U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-12-2012, 07:56 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,286,683 times
Reputation: 2973

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinking-man View Post
Very interesting. I didn't know that. can you give examples by name?
Of what specifically? I already mentioned the ants which are named examples of cases where huge swaths of the species are sterile. In pack animals such as lions the breeding male is more than happy to wound or kill any other males who try and reproduce.

The point is that in the "big picture" of nature you do not get a "standard" but a full continuum of behaviors all of which are, by the very fact they exist, just as successful as each other. Whether you have millions of insects all servicing a single breeding female queen, or animals that reproduce as much and as often as possible with as many partners as possible, you will find every possibility on the continuum somewhere in nature.

What is true however, and is as close to a "standard" as we can get is that species that have non reproducing elements invariably seem to benefit from their existence. Regardless of how their non reproducing status is achieved... whether by being sterile like in ants.... or by being gay like in Humans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinking-man View Post
i have to think more about this. what you describe seems to me to be fine in theory but i wonder if it actually works this way.
It certainly appears to work this way. Again I ask how you think worker ants could evolve if they can not pass on their own genes? The answer to that will prove my point.

The reason is that a genes survival is not predicated on every body it finds itself in reproducing itself. Having itself reproduced in and by OTHER bodies is more than enough. All a gene "wants" is to get itself into the next generations. You can either do that by reproducing yourself successfully, or helping exact copies of yourself in other organisms to reproduce successfully. In the end the result is the same.

I would heartily recommend, at this juncture, the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins as the entire book is dedicated to taking this "genes eye view" of how evolution works and everything I am saying here is massively supported there and likely explained better too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2012, 01:35 PM
 
2,379 posts, read 2,693,441 times
Reputation: 1191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinking-man View Post
I think the 'majority' often sets the 'standard'. It is 'standard' to have two eyes when you're born (if you're a human at least). If you're born with 3, it can be said that you are deviating from the 'standard' and that your condition (however wonderful and useful it may prove to be) can be argued as a defect. The 'standard' can be argued to be two opposite sexes that are able to reproduce, and therefore continue to exist...if a very small percentage of that species diverts from that path, and instead exists while unable or unwilling or without the desire to reproduce and continue passing on the genes, one could make the 'genome defect' argument.

I see being gay simply in the same lines as my example above. I'm not certain about the actual stats....but i'd argue that the percentage of non-gays in the human (and other animal species perhaps) is close to 95% if not more. that majority can be argued to set a 'standard' by which any deviation can be measured against, in my opinion.
You've made some interesting points & I appreciate this common sense, for a change.
There has NEVER been a "gay gene" found in human beings.
The APA changed the definition of homosexuality, not because of science, but because of harassment from gay lobyists...
The Born "Gay" Hoax |
What sets us apart from other primates is that at birth, our brains are only 25% developed, so we can better adapt to environmental influences. Yes, as babies we may not be as smart, but we are raised longer by our parents, so that we can learn more & be on the OUTSIDE of cages at the zoo.

I am somewhat agnostic - I believe there was a Creator... whatever or whoever - but I don't know exactly who/what nor do I think it is possible to understand it completely, given our current state.
I believe that "nature does nothing in vain."
I believe that our anatomical parts are meant for purposes.
Natural consequences of forcing parts to fit, that were not intended to fit, (like anal sex) involve health risks of anal fissures, colon rupture, anal cancer & bacterial infection. Also, because of this lack of fitting, those with homosexual preferences change partners much more often than heterosexuals do & are statistically more likely to get STDs & AIDS.
STD Increase among Gay and Bisexual Men
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf (broken link)

To be "Pro-Harmful behavior" is ignor-ant.
To be Pro human beings, no matter what their sexual deviations, is kind & respectful of humanity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
72,068 posts, read 83,735,637 times
Reputation: 41839
Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12 View Post
I know a lot of (or some) religious people are anti-gay and they defend their belief with things from the Bible. Sometimes I suspect that they use the Bible as an excuse for their anti-gay beliefs.

But it does seem that more atheist are open minded about homesexuality than Christians.

That being said, I am pretty sure there have got to be at least some atheist homophobes out there. But, I don't know a LOT of atheists. I can think of two people in my life who I know are atheist. So, I can't exactly have an accurate idea of how much more openminded atheist are on this subject.

Can you tell me if I'm right or wrong on this?
of course there are. Our own granddaughter, who is probably more Agnostic than an Atheist is not a bigot against gays but she certainly doesn't understand them nor would she go out of her way to be friends with them. She would never discrimiate against a person who is homosexual, but she doesn't believe in gay marriage or gays adopting children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Rivendell
1,387 posts, read 2,167,713 times
Reputation: 1650
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
of course there are. Our own granddaughter, who is probably more Agnostic than an Atheist is not a bigot against gays but she certainly doesn't understand them nor would she go out of her way to be friends with them. She would never discrimiate against a person who is homosexual, but she doesn't believe in gay marriage or gays adopting children.
Wow! Isn't that the definition of discrimination?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 10:30 PM
 
Location: Dix Hills, NY
120 posts, read 102,345 times
Reputation: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sizzly Friddle View Post
Wow! Isn't that the definition of discrimination?
Yup. Pretty much. I would love to read her's granddaughter's justification for it, quite frankly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 01:48 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,286,683 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul View Post
There has NEVER been a "gay gene" found in human beings.
Nor is there ever likely to be, as I do not think such a thing exists. That is not the same thing as saying that homosexuality does not have a genetic component however.

More likely than a "gay gene" is the fact that each and every one of us contain the genes for everything to do with the opposite sex too. There is no male genome and a different female genome. We all contain both. If you are a male then you contain all the genes for having breasts, female sexual organs, attraction to males and so on.

Any genetic component of homosexuality therefore is likely to have nothing to do with a "gay gene" and everything to do with the genes we already have being activated and expressed at the "wrong" time.

As such, like it or not, whatever sex you are you contain the genes for being attracted to that sex... the same as I do and the same as all gay and straight people both do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul View Post
The APA changed the definition of homosexuality, not because of science, but because of harassment from gay lobyists...
I have heard this before and have rarely seen any support for it except in biased blogs. However even if it was true... which it does not appear to be... it is entirely irrelevant. The reason it is irrelevant is because the question should not be why it was "changed" at all. The important question is whether there is any justifiable arguments, evidence or science for having it listed as a disorder in the first place.

The fact the answer to that appears to be "no" is why anti gays ignore the question and instead have tantrums about imagined harassment and conspiracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 07:15 AM
 
3,682 posts, read 4,943,346 times
Reputation: 2427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Nor is there ever likely to be, as I do not think such a thing exists. That is not the same thing as saying that homosexuality does not have a genetic component however.

More likely than a "gay gene" is the fact that each and every one of us contain the genes for everything to do with the opposite sex too. There is no male genome and a different female genome. We all contain both. If you are a male then you contain all the genes for having breasts, female sexual organs, attraction to males and so on.

Any genetic component of homosexuality therefore is likely to have nothing to do with a "gay gene" and everything to do with the genes we already have being activated and expressed at the "wrong" time.

As such, like it or not, whatever sex you are you contain the genes for being attracted to that sex... the same as I do and the same as all gay and straight people both do.



I have heard this before and have rarely seen any support for it except in biased blogs. However even if it was true... which it does not appear to be... it is entirely irrelevant. The reason it is irrelevant is because the question should not be why it was "changed" at all. The important question is whether there is any justifiable arguments, evidence or science for having it listed as a disorder in the first place.

The fact the answer to that appears to be "no" is why anti gays ignore the question and instead have tantrums about imagined harassment and conspiracy.
Good points and i agree with you. The highlighted area of your post is what I'm referring to as the 'defect'; this may just as well be an issue of semantics...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
72,068 posts, read 83,735,637 times
Reputation: 41839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sizzly Friddle View Post
Wow! Isn't that the definition of discrimination?
No, I don't realy think so. We have a gay foster daughter who has had the same partner for almost 20 years. She doesn't believe in gay marriage either because whe believes marriage is between a man and a woman, she also believes the ideal life for a child is a father and mother. Her own childhood told her this. That is not saying gays should never adopt, but given the option it is better for a child to be raised by a man and a woman. That is what I meant. By not discriminating I simply was referring to equal rights, no job discrimination and legal rights for gays, the same as hetrosexuals.

Nita
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 07:28 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,286,683 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinking-man View Post
Good points and i agree with you. The highlighted area of your post is what I'm referring to as the 'defect'; this may just as well be an issue of semantics...
I would expect it is yes, however I still do not see it as a defect. Evolution always plays with the genes it has. It does not plan ahead to new ones.

Again, as I said, many species benefit from having non-reproducing elements. However how they develop them differs wildly. As soon as you realize evolution often does this... and that it invariably seems to turn out to be a good thing for the species in question.... then you realize two other things:

1) We have no basis to suggest that homosexuality is not just another way of achieving this very same thing: Non-reproducing elements within a species.

and

2) Since evolution produces such elements all the time we have also really got no basis on which to consider it a "defect" but is actually a lot more "standard" than one might at first thing.

Both of which have been the main crux of the points I have made to you in the last few replies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 07:33 AM
 
Location: "Chicago"
1,867 posts, read 2,368,541 times
Reputation: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul View Post
Natural consequences of forcing parts to fit, that were not intended to fit, (like anal sex) involve health risks of anal fissures, colon rupture, anal cancer & bacterial infection. Also, because of this lack of fitting, those with homosexual preferences change partners much more often than heterosexuals do & are statistically more likely to get STDs & AIDS.
There it is! Yep just as sure as the sun comes up in the east, every thread about homosexuality eventually contains a mention of unprotected anal sex and the health concerns thereof. Even in the friggin' religion forum! Honestly I think some of you people have some sort of a fetish.



Oh, and they DO fit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top