26 of 27
26
Southern Baptist leader admits people are born gay…
Posted: 05 April 2007 10:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 376 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1321
Joined  2006-04-24

“rogerflat”]

Please explain why being molested as a child would turn a boy into a gay man? If we are all naturally heterosexual (as you suggest), then surely being molested by another, larger male would turn a child anti-gay when he grew up. I do realize that the trauma a girl would experience in being molested by a man could turn her against being attracted to men when she becomes a woman, but why would it necessarily turn her into a lesbian?

Why would having repeated gay sex with a man make you gay? Well, why would repeatedly using drugs make you a drug addict?

Sweet Jesus…  Roger, this is such bad, biased thinking…  You are presuming that drug addiction and homosexuality are analogous, as if it were a matter of fact that homosexual orientation were an addiction.  It isn’t, no more than heterosexual orientation were an addiction.  The fact that you think homosexuality were an addiction is evidence of your own sexual insecurity.  What, do you think that once you try it you won’t be able to go back?  Do you think once you experience the euphoria of gay sex, you won’t be able to give it up?  Third, I am no expert on drug addiction, since being the good boy that I am, I never tried any drugs, but I understand drug addiction is the result of some chemical reactions in the brain and the release of endorphins.  I knew I was gay LONG before I ever had gay sex.  I was attracted to men long before I ever had sex with men.  Fourth, you are arguming that the trauma of being molested as a child would make one gay, but as evidence you provide not another scenario that involves a traumatic experience, but being high, which, I understand, is pleasurable!  I mean, this is exactly the opposite kind of evidence than what you need to strenghten your case.

It’s hard to say why or how sexual abuse makes someone turn gay.

It’s not just hard to say why or how.  It has not even been established THAT sexual abuse makes one gay.  You continue to presume that this is an established fact.  You continue to invoke your own extremely limited personal experience in the matter, you continue to invoke anecdotal evidence.  Being an atheist, one would expect you to know how unreliable such evidence is.  Yet, you cling on to your opinion because you are simply looking for ways of justifying your own view.  You don’t care about what is true.  You just want to believe what you want to believe AND feel good about it, AND feel that you are justified in your hatred of homosexuality. 

You obviously didn’t get it eventhough I explained it thoroughly.  Babies are of course born gendered, but there is an attraction assigned to each gender which should be for the opposite sex (and is in ninety some percent of people).

Well, in a world in which babies were indeed designed by an intelligent designer, one might expect people to be assigned a sexual orientation that “makes sense”.  But you are forgetting that nature / evolution is not directed by any kind of intelligence.  There are all kinds of things in nature that do not “make sense”.  They happen because they can.  Kiwis have wings.  Our eyes have blind spots.  Men have nipples.  Unless these things actually harm our survival, there is no reason why they would be eliminated through evolution.  Again, please remind yourself that nature is not an intelligent designer.  You keep talking about how everyone SHOULD be assigned an attraction to the opposite sex.  That is your logical error.  Nature is not an intelligent designer, not does it have an intelligent director.  If it did, one might expect all people to be deisgned to be attracted to members of the opposite sex.  But it doesn’t.  Homosexuality happens because it can happen.  It is a part of human sexual varience.  There is no reason for evolution to eliminate it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 377 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  533
Joined  2006-07-14

What you and HH don’t seem to grasp Rami is that when I say “should” it is not that I “think” it should or that in some perfect world it “should” be that way. When I say that it “should” be that men prefer women I say that from a strictly scientific perspective.


This genius statement “Homosexuality happens because it can happen” is the least scientific think I’ve heard throughout this thread. Homosexuality defies the principles of natural selection. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen but what I’m saying is that things we see today evolved to be that way. Gays don’t evolve by not reproducing.  So if they are prevalent, which they are, then they came about some other way that is not related to natural selection/evolutionary/biological means.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 11:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 378 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

[quote author=“rogerflat”]What you and HH don’t seem to grasp Rami is that when I say “should” it is not that I “think” it should or that in some perfect world it “should” be that way. When I say that it “should” be that men prefer women I say that from a strictly scientific perspective.

So you’ve refuted Hume, have you?

How is it that you’ve been able to derive an ought from an is?

How is it scientific to say that men should prefer women?
Should men prefer beautiful women or fertile women? young women or older women? women who have a job or those that are idle?  Angry women, domineering women, placid women, shallow women?  Or just any woman?

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 11:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 379 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  533
Joined  2006-07-14

How is it scientific to say that men should prefer women?
Should men prefer beautiful women or fertile women? young women or older women? women who have a job or those that are idle? Angry women, domineering women, placid women, shallow women? Or just any woman?

Granted, from the previous statement I gather that science is not exactly a strong point for you, so I want go off on you too much since ignorance is not always equal to stupidity. However, if you’d actually read my posts and attempt to comprehend the explanation as to “why” it is scientific (which is always at the end of the paragraph) then you might learn something.

In this case, all women, regardless of being placid or jobless, are capable of producing offspring. So natural selection does not select for any of those characterstics more than any other. So it is moot to say men prefer women of a certain variety, especially those you listed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 380 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

[quote author=“rogerflat”]

How is it scientific to say that men should prefer women?
Should men prefer beautiful women or fertile women? young women or older women? women who have a job or those that are idle? Angry women, domineering women, placid women, shallow women? Or just any woman?

Granted, from the previous statement I gather that science is not exactly a strong point for you, so I want go off on you too much since ignorance is not always equal to stupidity. However, if you’d actually read my posts and attempt to comprehend the explanation as to “why” it is scientific (which is always at the end of the paragraph) then you might learn something.

In this case, all women, regardless of being placid or jobless, are capable of producing offspring. So natural selection does not select for any of those characterstics more than any other. So it is moot to say men prefer women of a certain variety, especially those you listed.

I have never said this to anyone, even people that I cannot stand on this site.  But you are a jerk.

But, in any event you inane response demonstrates irrefutably that you don’t know the first thing about science, biology, or being a human being.

By your logic, it is wrong to knowingly prefer to have sex with a woman who is incapable of reproduction.  Of course, as you have shown over and over again, you ignoramus, you don’t know the first thing about logic.

Nor do you understand moral philosophy, you nincompoop. Anyone who does knows that deriving an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ is notoriously difficult.  You have not even demonstrated any awareness that such a problem exists, let alone suggested how you have overcome it.

You are an ignorant, incurious, obtuse, close-minded, moron.  There is not point in trying to engage in any conversation with the likes of you.

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 12:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 381 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  533
Joined  2006-07-14

By your logic, it is wrong to knowingly prefer to have sex with a woman who is incapable of reproduction. Of course, as you have shown over and over again, you ignoramus, you don’t know the first thing about logic.

Since when did I try to tie the science behind reproduction to morality? I never said it is “wrong” to have sex with infertile women. But what I can say with absolute certainty is that if men did have an ability to determine that a woman was infertile and they still chose to mate with them, then those type of men would be not as common as the others.

And you can throw your ad homs onto the rest of your illogical rubbish, it won’t help.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 12:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 382 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

[quote author=“rogerflat”]

By your logic, it is wrong to knowingly prefer to have sex with a woman who is incapable of reproduction. Of course, as you have shown over and over again, you ignoramus, you don’t know the first thing about logic.

Since when did I try to tie the science behind reproduction to morality? I never said it is “wrong” to have sex with infertile women. But what I can say with absolute certainty is that if men did have an ability to determine that a woman was infertile and they still chose to mate with them, then those type of men would be not as common as the others.

And you can throw your ad homs onto the rest of your illogical rubbish, it won’t help.

You are the one who started with the ad hominems (at least with me).

Who cares if those men would not be as common? Why does that matter in the least?  Would that justify DISDAIN for them?

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 12:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 383 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

[quote author=“rogerflat”]
Since when did I try to tie the science behind reproduction to morality? I never said it is “wrong” to have sex with infertile women.

You talked about ‘shoulds’ as in “men should prefer women.”  How are we to take that?  Is it just a prediction?  Then who cares?  It certainly doesn’t justify disdain for homosexuality.

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 384 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1539
Joined  2006-12-04

[quote author=“rogerflat”] Yes, we understand you are gay and you don’t want to hear anything other than pro-gay comments.

No, I don’t like to hear any bigoted illogical idiocy that has any potential to harm. And your type of idiocy does. STAY AWAY FROM CHILDREN.

Yes, men “should” prefer women. Just like people “should” obey laws. You “should” go to bed at night.

Categorical errors ad infinitum.

[quote author=“waltercat”]You are an ignorant, incurious, obtuse, close-minded, moron. There is not point in trying to engage in any conversation with the likes of you.

Yup. So let’s stop.

 Signature 

“The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray.”
          — Robert G. Ingersoll

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 01:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 385 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

[quote author=“HappyHeathen”]
Yup. So let’s stop.

I think this is good advice.  And I have offered it myself on this very thread.  But for some reason many of us find ourselves compelled to argue with rogerflat.  Why is that?  Are we afraid that we might be wrong?  Not in my case.  Perhaps I have such unfounded faith in rational discourse that I think that it is capable of demonstrating to a person the error of his beliefs.

This entire thread has been profoundly unsatisfying and disturbing.  I have remained on the sidelines for the most part.  I have been impressed with the arguments that have been put forward, but none of them move roger.  Thus, I am left with a real skepticism about the value of rational discourse.

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 01:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 386 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1539
Joined  2006-12-04

[quote author=“waltercat”]But for some reason many of us find ourselves compelled to argue with rogerflat.  Why is that?  Are we afraid that we might be wrong?  Not in my case.

Me neither. I guess I’m just so incredibly baffled at how a person can be (intentionally?) blind to facts in the service of upholding such a twisted set of beliefs. At how his comebacks are absurd to the point of surrealism. It just feels like a call to rally against what seems a true abomination (take that, believers!)

 Signature 

“The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray.”
          — Robert G. Ingersoll

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 07:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 387 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1321
Joined  2006-04-24

“rogerflat”]What you and HH don’t seem to grasp Rami is that when I say “should” it is not that I “think” it should or that in some perfect world it “should” be that way. When I say that it “should” be that men prefer women I say that from a strictly scientific perspective.

Then “should” is not the right word.  “Should” implies that there is a preferable way of doing this, according to someone who is in a position to make this judgment.  Since there is no designer, and since nature has no consciousness, then “should” makes no sense.  There is no end goal, no purpose or aim to evolution.

This genius statement “Homosexuality happens because it can happen” is the least scientific think I’ve heard throughout this thread.

Let me explain.  The first thing you need to understand is that there is no intelligent designer.  I don’t think you really understand that because you keep acting as if things were purposefully designed.  They weren’t.  Our blind spot was not deliberately put there.  It’s there because that is how we evolved.  Is it ideal?  No.  It’d be better if we did not have a blind spot.  But our eyes work OK with the blind spot being where it is.  It has no harmed our survival or reproduction, so it has not been weeded out via evolution.  The blind spot happened because it could.  We did not deliberately evolve with a blind spot because there was a specific purpose for it.  And that is my point.  It is crucial that you understand this, roger.  None of our attributes are the result of a preconceived aim or purpose.  They ALL happened because they could.  Evolution encouraged those that were beneficial to survival and reproduction.  Evolution discouraged those attributes that harmed our survival and reproduction.  But then there are also the attributes that neither benefit nor harm our survival—like the blind spot.  The blind spot is not particularly harmful to our survival.  It is hardly the ideal design for the eye, but it works OK.  So evolution has not eliminated it.  It’s the same with the appendix.  It’s the same with homosexuality.  It does not harm the survival of the individual.  A homosexual person is no more likely to die (as a result of his homosexual trait) than a heterosexual person.  So homosexuality has not been weeded out through evolution, just like the blind spot and the appendix have not. 

Homosexuality defies the principles of natural selection. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen but what I’m saying is that things we see today evolved to be that way. Gays don’t evolve by not reproducing.  So if they are prevalent, which they are, then they came about some other way that is not related to natural selection/evolutionary/biological means.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that homosexuality could not be the result of evolution because gay people do not reproduce and therefore do not pass on their genetic material.  If the trait of homosexuality were the result of evolution and genetics, how could this trait be passed on if homosexuals do not reproduce?  Homosexuality must surely be the result of some other factors, like child molestation or utter unattractiveness to the opposite sex.  That seems to be the question/point you are trying to make.

You need to brush up on your genetics.  Let us, for the moment, assume that homosexuality is 100% the result of genetics.  There is a heterosexual gene and a homosexual gene.  The heterosexual gene is dominant, and we’ll call it “H”.  The homosexual gene is recessive, and we’ll call it “h”.  A person who is HH would be heterosexual.  A person who is hh would be homosexual.  A heterozygote (Hh) would be heterosexual, but would be a carrier of the “gay gene”. 

It would not be necessary for homosexuals to reproduce in order for the gay genes to be passed on.  One fourth of the offspring of two heterozygotes (Hh + Hh) would be hh (homosexual).  Another fourth would be HH (heterosexual) and one half would be Hh (heterosexual carriers of the gay gene).  So, even if gay people never reproduced, homosexuality would continue to exist because 25% of the offspring of heterozygote couples would be homosexuals.  And, in this scenario, (according to my calculations) about 40% of the human population would carry at least one “gay gene”.

I am not saying that homosexuality is 100% determined by genetics.  But if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, this is what would explain how homosexuality has not been weeded out, even after millions of years of evolution, even though, in theory, homosexuals do not pass their genetic material on to the next generation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 07:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 388 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1321
Joined  2006-04-24

“rogerflat

Yes but an innate sexual preference would be due to a genetic predisposition to that preference. Hence, this would be carried from one generation to the next and be inherited.  Anyone who knows jack about evolution 101 knows that humans only survive by reproducing with the opposite sex.  The long term survivors should be heterosexual breeders.  A long lasting preference for the same sex would not be a trait that was prone to being passed on.

Well, apparently you don’t know jack about evolution.  Even if homosexuals never reproduce, the trait for homosexuality will still be passed on - through the union of heterosexual individuals who are heterozygotes (carriers of the gene responsible for the homosexual trait).  So it is perfectly possible for homosexuality to be passed on even if homosexuals never reproduce. 

So, if that innate preference is true for SOME homosexuals (because of course that is not the case for all),

And you state that as if it were a matter of fact, rather than the result of your misinformation and bias.

then it must be a result of some anomaly just like autism and other genetic defects cause those individuals to be less likely to reproduce but yet the trait remains prevalent in the genepool due to recessiveness, etc.

Like I said, it would not be necessary for homosexuals to reproduce in order for the trait of homosexuality to be passed on.  Anyone who knows jack about genetics would be able to figure that out.

Gays aren’t defective as people, they are defective as breeders.  But this still implies that something is “not right” with them and that their behavior is not natural and perhaps unhealthy.

“Defective” is a loaded word.  Gays are not defective anything.  Homosexuality does not compel the individual to pass on his genetic material.  I’ll give you that.  But so what?  That does not in any way threaten or hinder the survival of the species.  Some evolutionary biologists have suggested that homosexuality may also have provided the species with an evolutionary advantage.  I myself am unconvinced by that argument, but the fact remains is that a trait does not need to be beneficial in order to exist.  So long as it is not harmful, there is no reason for evolution to weed it out through natural selection.  Look at the blind spot.  There is no evolutionary advantage to our having a blind spot.  If anything, it is harmful—but it is not harmful enough to our survival for evolution to eliminate it through natural selection.  Our eyes work well enough even with the blind spot.  And so this characteristic which has no evolutionary benefit to the individual or the species, is passed on.  Why wouldn’t it be? 

The implication that something is “wrong” with homosexuality is the result of the negative denotation loaded language like “defective”.  You then go on to accuse homosexuality of being—therefore—unnatural and unhealthy.  Again, this is the result of nothing but loaded words like “defective”.  You are using the “loadedness” of this word as evidence for homosexuality’s unnaturalness and unhealthiness. 

Homosexuality is indeed natural.  It exists in nature.  It happens.  Why wound’t it?  And what is it that makes homosexuality unhealthy?  I am gay.  I am surviving just fine.  I don’t think you even know what you mean by that.  You just like thinking it because it lends support to the idea that you just don’t like homosexuality. 

If you want to not like homosexuality, go right ahead.  But please have the intellectual honesty to admit that it is a matter of subjective taste and quit trying to rationalize it and find justification for it.  Simply admit it to yourself that you are being irrational and that that is the price you need to pay for the endorphins you get at the thought of how disgusted you are by homosexuality.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.  Your argument is utterly bankrupt.  You have no logical or scientific argument.  But you persist nevertheless—because you like the way you feel about homosexuality and you really, really want to feel that you are justified in feeling that way.  Well, tough.  You are not.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2007 04:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 389 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  533
Joined  2006-07-14

A homosexual person is no more likely to die (as a result of his homosexual trait) than a heterosexual person. So homosexuality has not been weeded out through evolution,

Rami, at first I thought you didn’t understand evolution because of this statement, but you did provide additional explanation later which sort of made up for it. However, liklihood of dying has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is strictly driven by reproduction. Dying only plays a factor if it prevents an person from reproducing, but in homosexuals that wouldn’t matter anyway because they never reproduce.

Even a recessive trait that is not directly passed on, can be weeded out over time if it hinders reproduction.  Because the family that passes on no “gay genes” will end up with all four children reproducing whereas the family with the gay member will only have three. 

I’m not an expert on genetics so I’m not going to sit here and say that there isn’t some sort of genetic link to homosexuality, because I don’t know for sure. But based on the principles of evolution it doesn’t seem that the genetic reasons behind homosexuality would be the drving force.

There was also some misunderstanding as to me wagering a moral opinion about homosexuality based on it being a genetic defect. I don’t like it as a personal choice, but it just so happens it that it may or may not be a genetic defect too. Either way I still, personally, don’t like it, and that is my right.

I understand some of what you guys mean about it being wrong to blame them. Whether it is a result of genetics or molestation, they still don’t have a choice in being gay. But I’m not Mother Teresa either, and if you are defective and doing something I don’t like, I’ll just take it at face value and tell you I don’t like you. Your malfunction is your problem, not mine.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2007 08:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 390 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1539
Joined  2006-12-04

[quote author=“rogerflat”]Your malfunction is your problem, not mine.

Unfortunately, your malfunction becomes increasingly evident the more you post.

 Signature 

“The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray.”
          — Robert G. Ingersoll

Profile
 
 
   
26 of 27
26
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed