RE: Gay rights within the template of religion proves flaws in "religion"
October 16, 2014 at 9:06 pm
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2014 at 9:10 pm by CristW.)
Hello all,
The lack of any scholarly "groundwork", on this thread, is not really surprising based on my experience on this website. Nevertheless, we have scholarly data from researchers themselves who have given several theories of the origin of Homosexuality. It was no surprise to me to find this in the areas of social science especially in the area of psychology. Well, I am not sure what are your backgrounds, so possibly it would be unfair to me to address the lack of intelligent responses. The evidence given is exactly what I was referring to concerning that scientific data is in DISPUTE and therefore DEBATABLE. Let's look first at the area of sexual attraction since this seems to be an area of recent discussion:
"3. Sexual attraction
A third possibility that homosexuality–promoting genes were selected for because of women’s sexual preferences. The argument is that some women may have been favorably disposed towards homosexually inclined men because of their social, cooperative and empathic qualities. Thus, forming partnerships with those men may have ensured better care for children. Research indeed shows that many women find gay men appealing because they are less threatening than (some) heterosexual men who might be openly aggressive and predatory. Again this hypothesis awaits empirical investigation."
SOURCE: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/natu...osexuality
Let me add, that many areas of psychology deals with social psychology which in some areas cross into sociology. Nevertheless, when "genes" are mentioned this goes into the area of biology. Whether some of the info enters into psychology, sociology, anthropology or biology it simply under the umbrella of social science.
That's not true. They are not all Barbaric and primitive. They are all outdated and full of flaws.
The lack of any scholarly "groundwork", on this thread, is not really surprising based on my experience on this website. Nevertheless, we have scholarly data from researchers themselves who have given several theories of the origin of Homosexuality. It was no surprise to me to find this in the areas of social science especially in the area of psychology. Well, I am not sure what are your backgrounds, so possibly it would be unfair to me to address the lack of intelligent responses. The evidence given is exactly what I was referring to concerning that scientific data is in DISPUTE and therefore DEBATABLE. Let's look first at the area of sexual attraction since this seems to be an area of recent discussion:
"3. Sexual attraction
A third possibility that homosexuality–promoting genes were selected for because of women’s sexual preferences. The argument is that some women may have been favorably disposed towards homosexually inclined men because of their social, cooperative and empathic qualities. Thus, forming partnerships with those men may have ensured better care for children. Research indeed shows that many women find gay men appealing because they are less threatening than (some) heterosexual men who might be openly aggressive and predatory. Again this hypothesis awaits empirical investigation."
SOURCE: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/natu...osexuality
Let me add, that many areas of psychology deals with social psychology which in some areas cross into sociology. Nevertheless, when "genes" are mentioned this goes into the area of biology. Whether some of the info enters into psychology, sociology, anthropology or biology it simply under the umbrella of social science.
(October 16, 2014 at 6:56 pm)Kowlzer Wrote: Well, seeing that all religions are primitive and barbaric. their 'perfect' holy books are unable to evolve with the times, meaning that they are not perfect. I knew this one girl years ago, she is gay, and she would get sick when she tried to 'chose' to be straight. It is not a choice. they are born that way, there for 'god' made them that way. well thats my thoughts.
That's not true. They are not all Barbaric and primitive. They are all outdated and full of flaws.
