the hammer of homosexuality

[Pyrrho]

Sorry I'm late to the post.  The OP seems to state, in a nutshell, that when a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality is confirmed, the Xtians will have to accept gay marriage and homosexuals in their congregation.  

We can only hope.  But we know how resistant to change they are.

And yes, I think the day is coming. Physiological differences (not caused by lifestyle, drug use, etc.,) have already been noted.  And why is it that they ignore the fact that there is evidence of homosexual behavior throughout nature?

Yes, sooner or later, science will tell the xtians that here is another thing they're not allowed to hate.  I wonder what they will choose after that?  Oh . . . silly me . . . atheists!!!                  

The obvious answer is to reject science and embrace faith in their religion.  Many do this for evolution, and pretty much all of them do this for what the mind is, and the fact that since the mind is some brain processes or the results of some brain processes, it will cease to exist when the brain processes stop.  People who do not ignore the facts know that there is no possibility of an afterlife at all.

So, again, the response for many will be to just reject science and have faith in religion.  People reject evidence and believe drivel all the time, so it is ridiculous to suppose that they are going to stop doing that now.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Sorry I'm late to the post.  The OP seems to state, in a nutshell, that when a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality is confirmed, the Xtians will have to accept gay marriage and homosexuals in their congregation.  

We can only hope.  But we know how resistant to change they are.

And yes, I think the day is coming. Physiological differences (not caused by lifestyle, drug use, etc.,) have already been noted.  And why is it that they ignore the fact that there is evidence of homosexual behavior throughout nature?

Yes, sooner or later, science will tell the xtians that here is another thing they're not allowed to hate.  I wonder what they will choose after that?  Oh . . . silly me . . . atheists!!!                  

Agreed. I find the pheromone experiments fairly clear-cut. 

A new study published this month by Wen Zhou of the Chinese Academy of Sciences found a connection between a person’s self-identified sexual orientation and their ability to react to different pheromones. Specifically, participants with an orientation to men (straight women and gay men) responded to male pheromones but not female pheromones.

The experiment exposed participants to either androstadienone (found in male semen and sweat) or estratetraenol (present in female urine) and tested to see how it impacted their gender presentations of a simulated person walking toward them. In all cases, the pheromones were disguised by cloves, so participants were unaware of which pheromone (if any) they were smelling.

Straight women and gay men are aroused by the pheromones of men.

Straight men and gay women are aroused by the pheromones of women.

Bisexuals of both sexes react to both. (And some lesbians showed mixed reactions, as well.)

I don't think there's a gene  for homosexuality, per se,  but I have little doubt we'll find hox-gene pathways in which certain timing and/or duration of gene-switching that occurs during the two major "puberties" we undergo (one isn't really puberty; it happens in the womb late in gestation, but is a lot like puberty in that whole new sets of genes get "switched on" by controller-genes, and it has a huge effect on outcome, depending on when each of the sequence is activated, and for how long) impacts the "Kinsey-scale-settings" of the adult. It's just too complex to fully map, at present, since so many variables are involved.

[Randys brother]

How is that supposed to work when men were required to marry their brothers' widows?

The Bible is not consistent, so it does not work.  It is only one of many things that don't work.  Nevertheless, those are the words reportedly that Jesus spoke on the subject.  And even though divorce was discussed in the Old Testament, Jesus still felt the need to discuss the subject.  But he did not feel the need to condemn homosexuality.  I think that is strongly suggestive that the "sin" of divorce is more important than the "sin" of homosexuality, according to Jesus.

The simple fact is, people latch on to bits and pieces of the Bible, and ignore other parts.  It is not purely that the individual chooses, as most Christians are indoctrinated to believe certain bits and pieces, and are not as exposed to other parts.  So when one attends a church run by a closeted gay homophobe, one will tend to have that bit about homosexuality emphasized.  Which will tend to affect what the parishioners believe.

Yes and this is what you're doing right now.

"The Bible is not consistent" you believe that but don't try to get me to believe it because I won't.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You're*

Well thanks for correcting me on the spelling.

And what kind of technology can scientist's make out of fire in hell?

It's a joke, RB.

It's pointing out that God apparently wants most scientists to go to hell, since so few of them buy the story is real.

Therefore, so many of them in hell they'll figure out a way to air condition it.

[Randys brother]

Sorry I'm late to the post.  The OP seems to state, in a nutshell, that when a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality is confirmed, the Xtians will have to accept gay marriage and homosexuals in their congregation.  

We can only hope.  But we know how resistant to change they are.

And yes, I think the day is coming. Physiological differences (not caused by lifestyle, drug use, etc.,) have already been noted.  And why is it that they ignore the fact that there is evidence of homosexual behavior throughout nature?

Yes, sooner or later, science will tell the xtians that here is another thing they're not allowed to hate.  I wonder what they will choose after that?  Oh . . . silly me . . . atheists!!!                  

The obvious answer is to reject science and embrace faith in their religion.  Many do this for evolution, and pretty much all of them do this for what the mind is, and the fact that since the mind is some brain processes or the results of some brain processes, it will cease to exist when the brain processes stop.  People who do not ignore the facts know that there is no possibility of an afterlife at all.

So, again, the response for many will be to just reject science and have faith in religion.  People reject evidence and believe drivel all the time, so it is ridiculous to suppose that they are going to stop doing that now.

You have this idea that one cannot follow religion and science,but this is not true many follow religion and science.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The Bible is not consistent, so it does not work.  It is only one of many things that don't work.  Nevertheless, those are the words reportedly that Jesus spoke on the subject.  And even though divorce was discussed in the Old Testament, Jesus still felt the need to discuss the subject.  But he did not feel the need to condemn homosexuality.  I think that is strongly suggestive that the "sin" of divorce is more important than the "sin" of homosexuality, according to Jesus.

The simple fact is, people latch on to bits and pieces of the Bible, and ignore other parts.  It is not purely that the individual chooses, as most Christians are indoctrinated to believe certain bits and pieces, and are not as exposed to other parts.  So when one attends a church run by a closeted gay homophobe, one will tend to have that bit about homosexuality emphasized.  Which will tend to affect what the parishioners believe.

Yes and this is what you're doing right now.

"The Bible is not consistent" you believe that but don't try to get me to believe it because I won't.

We don't want you to believe it. We want you to figure it out for yourself. Read serious, scholarly work by Christian theologians and Biblical historians who aren't super-fundamentalists (meaning the ones who don't start and end with the presupposition that it must be literal), and they'll explain it to you in an honest way.

[drfuzzy]

Sorry I'm late to the post.  The OP seems to state, in a nutshell, that when a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality is confirmed, the Xtians will have to accept gay marriage and homosexuals in their congregation.  

We can only hope.  But we know how resistant to change they are.

And yes, I think the day is coming. Physiological differences (not caused by lifestyle, drug use, etc.,) have already been noted.  And why is it that they ignore the fact that there is evidence of homosexual behavior throughout nature?

Yes, sooner or later, science will tell the xtians that here is another thing they're not allowed to hate.  I wonder what they will choose after that?  Oh . . . silly me . . . atheists!!!                  

Agreed. I find the pheromone experiments fairly clear-cut. 

A new study published this month by Wen Zhou of the Chinese Academy of Sciences found a connection between a person’s self-identified sexual orientation and their ability to react to different pheromones. Specifically, participants with an orientation to men (straight women and gay men) responded to male pheromones but not female pheromones.

The experiment exposed participants to either androstadienone (found in male semen and sweat) or estratetraenol (present in female urine) and tested to see how it impacted their gender presentations of a simulated person walking toward them. In all cases, the pheromones were disguised by cloves, so participants were unaware of which pheromone (if any) they were smelling.

Straight women and gay men are aroused by the pheromones of men.

Straight men and gay women are aroused by the pheromones of women.

Bisexuals of both sexes react to both. (And some lesbians showed mixed reactions, as well.)

I don't think there's a gene  for homosexuality, per se,  but I have little doubt we'll find hox-gene pathways in which certain timing and/or duration of gene-switching that occurs during the two major "puberties" we undergo (one isn't really puberty; it happens in the womb late in gestation, but is a lot like puberty in that whole new sets of genes get "switched on" by controller-genes, and it has a huge effect on outcome, depending on when each of the sequence is activated, and for how long) impacts the "Kinsey-scale-settings" of the adult. It's just too complex to fully map, at present, since so many variables are involved.

Oh, thanks Rocket!  Yes, I had read about the pheremone study with great interest, but it's wonderful to get a scientist's (should I use biologist or geneticist?) take on the matter.

[Randys brother]

Well thanks for correcting me on the spelling.

And what kind of technology can scientist's make out of fire in hell?

It's a joke, RB.

It's pointing out that God apparently wants most scientists to go to hell, since so few of them buy the story is real.

Therefore, so many of them in hell they'll figure out a way to air condition it.

Why in the world do you that God want's scientists to be in hell?

A person can be a scientist and still be saved if he/she has faith.

---

Yes and this is what you're doing right now.

"The Bible is not consistent" you believe that but don't try to get me to believe it because I won't.

We don't want you to believe it. We want you to figure it out for yourself. Read serious, scholarly work by Christian theologians and Biblical historians who aren't super-fundamentalists (meaning the ones who don't start and end with the presupposition that it must be literal), and they'll explain it to you in an honest way.

Well I don't think that's honest.

 it must be literal then it most be,if it's symbolic then it must be.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Agreed. I find the pheromone experiments fairly clear-cut. 


Straight women and gay men are aroused by the pheromones of men.

Straight men and gay women are aroused by the pheromones of women.

Bisexuals of both sexes react to both. (And some lesbians showed mixed reactions, as well.)

I don't think there's a gene  for homosexuality, per se,  but I have little doubt we'll find hox-gene pathways in which certain timing and/or duration of gene-switching that occurs during the two major "puberties" we undergo (one isn't really puberty; it happens in the womb late in gestation, but is a lot like puberty in that whole new sets of genes get "switched on" by controller-genes, and it has a huge effect on outcome, depending on when each of the sequence is activated, and for how long) impacts the "Kinsey-scale-settings" of the adult. It's just too complex to fully map, at present, since so many variables are involved.

Oh, thanks Rocket!  Yes, I had read about the pheremone study with great interest, but it's wonderful to get a scientist's (should I use biologist or geneticist?) take on the matter.

I never got to work as a geneticist, except in my first year of grad school (before I dropped out of grad school!) when I worked on analysis of a series of viruses, primarily Hantavirus, when I worked with the team that trapped rice rats and brought them back to isolate and study BAYV, a variant of Hantavirus.

Turned out, I liked the fieldwork more than the labwork, and wound up becoming a field biologist.

So I suppose biologist would be a propos.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

It's a joke, RB.

It's pointing out that God apparently wants most scientists to go to hell, since so few of them buy the story is real.

Therefore, so many of them in hell they'll figure out a way to air condition it.

Why in the world do you that God want's scientists to be in hell?

A person can be a scientist and still be saved if he/she has faith.

---

We don't want you to believe it. We want you to figure it out for yourself. Read serious, scholarly work by Christian theologians and Biblical historians who aren't super-fundamentalists (meaning the ones who don't start and end with the presupposition that it must be literal), and they'll explain it to you in an honest way.

Well I don't think that's honest.

 it must be literal then it most be,if it's symbolic then it must be.

Wut?

I understand that, according to your mythology, God doesn't want anyone  in hell, God wants everyone to be worshipful and accepting of the "free gift" that means hell if you don't accept the "free" gift. (Still not free if there's a metaphorical gun to your head.) The point is that so many scientists (myself included) have noticed that what's in the Bible is so far off the track of what science has discovered that it's clear to most of us--even the ones who remain Christians--that it's the work of flawed, ignorant humans living in a scientifically-ignorant time. The joke is that most scientists, especially top-level ones, are hellbound, and thus there will be such a huge population of us there that we will figure out a way to air condition the place. That's all.

And yes, it is honest. We help you talk about the flaws in your fundamentalist thinking, point out to you as best we can why the things you've been taught to think (and I was taught to think, growing up) about the Bible aren't completely accurate and/or logical and/or plausible, but we really do want you to try to expand your mind and figure it out for yourself.

I'll give you one simple proof, so (if you're an honest person), you can go see one example for yourself. It's as clear as day. First, look up a scientist from the early 19th century named Lamarck, and what he taught about acquired characteristics; it's often called "Lamarckian inheritance". Just Google it and learn what it is, so you'll know what you're looking for. (The short version is that it's what all people thought before Mendel discovered genetic inheritance.)

Then, with your newfound knowledge of Lamarckism, read the Bible at Genesis 30:25-43 and tell me what the story thinks is happening.