Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=6356.msg76136#msg76136 date=1150910040]
If it was a naturally-occurring imbalance, this tendency naturally selects against the homosexual population. Evolutionarily speaking, it is abnormal.
I wanted to build on this point from the other thread. This statement was made in reference to homosexuality; that is, if it is a naturally occuring phenomenon, evolution would select against it, because homosexuals do not have a natural means by which to reproduce. That homosexuality persists raises several possibilities:
1.) It is contributed to, at least in part, by a "nurture" style (nature v. nurture debate).
2.) That sexuality is, at least in part, determined by multiple genes; and that homosexuality is likely regressive, has not been eliminated from the population, likely due to social influence against homosexuality.
3.) That sexuality is, at least in part, determined by choice of the individual.
Now, I don't know the relevance any of this has to the point that I'm bringing up. But I'll get around to it.
Homosexuals tend to be grouped into the non-mainstream-religion crowd, because the mainstream religions are all generally against homosexuality (I'm speaking of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity). Many have an atheistic point of view, or polytheistic viewpoint, where there is not a universal, absolute "law" of any kind; or if there is, it's in some ways subjective (like Buddhism or Hinduism).
Of late, there has been significant fighting among secularists and religious people about the appropriate separation of religion and government (I'm speaking now of the last 40 years in the United States). I'd like to carry this out to one possible end. The end I'm going to speak of is not necessarily probable, although I'd argue it's possible. The end that I'm speaking of is the complete abolition of theistic religion -- not because religion becomes illegal, but because it just dies out, likely due to social pressure causing loss of interest over a long period of time (likely multiple centuries).
Social psychologists argue that religion satisfies very particular, and very strong, social needs, like that of quelling the evolutionary terror of death. If theistic religion were to be eliminated, what would quell that fear?
I believe that we're already seeing the beginnings of what would happen in the ultra-hard-core evolutionary biologists. I call it the religion of atheism.
That atheism is a religious standpoint is not a new concept. Religious studies professors at universities frequently refer to athiesm as a religion as well; it is a set of common beliefs about how the universe works and why and how it came to be. Despite its lack of official organization, there are several branches of atheistic apologetics (evolutionary biology and evolutionary cosmology), and other branches of science are already beginning to depend on it (social psychology is huge on evolution, although not necessarily dependent on macroevolution).
Ethics have also become somewhat dependent on evolution. A secular society depends on evolution because it is allegedly (and I say that not meaning to be condescending, but to imply that this is not necessarily absolutely true) the most reasonable system we have of explaining the origin of human life and life in general. This also brings the scientific community to the forefront of a field that, up to this point, they have only been marginally a part of.
What would happen if secular ethicity was to be determined by genetic "purists"? It is a theme we commonly face now in media; in
X-Men, for instance, the greater human population reacts with fear to the mutant population because they are not genetically pure.
What if it is found that homosexuality is a genetic anomaly?
As I said at the outset, homosexuality would be selected against by the evolutionary process. Because the (theoretical) homosexuality gene(s) would not have a way by which to reproduce, it is by definition anomalous. Would a genetic "purist" would want it screened out?
Much like
1984 does with civil liberties, the idea of a future run by an atheistic culture has a potential to be very scary. It certainly won't happen during my lifetime; but I'm concerned that it will happen, period.
QuoteMuch like 1984 does with civil liberties, the idea of a future run by an atheistic culture has a potential to be very scary. It certainly won't happen during my lifetime; but I'm concerned that it will happen, period.
I'd argue that a country ran by a radical religious culture would have an equal potential to become very scary.
Quote from: Lord[nK] on June 21, 2006, 02:19:14 PM
QuoteMuch like 1984 does with civil liberties, the idea of a future run by an atheistic culture has a potential to be very scary. It certainly won't happen during my lifetime; but I'm concerned that it will happen, period.
I'd argue that a country ran by a radical religious culture would have an equal potential to become very scary.
I tend to agree, but this post isn't about a radical theistic religious culture, because we don't appear to be headed in that direction. :P
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=6363.msg76167#msg76167 date=1150914107]
Quote from: Lord[nK] on June 21, 2006, 02:19:14 PM
QuoteMuch like 1984 does with civil liberties, the idea of a future run by an atheistic culture has a potential to be very scary. It certainly won't happen during my lifetime; but I'm concerned that it will happen, period.
I'd argue that a country ran by a radical religious culture would have an equal potential to become very scary.
I tend to agree, but this post isn't about a radical theistic religious culture, because we don't appear to be headed in that direction. :P
...mmm, look at the Evangelical churches. Aren't they just supposed to be a generalized Christianity kinda thing? Those churches are HUGE, have HUGE congregations with HUGE money. They have influence in government. Atheists aren't organized, only the extremely wealthy individuals have influence where as the churches can put the medium-upper society all together & just push on.
I'm disappointed this didn't get more response. I put a lot of thought into it!
It's toooooooo loooooooooooooong.
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=6363.msg76406#msg76406 date=1151005059]
I'm disappointed this didn't get more response. I put a lot of thought into it!
;)
I put what bit of thought I could scrounge up (its summer, there aint much thought left) in disagreeing with the "atheism conquering the world" theory.
:( sorry
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6363.msg76455#msg76455 date=1151010192]
People are gay if they take it in the ass and don't like woman.
Theres nothing "genetic" about it.
I agree that there are a considerable number of cases (probably the majority) of non-genetic attraction to the same sex. These are in attempts to get attention.
However, I'm pretty sure that it's proven that a number of homosexuals prefer the same sex because of a hormone imbalence (lack of testosterone in males), which is unquestionably due to genetics.
Quote from: Sidoh on June 22, 2006, 06:08:22 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6363.msg76455#msg76455 date=1151010192]
People are gay if they take it in the ass and don't like woman.
Theres nothing "genetic" about it.
I agree that there are a considerable number of cases (probably the majority) of non-genetic attraction to the same sex. These are in attempts to get attention.
However, I'm pretty sure that it's proven that a number of homosexuals prefer the same sex because of a hormone imbalence (lack of testosterone in males), which is unquestionably due to genetics.
which means we should cure them ;)
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 22, 2006, 06:18:16 PM
which means we should cure them ;)
No. We have much more serious issues to exhaust our medical funds on.
Quote from: Sidoh on June 22, 2006, 06:20:29 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 22, 2006, 06:18:16 PM
which means we should cure them ;)
No. We have much more serious issues to exhaust our medical funds on.
Exactly. Why deal with homosexuality when shit like Darfur is happening? We should cure things that are truely detrimental to humanity before we worry about lifestyles.
Also, you saw X-3. It'd be like the mutant cure. If there was a "gay cure", sure, there would be many who might want it, but there would definitely be strongly against it.
I'm not saying it should be prioritized over other REAL health problems, but one could argue it should be fixed.
rabbit, I have a friend that doesnt like taking his ADD medicine, but society(doctors, teachers, parents) make him take it...he doesn like being on the drugs
But it is detrimental to his health to be off the drugs. Homosexuality is not detrimental.
You guys missed the point completely. The point of the thread was to talk about the dangers of saying things like 'we should cure them'!
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 22, 2006, 06:33:36 PM
I'm not saying it should be prioritized over other REAL health problems, but one could argue it should be fixed.
One could just as easily argue that people like you need to undergo psychological treatment.
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 22, 2006, 06:33:36 PM
rabbit, I have a friend that doesnt like taking his ADD medicine, but society(doctors, teachers, parents) make him take it...he doesn like being on the drugs
What was the point of saying that?
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
(Look at the spelling if you don't get it.)
Quote from: Joe on June 23, 2006, 07:06:55 PM
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
(Look at the spelling if you don't get it.)
::)
Quote from: Joe on June 23, 2006, 07:06:55 PM
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
(Look at the spelling if you don't get it.)
Oh God, you are so witty! :D
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=6363.msg76498#msg76498 date=1151016805]
You guys missed the point completely. The point of the thread was to talk about the dangers of saying things like 'we should cure them'!
I don't think it's possible to cure homosexuality. I believe that homosexuality is due to environmental conditions when the person is growing up and what they are exposed to. I don't think you can cure a thought or belief in someones head.
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=6363.msg76498#msg76498 date=1151016805]
You guys missed the point completely. The point of the thread was to talk about the dangers of saying things like 'we should cure them'!
...because atheism is so popular/strong/whatever?
Quote from: Sidoh on June 22, 2006, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 22, 2006, 06:33:36 PM
I'm not saying it should be prioritized over other REAL health problems, but one could argue it should be fixed.
One could just as easily argue that people like you need to undergo psychological treatment.
Since I'm not gay, I believe it'd be hard to argue that I need psych treatment for being gay ;)
Quote from: Sidoh on June 22, 2006, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 22, 2006, 06:33:36 PM
rabbit, I have a friend that doesnt like taking his ADD medicine, but society(doctors, teachers, parents) make him take it...he doesn like being on the drugs
What was the point of saying that?
that was cause rabbit mentioned something about people not wanting to be treated.
NOTE: I just babble about most of this, I dont think we should waste time/money/energy on curing gay people or anything that trivial, I'd WAY rather cure cancer/aids/alzheimers/parkinsons/diabetes/etc. I just believe homosexuality is wrong & I justify my belief by saying that there is something (mental, chemical, choice, or otherwise) wrong with homosexuality.
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 23, 2006, 07:41:46 PM
Since I'm not gay, I believe it'd be hard to argue that I need psych treatment for being gay ;)
I wasn't talking about your sexual preference. I was talking about your obvious biased opinion of people who do have a sexual preference other than your own.
Quote from: Sidoh on June 23, 2006, 08:22:18 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 23, 2006, 07:41:46 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on June 22, 2006, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 22, 2006, 06:33:36 PM
I'm not saying it should be prioritized over other REAL health problems, but one could argue it should be fixed.
One could just as easily argue that people like you need to undergo psychological treatment.
Since I'm not gay, I believe it'd be hard to argue that I need psych treatment for being gay ;)
I wasn't talking about your sexual preference. I was talking about your obvious biased opinion of people who do have a sexual preference other than your own.
Whats wrong with me believing that someone else is wrong?
I haven't imposed my view upon them. Should I not be allowed to express my opinion? Maybe we ought to have a communist revolution so we can supress everyones' opinions & ideas ;)
If you're against imposing opinions, why aren't you against imposing your sexual orientation onto others?
Quote from: Deuce on June 23, 2006, 10:00:00 PM
If you're against imposing opinions, why aren't you against imposing your sexual orientation onto others?
1) I havent imposed my sexual orientation on other people
2) It only makes sense that they are wrong about their orientation
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 22, 2006, 06:33:36 PM
rabbit, I have a friend that doesnt like taking his ADD medicine, but society(doctors, teachers, parents) make him take it...he doesn like being on the drugs
To me, that sounds like you want to
force others to take the hormone balancing drug, therefore alter their sexual orientation. They might be 'wrong' about their sexual orientation, but as long as it isn't harming anyone, there is no logical reason(to me, that is) to change it.
I didnt say that...I just gave rabbit an example of society forcing people to be "fixed" when they dont want to be
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 24, 2006, 07:32:38 PM
I didnt say that...I just gave rabbit an example of society forcing people to be "fixed" when they dont want to be
Homosexuals don't interfere with others' learning experience.
Quote from: Sidoh on June 24, 2006, 07:34:51 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 24, 2006, 07:32:38 PM
I didnt say that...I just gave rabbit an example of society forcing people to be "fixed" when they dont want to be
Homosexuals don't interfere with others' learning experience.
Unless they are around a bunch of homophobic people. ^^
Quote from: AntiVirus on June 24, 2006, 07:35:48 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on June 24, 2006, 07:34:51 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 24, 2006, 07:32:38 PM
I didnt say that...I just gave rabbit an example of society forcing people to be "fixed" when they dont want to be
Homosexuals don't interfere with others' learning experience.
Unless they are around a bunch of homophobic people. ^^
exactly!;)
Quote from: AntiVirus on June 24, 2006, 07:35:48 PM
Unless they are around a bunch of homophobic people. ^^
Homophobia is instilled in the minds of young people because homosexuality is "morally" wrong. I would conclude that most homosexuals are quiet about their sexual preferance in attempt to avoid ridicule.
But it would still disrupt the learning environment. Someone does have to come out of the closest for other people to know/think that they are gay. :)
Quote from: Sidoh on June 24, 2006, 07:39:42 PM
Quote from: AntiVirus on June 24, 2006, 07:35:48 PM
Unless they are around a bunch of homophobic people. ^^
Homophobia is instilled in the minds of young people because homosexuality is "morally" wrong. I would conclude that most homosexuals are quiet about their sexual preferance in attempt to avoid ridicule.
I dont think homophobia really exists...people just call the disagreement homophobia.
Also, I think I might agree that alot or even most gays are quiet about their orientation...they aren't the ones "stirring up trouble" tho. The overly flamboyant(?) ones that have more mood swings than a pregnant woman with hot flashes on her period (yes, I know, not possible, but still).
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 24, 2006, 07:48:17 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on June 24, 2006, 07:39:42 PM
Quote from: AntiVirus on June 24, 2006, 07:35:48 PM
Unless they are around a bunch of homophobic people. ^^
Homophobia is instilled in the minds of young people because homosexuality is "morally" wrong. I would conclude that most homosexuals are quiet about their sexual preferance in attempt to avoid ridicule.
I dont think homophobia really exists...people just call the disagreement homophobia.
Also, I think I might agree that alot or even most gays are quiet about their orientation...they aren't the ones "stirring up trouble" tho. The overly flamboyant(?) ones that have more mood swings than a pregnant woman with hot flashes on her period (yes, I know, not possible, but still).
Most phobia's don't really *exist*. They are just something the person created in their mind. Nothing more.
Isn't that what a phobia is?
Quote from: AntiVirus on June 24, 2006, 07:41:16 PM
But it would still disrupt the learning environment. Someone does have to come out of the closest for other people to know/think that they are gay. :)
Not really. ADD disrupts the learning environment because they interupt the teacher, interupt the students and things of this nature. A homosexual is simply present. The agony inflicted on people who are intollerant of homosexuals is not the fault of the homosexual.
Quote from: AntiVirus on June 24, 2006, 07:52:23 PM
Most phobia's don't really *exist*. They are just something the person created in their mind. Nothing more.
Fear is a mental condition. Of course they don't have an obvious physical presence. That's stating the obvious.
Quote from: Sidoh on June 24, 2006, 07:39:42 PM
Quote from: AntiVirus on June 24, 2006, 07:35:48 PM
Unless they are around a bunch of homophobic people. ^^
Homophobia is instilled in the minds of young people because homosexuality is "morally" wrong. I would conclude that most homosexuals are quiet about their sexual preferance in attempt to avoid ridicule.
Don't ask. Don't tell.
Quote from: Joe on June 24, 2006, 08:20:39 PM
Don't ask. Don't tell.
That's an entirely different situation.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell entails intended, explicit punishment for making your "non-standard" sexual preferance known.
Quote from: Sidoh on June 24, 2006, 08:14:17 PM
Quote from: AntiVirus on June 24, 2006, 07:41:16 PM
But it would still disrupt the learning environment. Someone does have to come out of the closest for other people to know/think that they are gay. :)
Not really. ADD disrupts the learning environment because they interupt the teacher, interupt the students and things of this nature. A homosexual is simply present. The agony inflicted on people who are intollerant of homosexuals is not the fault of the homosexual.
Quote from: AntiVirus on June 24, 2006, 07:52:23 PM
Most phobia's don't really *exist*. They are just something the person created in their mind. Nothing more.
Fear is a mental condition. Of course they don't have an obvious physical presence. That's stating the obvious.
Well of course that's just stating the obvious.. Mr. Stating the obvious about stating the obvious. :P
Wouldn't the "agony" inflicted on people because of a child with ADD not be the fault of the ADD child? Weren't they born that way? So it can't really be their fault if they were truely born with ADD and can't help themselfs.
Quote from: AntiVirus on June 24, 2006, 09:34:58 PM
Well of course that's just stating the obvious.. Mr. Stating the obvious about stating the obvious. :P
Hey, you started it! :P
Quote from: AntiVirus on June 24, 2006, 09:34:58 PM
Wouldn't the "agony" inflicted on people because of a child with ADD not be the fault of the ADD child? Weren't they born that way? So it can't really be their fault if they were truely born with ADD and can't help themselfs.
But the type of disruptions that a student with ADD causes are much, much more real than the ones a homosexual causes. People who feel disrupted in their learning environment because they are sitting in the same classroom with someone who's a homosexual should seek mental conditioning. I have no reason to understand why someone would feel threatened by such a situation.
Would you be concerned while sitting in a classroom of druggies, or "blue collar" criminals, or some other non-mainstream group that is "wrong" in what they do?
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 24, 2006, 10:57:59 PM
Would you be concerned while sitting in a classroom of druggies, or "blue collar" criminals, or some other non-mainstream group that is "wrong" in what they do?
Unless they attempt to force decisions onto me that I'm uncomfortable with, no. I wouldn't care in the least. They're not doing anything to disrupt my learning experience, are they?
Quote from: Sidoh on June 24, 2006, 11:42:08 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 24, 2006, 10:57:59 PM
Would you be concerned while sitting in a classroom of druggies, or "blue collar" criminals, or some other non-mainstream group that is "wrong" in what they do?
Unless they attempt to force decisions onto me that I'm uncomfortable with, no. I wouldn't care in the least. They're not doing anything to disrupt my learning experience, are they?
nah, they're just there.
but would they (being non-normal) being distracting on its own?
......nvm, I dont even know where I'm going with this anymore
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 25, 2006, 12:01:49 AM
but would they (being non-normal) being distracting on its own?
......nvm, I dont even know where I'm going with this anymore
Distracted by a presence is a mental condition, not a physical disability to pay attention due to distractions of sound and mislead conversation. Mental conditions are obviously self insued, so they can easily be ridded of by choosing to ignore the said "issue."
Quote from: Sidoh on June 24, 2006, 10:54:57 PM
Quote from: AntiVirus on June 24, 2006, 09:34:58 PM
Well of course that's just stating the obvious.. Mr. Stating the obvious about stating the obvious. :P
Hey, you started it! :P
Lmao. :D