can generally reproduce just fine. Many gay men have children.

Well, I'd phrase it a little bit differently than "Judging someone's worth", but more on what's moral. Theists DO kinda have one point about where do atheist morals come from if not from the particular religion. I'm not saying it's not possible to have morals without religion, but I'd like to try to determine where the morals come from to help to use as a gauge. My original thought was to use solely evolution. Since that seems to be how we all came into existence. And it appears to be pretty successful in perpetuating our species. (I still have a desire to contemplate what happens after my death, and this has tied in well with evolution). And in terms of evolution, we weren't always able to have children outside of sex. (yes we're not on the bring of extinction now & I don't see a reason at the moment that our moral's can't change over the course of history, so i suppose i could arrive at the same conclusion as you, I'd need to ponder this more) (also, gay men that have children, don't they usually have these children while they are in the closet, but when they come out gay, children they have are generally adopted? I mean, of course their sexual parts still work and if they were to have hetero sex it could result in a baby, but I don't think you were saying 2 gay men can create a baby right?)

(October 28, 2015 at 4:43 am)Quantum Wrote: But I was going to say something else - you use teleological and naive evolutionary arguments to justify things, I don't think those are valid. Why should actions which do serve or not serve procreation be more or less "right"? In any case, if you start arguing from  what evolution "wants", note that it was evolution by natural selection that made a percentage of mammals homosexual (to varying degrees) in the first place. It's not like the human race is on the brink of extinction anyways. And even if it were, and the last people were all LGBT, there would probably be enough LB women who would still like to carry a child to term. They'd just prefer to not explicitely get down to business with a guy to start it, which is of course not necessary anyways..

(actually, and correct me if i'm wrong, but as i understand evolution, there are all kinds of changes that occur in a species, not all of them are beneficial to the species, (I'm trying to think of how being LGBT would be beneficial to the species as a whole and it only seems detrimental, (And please those reading this, don't interpret this as me having hate in my heart vs LGBT, I am uncomfortable around those who are, but I think that mostly has to do with my limited exposure.)) that's why generally evolution works because eventually the non-beneficial changes don't get passed on to future generations), it seems natural selection just hasn't finished yet, in fact, we're starting to see evolution & natural selection operating differently in humans than it has in other species because of the advancement of technologies. (right?).

(October 28, 2015 at 7:35 am)Mathilda Wrote:

• Why does it matter if our species continues? ----Well, on a personal level, it's a motivator and something I've thought to help provide a moral "guide". I also think (i could be wrong) that most people would prefer our species continues rather than extinction.
  
• Why should this be used to judge whether something is good or not? ------- if it matters that our species continues, then it can be used as a compass.
  
• Are there better ways to judge someone's worth than their ability to procreate? --- yes, absolutely i believe so. (and please, someone else mentioned "worth". I'm not saying LGBT people are worthless, only that this particular trait is one that I don't yet see as a desirable trait for our future generations.) However, if we're wrong and it is a choice, then i say more power to them, that's no different than me manhandling myself when i feel like it. But from the people I've spoken with and what I understand, I think it's highly unlikely that it's a choice. I guess a better way for me to understand this would be to ask (how does being LGBT benefit humanity?) I'm sure there are people who are/were LGBT & who also contribute significantly to society, but one thing doesn't have anything to do with the other.
  
• Isn't it better to determine whether an action causes non-consensual suffering to someone else? ------ This is a new point of view I've seen in a couple threads today I'd like to contemplate, I'm leaning towards you're probably right.
  
• Bestiality and pedophilia cause suffering to other parties. Homosexuality does not. A homosexual is just as loving as a heterosexual one. What's wrong with love?-----I'm pretty sure I'll have to attribute my position so far on this on the fact that I only known a few homosexual people and I have met zero homosexual partners.
  
• In your example, if you had five fetuses, two of them were gay and you had to pick three and there was absolutely no discrimination in society, then why abort the two gay fetuses over the other three? Yes you would be increasing your chances of having grandchildren but gay people have contributed a lot to society in the past. Wouldn't the choice be essentially selfish rather than moral?-----(i'm only indicating that all things being equal I'd choose the one's with the fewest abnormalities) I believe my op may have been misinterpreted a little bit by several people, I may have had a few poor choices of words at some point, I am not suggesting all LGBT be rounded up and exterminated, they have value, I don't know very many but I'm sure there are LGBT who are very intelligent and talented  and have a lot to offer, what if in addition to these qualities, they naturally procreated our species? We're not in danger of extermination now, but who knows in 25,000 years? What if 25,000 years ago, all our ancestors were born LGBT natural selection would have weeded the human species out.
  
• Maybe your gay children would be more likely to make a major contribution to society that outlasts all of you because they do not have children taking up all their time (e.g like Tchaikovsky). How would you feel about this compared to missing out on some extra grandchildren? Would you still be proud of them?----(and again, i do agree with this point, but the same effect is achieved by not having children, (however it would be nice to have the genetic material of those extraordinary people to pass along)
  
• Would you love your child any less if it was been born without a womb or was otherwise naturally infertile? ------ no, also, i would love a LGBT child as well (or i think i would).....hmm,, so really what am i saying? it's not about love/worth/value, I'm trying to more look at the big picture, I think i understand the need to not ostracize LGBT or somehow "criminalize" them, but I also don't believe (and i don't think anyone's doing this now, but someday down the road?) that we should be selecting those traits as desirable traits to pass down to future generations. (but then in that case we're no longer talking about "morality" are we..... but rather about proper planning (for example......right now humans have all their "eggs" in one basket, earth. If North Korea/Russia/Iran someone goes krazy nutz and nukes the world. that's it, goodbye humanity. (likewise meteor blows the earth up?). We're on the cusp of being able to colonize other worlds (mars?) I would be a proponent in those instances of ensuring only fertile people with desirable genetic traits go forth to colonize to expect the greatest degree of success. LGBT advocates would be against this I would suppose. (thanks for letting me walk you through my thought process) I guess I may not have an issue with the "morality" of being LGBT. It's just foreign to me.
  
• How does this differ from other forms of gender non-conformity such as sexual preference or gender identity? Neither is a choice.---agreed i think?
  
• Did you choose to be heterosexual? ---- no
  
• What if you had a child who grew up to be a heterosexual adult and who decided not to procreate? Would their lives be a waste of your time and effort in raising them? -----no, however, I think it would add value to the time and effort i spent if they did choose to procreate right?
  

one last part on this if i may, LGB I understand, T I don't understand as much (and i'm not sure the proper PC term), I know I've heard about in the wild LGB animals, but if i understand correctly T means you identify as a different gender than the one you were born with. Is it possible LGB are born that way but T is not? (i think i'm asking about nature vs. nurture?) & that T got lumped in with LGB, I don't understand fully how that works and how/if hermaphrodites are associated with this and that's why this occurs? These are questions that are probably off limits normally but you guys make this feel like a safe place to ask questions like that so there it is. (oh also are there examples of T in the animal kingdom that you guys know of?)

(October 28, 2015 at 8:33 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: LGBT people are born the way they are, not 'made' this way. It's ok to be grossed out at the thought of them having sex/sight of them kissing, I guess. I would bet the feeling is mutual when it they're placed in the same situation contemplating your practices. Hell, you can even hate them for all I care. But they're human beings and they have a right to do whatever the hell they want with their personal lives, just as you are and just as you do. It's nonsense to think they won't have a place in an advanced society, at least in the context of only heterosexual people having a place in it. As long as we'll be a sexually active species there will be a place for any sort of orientation, but not for all practices(e.g. child molestation, zoophilia).

Of course we shouldn't murder. Thank goodness we're not all a bunch of psychopaths or we wouldn't have made it this far. But sometimes killing people might be necessarry. And I guess that answers your gun dilemma too. In a society completely devoid of any sort of fire weapons, psychopaths would wreak havoc left and right. There would be other means of doing so and the average citizen wouldn't be as able to protect himself against it. This is not true for every society, I guess. Some do very well with extreme gun regulations but others couldn't conceivably change that radically in a short period of time - like the U.S. So for the time being, at least in those societies where guns are deeply entrenched in the zeitgeist, there's no erasing that fact. But still, improvements could be made, of course.*

Sadly, I don't know much about this topic. But as a final thought, I do believe I should have the right to own a gun to protect myself and my assets, should there be the need to do so. At least in today's society, I believe that's a necessary option to have. But I also think getting one should be a very difficult process - they shouldn't be giving them out like candy.*


I don't really think that you would help society by procreating right now. Wait a couple of centuries to see if the population/resources ratio is a good one and then make as many babies as you want. At least that's my take on it.


I like it very much that you're being honest despite holding some small amount of controversial views. That's good. Keep it up and post some more. =).

*The asterisk marked paragraphs are to mark those things that I learned/changed my mind about after reading one author in particular - Sam Harris.

thanks for your reply EP, one thing I appreciate is your comments on the other topic's in the post outside the LGBT part of the post. I feel like I derailed my main post by including that part, but a couple of things. (just in case, but yes i don't believe anyone's "made" anyway lol, they're born), on the gun topic, I suppose in a perfect society they wouldn't be necessary, but there is a need for them now, just that it seems like the wrong side is pushing for gun rights and the wrong side is pushing for gun control to me anyways lol. Same with climate change, and big government.....a lot of these issues seem like they would be embraced by the right, I'm hoping some from that side will chime in.

(October 28, 2015 at 8:41 am)Losty Wrote: I have 2 questions. The first is, do you really think we are at risk of going extinct as a species? ------ No, however there are/have been circumstances that could make a topic like this pertinent i think (as I mentioned in an earlier reply a little further up in this post)

The second is, why do you think sex should be only about procreation in a time where we can procreate without even having sex?-------I don't think it should ONLY be about procreation although I think most procreation occurs this way. If humanity were to loose this ability I think it could mean the end of our species eventually........also, the more I think about it, I've been using LGBT throughout this whole post, but I don't think B objects to sex with the opposite gender so for most of this thread I think I'm mainly talking about LGT.

(October 28, 2015 at 8:49 am)paulpablo Wrote: If it is your opinion that there's no place in civilization for actions that aren't consistent with procreation then why have an abortion? -----as i understand it, one is a choice and one is not, but my opinions even in replying to everyone's posts are evolving themselves, but at the time I wrote the post you were taking about, I was referring to the likelihood of natural reproduction. Yes, we choose not to have a child then, but we may still choose to have children in the future (under normal circumstances).
I know you felt unprepared but surely the bottom line would be that there's no place in civilization for things that don't result in another baby to feed.
 
Just out of curiosity would you also say that sex between people using contraception, masturbation, mutual masturbation, oral sex and other actions like this have no place in civilisation?
In a world that's overpopulated surely the best thing for civilization is people who can enjoy sex all their lives and never have children.------I think the best way I can explain how i came to these idea's is that LGT is at the very least, an "obstruction" to procreation, the act's you've described would be in addition to normal heterosexual activity's that could/would lead to procreation.

That took awhile to reply to everyone so far, sorry for the delay, I REALLY appreciate everyone being respectful and thoughtful in your responses, I did want to add one other thing however.....I'm especially ashamed of how I used to view atheists prior to becoming an atheist, and how hateful my speech towards them must have sounded, when it was actually just ignorance. I suspect if there are any LGBT that are reading this that are offended by something I said, Please accept the possibility that I just have not fully understood your point of view, and post a reply to help educate me, I may have even put words in your mouth or attributed a position to you that is incorrect. Please reply and correct me if i did.

thanks

(October 28, 2015 at 12:55 pm)RationalAtheist Wrote: I don't think it should ONLY be about procreation although I think most procreation occurs this way. If humanity were to loose this ability I think it could mean the end of our species eventually........also, the more I think about it, I've been using LGBT throughout this whole post, but I don't think B objects to sex with the opposite gender so for most of this thread I think I'm mainly talking about LGT.

(In that case I think you need to remove the T as well, sans operations transpeople are generally physically capable of producing offspring if they're willing to have sex with people who have opposite reproductive organs)

So...do you think that by considering homosexuality morally acceptable you would be somehow dooming all of mankind to eventually become homosexual? Or do you think increased homosexuality would cause human beings to evolve into a species that cannot reproduce?

I just don't understand the connection between we need to reproduce in order to survive a a species and homosexuality is morally wrong....
What does one have to do with the other?

Just one last thing, why do we need to go on as a species anyways?

I would suggest that you not be terribly concerned with adjusting your views on issues of importance, due to the becoming an atheist. 

The belief that being an atheist somehow means gaining insight and wisdom into matters of the human condition is an illusion.
Atheists believe all sorts of garbage and bullshit...they just happen to do so godlessly.

Good for you for giving this so much thought

I can help a little regarding transgender. With most people, their brain map of their body matches their sex. But occasionally there can be a mismatch, where the brain is wired for one sex but the body turns out to be the other. This causes a disconnect between what the brain expects, and what the body actually is. So they are literally a man in a woman's body, or vice versa. This can be extremely upsetting to deal with. (That may not be the best explanation, but it's a start )

Morality is a personal matter. We each think about how we think things should be, and we figure out how to act. If you want people to generally be happy and healthy, then do things that help people and don't do things that harm people. It's not a lot more complex than that. There's no need to look for "models" to follow. That is, I expect, the religious dogma still leaving its mark on you. Except for sociopaths/psychopaths, people have a conscience. It guides you by letting you know whether what you're doing is right or wrong. Religious people often mistake this for magic, but it's a result of evolution.

If you're not primarily concerned with making people happy and healthy, then there's not a lot I can say to make you care about those things. Trying to follow evolution is nothing to do with morality, instead it's some form of eugenics and leads towards Hitler type mindsets.