Objective Morality?

[Godscreated]

I would not expect you to understand, it's a God thing.

Which then begs the question of your presence here on this board.I doubt strongly that you will ever give up your love for your sky-daddy, let alone question his morals and we have no intention of being adopted by your imaginary friend.

So, if you are not going to explain the "god thing", then what exactly is your purpose here? What do you hope to gain? The point of this forum is to enhance understanding, get new ideas, philosophy, information, etc., so that we can continue to make our own educated free thought choices. Unless, perhaps, you think your little comments within your posts (subtle preaching) might have an effect.

I came to this forum to be challenged, I've been and I've come to a greater understanding of God's Word of God himself and I expect this to continue, so my time here has been well spent and I'm sure it will continue on the same path. When a person is surrounded by those who believe as you do then the challenging questions do not come along very often, that not a problem here. You also must confuse me with someone who has come here to preach, I say what I see as the truth which is allowed, if you take it as preaching then I'm sorry it seemed that way, if your skin is that thin maybe you need to talk only with nonbelievers.

If no one was truly interested in what you had to say, you would be on everyone's ignore list and no one would be responding (well, maybe a few that get a kick out of chewing up theists and tossing them around a bit). That does not mean someone will not laugh in your face, but, hey, this is an Atheist forum.

---

I do not care that others laugh at me, I've been told by others they do. I do not have any bad feelings about it nor towards those who laugh at me. Good try but you did not upset me, know why (at least for me) I'm a christian who studies the words Jesus has left us with and try to practice them, though not always successful.

Say what! Man is an animal. Even if you want to play the 'god thing' and 'soul thing', man is still subject to the genes of the species and this has nothing to do with morality, only survival. For instance, if a species kills itself off, they would not be around.

I know that in science that man is defined as an animal, and for the purpose of science I agree. However there are large differences between man and the lower animals, the soul is the biggest. I'm not as you say playing a God thing I'm just not going to try and explain certain things about God that you and others are going to simply ignore.

EDITED TO FIX QUOTE BOXES -DeistPaladin

---

I liked the part when he mentioned "against evolution"... I like it when people know little of natural selection. I find great amusement in it, but also great frustration.

Homosexuality would not be a natural selection, this would bring extinction to a species.

---

How much homosexuality would cause a species to go extinct? 20%? 50%? 90%?

It depends on the species doesn't it? With desert mole rats, a colony typically consists of one breeding female, one to three breeding males, and about 70 or so sterile workers. So here is a mammal species that gets along fine with less than 6% of the population breeding.

As I pointed out before, natural selection acts on populations, not individuals, and as long as sufficient offspring are born to maintain the population, there's a lot of variation in what percentage of the adults have to actually breed. It's quite possible for a 10% homosexuality rate to be optimal for a population, perhaps if the 'gay uncle' hypothesis is correct (most of the uncle's genes are carried through nieces and nephews, more resources are available for them if he doesn't have children of his own), and selection would bring it back down if it got higher than 10%...and bring it back up if it got lower than 10%.

Homosexuality could be associated with a beneficial gene or gene-complex that offsets lowered reproduction: having one sickle cell anemia gene gives you protection from malaria, having two gives you protection from malaria and also gives you sickle cell anemia. Where there's malaria, you will find this gene is selected for, even though it increases the risk of sickle cell anemia.

AND...homosexuals can have children. Historically, it has probably been the norm for a homosexual man to marry and have children, because having children is so important in many subsistence cultures. Maybe homosexuals haven't been selected against because they've been keeping up with the straights when it comes to breeding, and now that it is more acceptable to be exclusively homosexual, if there is a strong genetic component to being gay, it MAY start being selected against.

I doubt it's that simple, though. The strongest known predictor of sexual orientation in males is fraternal birth order. The more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay if you're a man. Of course 'strongest known predictor' is weak praise when it still only accounts for about 15% of homosexual prevalence in men.

For my part, I think it is probably a number of factors, probably including natal and epigenetic effects, although I doubt there's actually a homosexuality gene cluster.

But carry on thinking you know enough about biology to determine what is natural.

The right 6% for mole rats. Other species probably up to 85-90%, this is just a guess on my part. Has a homosexual gene been found, if not would not this argument be more toward choice, which for christians it would be any way. I would like to make a statement here, before I became a christian I found that homosexuality was repulsive to me, so as far as not understanding homosexuals and believing the act was not natural came from a nonbelievers point of view. I never claimed to be a biological specialist, and I do not believe you are a Bible scholar or even a Bible student, so you see why I doubt any argument you make from scriptures and this applies to most if not all nonbelievers on this forum.