Thread: Renamed: Homosexuality as influenced by the environment

Before you read this post, let me clarify what I'm (not) saying. I'm not saying a person gets up one day and say "I feel as if I'd be gay today" and suddenly become homosexual. I'm saying that homosexuality is not nature, but rather influenced by the environment.

Homosexuality is not an inborn trait, but rather a chosen path. If homosexuals were indeed born homosexual, natural selection would get rid of the homosexual gene. Some argue, though, that homosexuality has been recently observed in lower animals; however, that's recently, meaning that there is still more years left for the gene to be fully gotten rid of. The strongest argument regarding homosexuality in lower animals would be that in a certain reptile species (some type of lizard, I don't remember its name). These species only have females; the females carry out what seems to be mating behavior just before they lay eggs. This, however, is necessary, unlike other homosexual behavior; thus, natural selection would not take out this 'gene', because without it the species cannot go on.

Another route proponents of the 'inborn homosexuality theory' take is in saying that environment does not affect whether someone is homosexual or not; thus, it's nature. These persons argue that many non-homosexuals come from homosexual families; however, these persons fail to realise that it is not necessarily the family, but rather the peers that have most influence on a young child's life. Furthermore, the family would not force the child to be homosexual, as society would look down upon this, and it would be a damage to their struggle for equal rights. Not that the peers force the child to be homosexual, but they, in a sense, convince them that homosexuality is 'cool', and, in the case of women, hot; it's the easiest way to be non-conformist and show your freedom/express yourself. It's like a low degree of peer pressure. Some argue that, as homosexuals, they cannot even envision themselves as heterosexuals. I believe this. If they have been homosexuals for a long time, it would be virtually impossible for them to be heterosexual; but this is because they have chosen homosexuality as their sexual identity. Once this is done in the identity vs. role confusion (I believe that's what it's called) stage of Erikson's stages of development, it is hard to go back; it is no different than if homosexuality really were a gene.

At this point I must entreat you to keep in mind that I am not against homosexual rights. Though I disagree with their actions, I do believe that people have a right to do what they want to do without being deprived of their societal rights, so long as what they're doing doesn't infringe upon other people's rights. I fail to see why people believe that homosexuals should not have equal rights, as they are humans, just like heterosexuals. Even so-called Christians are against homosexual rights, when their doctrine clearly states that God gave man freedom of choice.

To cut a long post short, homosexuals ought to have their rights; however, that does not mean that homosexuality is not a choice.

Feel free to cut my throat!

i've always regarded myself as 100% straight - no choice involved, that's just the way i've turned out

so i assume it's the same if you're gay

Could it be something like sickle cell? The sickle cell gene is a recessive gene that protects against malaria but causes anemia if one inherits the gene from both parents.

except what is the advantage of a "gay gene" (if there is such a thing) ? by definition gays don't reproduce, so the only way they could promote the fitness of their genes is by enhancing the survival of their relatives

The sickle cell anemia does not help its victims, either, but the incompletely recessive gene apparently protects the carrier against malaria. So there could be some as yet unidentified advantage to being a "gay gene" carrier.

Wow, talk about ironic. I just had like a 4 hour conversation with a friend last week about homosexuality in current events.

Personally I think there's clearly two kinds of homosexuality:

1. Homosexuality caused by social desires/trends

2. Homosexuality caused by biological defect

In the former case, social pressures can cause someone to partake in homosexuality.

In the later case, homosexuality is alike to dyslexia or color-blindness.

ah well, that's one way of having your cake and eating it

Apparently people are misinterpreting what I mean by 'choice.' Perhaps I should have been more specific in my diction. By 'choice', I don't mean "Oh, I feel like being homosexual...so...yea...I'm gay!" No, I mean that it's not a biological happening, but rather as a result of the environment (nurture, as they say). So this is really just kind of an extension of the nature vs. nurture controversy.

I think gender identity has something to do with brain chemistry, probably testosterone or estrogen, but biology was in 8th grade. Or maybe I learned that in psych. hmmm....

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

So this is really just kind of an extension of the nature vs. nurture controversy.

maybe you should read Matt Ridley's book "Nature via nurture" on how recent findings in genetics have shown the nature versus nurture dichotomy to be a false one, and that genes (nature) can only express themselves through interaction with the environment (nurture)

This is a good book, though I don't recall Ridley's take on homosexuality. The fact is that it is not a choice. I fail to see how you (sciphil) can describe the effects of the environment as being a choice. that really is corrupting the language a meaning too far.
There appear to be both genetic controls and influences within the womb that determine the emergence of homosexual preferences. So, no, it is most definitely not a choice. The only choice is in whether or nto one chooses to act upon ones natural preferences.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

This is a good book, though I don't recall Ridley's take on homosexuality. The fact is that it is not a choice. I fail to see how you (sciphil) can describe the effects of the environment as being a choice. that really is corrupting the language a meaning too far.
There appear to be both genetic controls and influences within the womb that determine the emergence of homosexual preferences. So, no, it is most definitely not a choice. The only choice is in whether or nto one chooses to act upon ones natural preferences.

You still misinterpret what I'm saying. I corrected myself by saying I don't mean choice as in "I choose to be homosexual", but rather that homosexuality is not a result of nature, but rather as a result of the environment.

I don't know the causes homosexuality. It's mildly interesting to me. I feel it's none of my business, and I suspect that a lot of other people ought to feel the same way. However, speaking of science...

If homosexuals were indeed born homosexual, natural selection would get rid of the homosexual gene.

This is nonsense and it annoys me to hear things like this over and over again from people whose understanding of evolution is limited to a list of meaningless buzz words. Evolution does not get "rid" of genes. In fact, this dumbed down view is in disagreement with one of the most important factors that make evolution a successful process: Genetic diversity. Even a gene that leads to an immediately fatal condition (and homosexuality is not like that, as far as I know) can and likely will re-appear over time. It may have originally emerged through mutation, and it can happen again. That's the extreme case. Homosexuality may inhibit the urge to mate with the other sex and thus have a chance for offspring, but that doesn't mean it's never going to happen. Presumably heterosexual male giraffes (and other animals) have been observed to try to mate with other males when no female was willing or available. The same can happen the other way around: A homosexual individual, having no luck with all the other heterosexual males in its group, will eventually turn to a female. Furthermore, if there were an allele for homosexuality, it may not be dominant. Just as a brown-haired couple can bear a blonde child because both parents possess recessive alleles for that hair color, so could a recessive allele for homosexuality be carried by heterosexual individuals and thus survive comfortably. All this is still expressed in over-simplified terms, but the point is this: Whether homosexuality is genetic or not is not answered by the above nonsensical proclamation.

Originally Posted by M

I don't know the causes homosexuality. It's mildly interesting to me. I feel it's none of my business, and I suspect that a lot of other people ought to feel the same way. However, speaking of science...

If homosexuals were indeed born homosexual, natural selection would get rid of the homosexual gene.

This is nonsense and it annoys me to hear things like this over and over again from people whose understanding of evolution is limited to a list of meaningless buzz words. Evolution does not get "rid" of genes...

I'm not saying evolution gets rid of genes. I thought that you'd use your common sense to see what I'm saying. If there were indeed a homosexual gene, the only way it would be passed down would be through heterosexual activities; thus, the gene would be self-destructive. The genes that survive are those that get passed on to the next generation, otherwise the individuals with those genes simply die out.

There are a lot of "random" things that continue with evolution even though they do not seem to have a function in survival. In fact, that is what makes such a strong case for evolution is there are so many unnecessary biological developments to be found as opposed to a creator who would probably make everything have a purpose:

1. All the excess genes that have been discovered in DNA that play no role in biology now, but did at one time
2. Your appendix
3. Any sexual preference that is not specifically intercourse (why would that be transmitted when it is not directly related to propagation of the species?)

And so, on. To suggest that evolving biology is so perfect that every artifact has a specific purpose is to ignore the randomness of evolution and many of the random things that get passed on regardless. It is these random things that give evolution its credibility.

If there is a creator, he/she created a ton of useless things (is Pluto or Neptune really necessary? Why so many billions of planets and stars that have no purpose? Was creating malaria, typhoid, bubonic plague, yellow fever, really necessary? The all seem like random developments to me.)
If there is a creator, he has a lot to answer for.

Originally Posted by Retromingent

There are a lot of "random" things that continue with evolution even though they do not seem to have a function in survival. In fact, that is what makes such a strong case for evolution is there are so many unnecessary biological developments to be found as opposed to a creator who would probably make everything have a purpose:

1. All the excess genes that have been discovered in DNA that play no role in biology now, but did at one time
2. Your appendix
3. Any sexual preference that is not specifically intercourse (why would that be transmitted when it is not directly related to propagation of the species?)

And so, on. To suggest that evolving biology is so perfect that every artifact has a specific purpose is to ignore the randomness of evolution and many of the random things that get passed on regardless. It is these random things that give evolution its credibility.

If there is a creator, he/she created a ton of useless things (is Pluto or Neptune really necessary? Why so many billions of planets and stars that have no purpose? Was creating malaria, typhoid, bubonic plague, yellow fever, really necessary? The all seem like random developments to me.)
If there is a creator, he has a lot to answer for.

If you'd look at my post (right above yours), you'll see why a homosexual gene would not be like those "random things" that get passed on. A homosexual gene would not get passed on (unless that homosexual were to mate with someone of the opposite sex, which would be quite uncommon, and there wouldn't be as many homosexuals as there are today).

Originally Posted by Retromingent

If there is a creator, he/she created a ton of useless things (is Pluto or Neptune really necessary? Why so many billions of planets and stars that have no purpose? Was creating malaria, typhoid, bubonic plague, yellow fever, really necessary? The all seem like random developments to me.)
If there is a creator, he has a lot to answer for.

In response to this,
We tend to believe that anything that doesn't serve a purpose to man is useless; but let us look through the eyes of God here. The reason He created planets, etc., would be the same reason He created man: because He was bored.

About malaria and other diseases, it's simple: population control and punishment.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by Retromingent

If there is a creator, he/she created a ton of useless things (is Pluto or Neptune really necessary? Why so many billions of planets and stars that have no purpose? Was creating malaria, typhoid, bubonic plague, yellow fever, really necessary? The all seem like random developments to me.)
If there is a creator, he has a lot to answer for.

In response to this,
We tend to believe that anything that doesn't serve a purpose to man is useless; but let us look through the eyes of God here. The reason He created planets, etc., would be the same reason He created man: because He was bored.

About malaria and other diseases, it's simple: population control and punishment.

So, if you catch malaria it's punishment from above, huh? If true, then god obviously is not pleased with missionaries. I guess he doesn't like those who dedicate their lives to his worship.

Originally Posted by Retromingent

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by Retromingent

If there is a creator, he/she created a ton of useless things (is Pluto or Neptune really necessary? Why so many billions of planets and stars that have no purpose? Was creating malaria, typhoid, bubonic plague, yellow fever, really necessary? The all seem like random developments to me.)
If there is a creator, he has a lot to answer for.

In response to this,
We tend to believe that anything that doesn't serve a purpose to man is useless; but let us look through the eyes of God here. The reason He created planets, etc., would be the same reason He created man: because He was bored.

About malaria and other diseases, it's simple: population control and punishment.

So, if you catch malaria it's punishment from above, huh? If true, then god obviously is not pleased with missionaries. I guess he doesn't like those who dedicate their lives to his worship.

The disease bit was meant to be humorous.

On a serious note,
most theists believe that when it (disease) happens to devout people, God's just testing them; and when it happens to non-devout people (not necessarily atheists), he's punishing them for some huge misdemeanor. I only believe this to some extent. For the most part, I believe God just allows nature to do whatever it wants to (though not to the extent that a deist does), except on rare occasions; but that's just my belief: you can believe whatever you want...

A homosexual gene would not get passed on (unless that homosexual were to mate with someone of the opposite sex, which would be quite uncommon, and there wouldn't be as many homosexuals as there are today).

Apparently, you didn't get my comment on recessive alleles, as an example how genetic information is passed on, but never mind.

Another aspect you are ignoring is society. The majority of humans is (and probably always has been) heterosexual and that's embedded in (and controlled by) social norms. The majority lives under these norms (take for example the common marriage between man and woman), either in agreement, or because they are pressured to adhere. Over time, societies have had varying levels of tolerance towards homosexuality (classic example of "Greek" love in the ancient Greece, or sexual tolerance in Thailand). However, it is no secret that in the recent centuries of religious and political oppression (at least in the "west"), homosexuals had to either hide or completely oppress their passion, which doesn't mean these people didn't exist and didn't have kids. Marriage between a homosexual and a heterosexual partner of opposite sex used to be (and probably still is) very common because of the pressure of society. How is that for propagation of genes?

For an analogy, just consider left-handedness. People, like scientstphilosophertheist, who tend to think these kinds of, what they call "abnormal", behavior are a matter of choice, have been beating the crap out of kids for the longest time, trying to convert them to their norms. Has it helped? Has it ever made much sense? Is the euthanasia of Nazi Germany (on the same basis of protecting a norm) a defendable practice??

As a modern society, we aren't animals anymore, whose success depends on instincts and the effects of nature alone. We determine our own (cultural) evolution. If we let severely disadvantaged people live, instead of letting them die, as they would in nature, it's because of love, compassion, and humanity in general. That's what separates us from animals. Norms are subject to change. We make our own in accordance with humanity. Slavery had been a norm for the longest time. Finally getting rid of it had nothing to do with following traditions. Au contraire!

Sexuality has come a long way from merely being a means of reproduction. And that's not something that happened over night. We can only speculate about the cultural sexual practices of early human beings. Bonobos may not be the only primates who use (homo- and hetero-) sex to form social bonds.

However, disregarding everything I said, whether left-handedness, sexuality, disability, or anything that's considered outside of norm, my main point is still this: People are too busy sticking their noses into things that don't concern them. For example, what two adult people do consensually and legally in the bedroom of your neighbors house is none of your damn business. Why not quit this obsession of trying to convert everyone to your own religious norms? Relax. Chill. Live your life as you will, and let others live theirs. Learn the meaning of "tolerance". And above all: Quit trying to promote your religious dogma by trying to wrap it in a pseudo-scientific cloak. We've had enough of that.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by Retromingent

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by Retromingent

If there is a creator, he/she created a ton of useless things (is Pluto or Neptune really necessary? Why so many billions of planets and stars that have no purpose? Was creating malaria, typhoid, bubonic plague, yellow fever, really necessary? The all seem like random developments to me.)
If there is a creator, he has a lot to answer for.

In response to this,
We tend to believe that anything that doesn't serve a purpose to man is useless; but let us look through the eyes of God here. The reason He created planets, etc., would be the same reason He created man: because He was bored.

About malaria and other diseases, it's simple: population control and punishment.

So, if you catch malaria it's punishment from above, huh? If true, then god obviously is not pleased with missionaries. I guess he doesn't like those who dedicate their lives to his worship.

The disease bit was meant to be humorous.

On a serious note,
most theists believe that when it (disease) happens to devout people, God's just testing them; and when it happens to non-devout people (not necessarily atheists), he's punishing them for some huge misdemeanor. I only believe this to some extent. For the most part, I believe God just allows nature to do whatever it wants to (though not to the extent that a deist does), except on rare occasions; but that's just my belief: you can believe whatever you want...

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by Retromingent

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by Retromingent

If there is a creator, he/she created a ton of useless things (is Pluto or Neptune really necessary? Why so many billions of planets and stars that have no purpose? Was creating malaria, typhoid, bubonic plague, yellow fever, really necessary? The all seem like random developments to me.)
If there is a creator, he has a lot to answer for.

In response to this,
We tend to believe that anything that doesn't serve a purpose to man is useless; but let us look through the eyes of God here. The reason He created planets, etc., would be the same reason He created man: because He was bored.

About malaria and other diseases, it's simple: population control and punishment.

So, if you catch malaria it's punishment from above, huh? If true, then god obviously is not pleased with missionaries. I guess he doesn't like those who dedicate their lives to his worship.

The disease bit was meant to be humorous.

On a serious note,
most theists believe that when it (disease) happens to devout people, God's just testing them; and when it happens to non-devout people (not necessarily atheists), he's punishing them for some huge misdemeanor. I only believe this to some extent. For the most part, I believe God just allows nature to do whatever it wants to (though not to the extent that a deist does), except on rare occasions; but that's just my belief: you can believe whatever you want...

I'm sorry. I didn't read your comment carefully and missed your point, my mistake. I have to agree with you that should there be a God that it does not intervene in nature. The fact that you say it's a "belief" is encouraging as I think that without some doubt on speculative matters (evolution included) leads to a lot of unnecessary conflict. I find it disconcerting that some can be so certain in something that they can't prove they believe others should die for it. It's good to have some doubt.

I get tired of the genetic argument. Genetics don't influence that much about our behavior. That's more the domain of upbringing, and experience, and emotional baggage. Homosexuality is more likely an emotional disposition, than a genetic one.

That said, emotional dispositions are a hell of a thing. I don't think a person with the right background has a choice about how they'll feel. They can choose what they do, but not how it will affect them emotionally.

More often than not, when I've met a homosexual and gotten to know them, their relationship with their father has been either

A) He was excessively authoritarian
B) It was impossible to measure up to him/ get any approval
C) something else along those lines.

Their mother was usually excessively submissive, to the point of seeming entirely powerless.

I can see how a person from that life would find relationships with women to be pretty much meaningless from an emotional perspective, and only really want to relate intimately with men. I mean, I can kind of see it, but I don't fully understand it.

Originally Posted by kojax

I get tired of the genetic argument. Genetics don't influence that much about our behavior.

Genetics don't influence our behavior much? Are you familiar with the research of Derek Freeman? After an extensive and long study of twins who were separated, for one reason or another, adopted and raised by different families in different environments, and even in different countries, turned out to be extraordinary similar in personalty, likes, occupations (a large percentage of the twins wound in the exact same occupation), affinity for drinking or drugs, and even homosexuality. The statistical occurrence was far beyond normal distribution, and thus not random. I don't think you can write off the influences of genetics so easily. Judith Ruth Harris also make a great case for this point of view in "The Nurture Assumption."

Originally Posted by M

A homosexual gene would not get passed on (unless that homosexual were to mate with someone of the opposite sex, which would be quite uncommon, and there wouldn't be as many homosexuals as there are today).

Apparently, you didn't get my comment on recessive alleles, as an example how genetic information is passed on, but never mind.

Yes. I missed that; a good argument, but can't recessive alleles be slowly gotten rid of (for lack of a better word) also?

Originally Posted by M

Another aspect you are ignoring is society. The majority of humans is (and probably always has been) heterosexual and that's embedded in (and controlled by) social norms. The majority lives under these norms (take for example the common marriage between man and woman), either in agreement, or because they are pressured to adhere. Over time, societies have had varying levels of tolerance towards homosexuality (classic example of "Greek" love in the ancient Greece, or sexual tolerance in Thailand). However, it is no secret that in the recent centuries of religious and political oppression (at least in the "west"), homosexuals had to either hide or completely oppress their passion, which doesn't mean these people didn't exist and didn't have kids. Marriage between a homosexual and a heterosexual partner of opposite sex used to be (and probably still is) very common because of the pressure of society. How is that for propagation of genes?

Yes, society is also an important factor in their reproducing with heterosexuals. If it really is a gene, we'd have to wait a couple years (after you and I are dead and rotting) to see what happens; whether after their being allowed to express this gene would indeed destroy it.

Originally Posted by M

For an analogy, just consider left-handedness. People, like scientstphilosophertheist, who tend to think these kinds of, what they call "abnormal", behavior are a matter of choice, have been beating the crap out of kids for the longest time, trying to convert them to their norms. Has it helped? Has it ever made much sense? Is the euthanasia of Nazi Germany (on the same basis of protecting a norm) a defendable practice??

I'm offended by this. In my initial post I've clearly stated that regardless of whether it is a choice or not, people are allowed to do what they will, and clearly pointed out that I am against depriving people of their rights so long as their choice doesn't infringe on others' rights. Claiming that "people like [me] beat the crap out of kids...to convert them to [my] norms" is an unnecessary ad hominem attack. Further, unlike homosexuality, it is clear that left handedness is not necessarily a matter of choice (though one can practice to be right-handed upon disablement--if that's a word--of their left hand).

Originally Posted by M

As a modern society, we aren't animals anymore, whose success depends on instincts and the effects of nature alone. We determine our own (cultural) evolution. If we let severely disadvantaged people live, instead of letting them die, as they would in nature, it's because of love, compassion, and humanity in general. That's what separates us from animals. Norms are subject to change. We make our own in accordance with humanity. Slavery had been a norm for the longest time. Finally getting rid of it had nothing to do with following traditions. Au contraire!

I fail to see where you're going with all this rambling.

Originally Posted by M

Sexuality has come a long way from merely being a means of reproduction. And that's not something that happened over night. We can only speculate about the cultural sexual practices of early human beings. Bonobos may not be the only primates who use (homo- and hetero-) sex to form social bonds.

Again, what's with the unnessary rambling? Who said sexuality is still only a means of reproduction?

Originally Posted by M

However, disregarding everything I said, whether left-handedness, sexuality, disability, or anything that's considered outside of norm, my main point is still this: People are too busy sticking their noses into things that don't concern them. For example, what two adult people do consensually and legally in the bedroom of your neighbors house is none of your damn business. Why not quit this obsession of trying to convert everyone to your own religious norms? Relax. Chill. Live your life as you will, and let others live theirs. Learn the meaning of "tolerance". And above all: Quit trying to promote your religious dogma by trying to wrap it in a pseudo-scientific cloak. We've had enough of that.

I'm not sticking my nose in other people's business. I'm just arguing against a recent claim that homosexuality is not due to choice. What would be "sticking my nose in other people's business" would be saying that we should stop all homosexual activity immediately. Again, all you've said is just unnecessary rambling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A trend that I've been observing is: people tend to start going off on tangents as soon as somebody says something that even appears to be anti-homosexual. My simple statement that homosexuality is not choice suddenly turned me into a child abuser who thinks that sexuality is only for reproduction, and who believes that anybody who's not "of the norm" should have their rights deprived. Oh, yeah, and I'm trying to promote my religious dogma. Now, if it wasn't obvious in my username, I don't see how someone would know that I'm religious from my post. Do all non-religious persons believe that homosexuality isn't a choice? I didn't know that. Do only child/disabled people/left handed people abusers believe homosexuality to be choice? I didn't know that either. Oh, and freaks who think sex is only for reproduction, too? I see.

Thanks for enlightening me on these facts.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Homosexuality is not an inborn trait, but rather a chosen path. If homosexuals were indeed born homosexual, natural selection would get rid of the homosexual gene.

Natural selection doesn't necessarily get rid of traits just because they decrease the likelihood of reproduction or survival, it just makes them statistically unflavored. "Statistically unflavored" is not the same as "guaranteed to be eliminated". Also, it might not be caused by a single gene that could be easily eliminated – there might be multiple combinations of different genes that can lead to the trait.

In any case, I believe that studies have shown that if one identical twin is homosexual, the other is extremely likely to also be homosexual - even when the twins are raised apart. That would seem to pretty much prove that it’s genetic.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Homosexuality is not an inborn trait, but rather a chosen path. If homosexuals were indeed born homosexual, natural selection would get rid of the homosexual gene.

Are you serious? That is Biblical inerrancy talk and ludicrous in a science forum. Evolution does not do away with homosexuality because it has a stabilizing function in primate life. It balances the alpha male nature. If all males were alphas, group living would be impossible as all would be in bitter struggle for the top job. It is common to most all social mammals and exist for that reason. it will not be evolved away and is not a choice.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

does god create homosexuals?

so you adhust the question and not reset the poll, that don't seem correct

Originally Posted by charles brough

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Homosexuality is not an inborn trait, but rather a chosen path. If homosexuals were indeed born homosexual, natural selection would get rid of the homosexual gene.

Are you serious? That is Biblical inerrancy talk and ludicrous in a science forum. Evolution does not do away with homosexuality because it has a stabilizing function in primate life. It balances the alpha male nature. If all males were alphas, group living would be impossible as all would be in bitter struggle for the top job. It is common to most all social mammals and exist for that reason. it will not be evolved away and is not a choice.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

"Stabalizing the funtion in primate life"??? That makes no sense whatsoever. I have reconsidered my argument about natural selection getting rid of the gene, but nevertheless I consider this one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.


J_M,
Yes, though I fail to see where your question's headed.

captain C,
I don't think I can change the poll after someone's already voted.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by charles brough

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Homosexuality is not an inborn trait, but rather a chosen path. If homosexuals were indeed born homosexual, natural selection would get rid of the homosexual gene.

Are you serious? That is Biblical inerrancy talk and ludicrous in a science forum. Evolution does not do away with homosexuality because it has a stabilizing function in primate life. It balances the alpha male nature. If all males were alphas, group living would be impossible as all would be in bitter struggle for the top job. It is common to most all social mammals and exist for that reason. it will not be evolved away and is not a choice.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

"Stabalizing the funtion in primate life"??? That makes no sense whatsoever. I have reconsidered my argument about natural selection getting rid of the gene, but nevertheless I consider this one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.


J_M,
Yes, though I fail to see where your question's headed.

captain C,
I don't think I can change the poll after someone's already voted.

ah ok

Originally Posted by M

Slavery had been a norm for the longest time. Finally getting rid of it had nothing to do with following traditions.

Not that this has anything to do with this discussion, but i would just like to point out that slavery is rife in many parts of the world.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

The disease bit was meant to be humorous.

On a serious note,
most theists believe that when it (disease) happens to devout people, God's just testing them; and when it happens to non-devout people (not necessarily atheists), he's punishing them for some huge misdemeanor. I only believe this to some extent. For the most part, I believe God just allows nature to do whatever it wants to (though not to the extent that a deist does), except on rare occasions; but that's just my belief: you can believe whatever you want...

This was interesting all the time. What if god was not the one responsible for diseases. As an sample,
when god (or 'Gott' ) had fought communism and did win, but did not demolish the whole nation? Wouldn't
that make sense? And others have been being to dull even to read over their constitution to find out where
the reason for the misery has been? Wouldn't that make sense?

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

The disease bit was meant to be humorous.

On a serious note,
most theists believe that when it (disease) happens to devout people, God's just testing them; and when it happens to non-devout people (not necessarily atheists), he's punishing them for some huge misdemeanor. I only believe this to some extent. For the most part, I believe God just allows nature to do whatever it wants to (though not to the extent that a deist does), except on rare occasions; but that's just my belief: you can believe whatever you want...

This was interesting all the time. What if god was not the one responsible for diseases. As an sample,
when god (or 'Gott' ) had fought communism and did win, but did not demolish the whole nation? Wouldn't
that make sense? And others have been being to dull even to read over their constitution to find out where
the reason for the misery has been? Wouldn't that make sense?

No, in fact that whole paragraph makes no sense "any of the time."

Originally Posted by Retromingent

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

The disease bit was meant to be humorous.

On a serious note,
most theists believe that when it (disease) happens to devout people, God's just testing them; and when it happens to non-devout people (not necessarily atheists), he's punishing them for some huge misdemeanor. I only believe this to some extent. For the most part, I believe God just allows nature to do whatever it wants to (though not to the extent that a deist does), except on rare occasions; but that's just my belief: you can believe whatever you want...

This was interesting all the time. What if god was not the one responsible for diseases. As an sample,
when god (or 'Gott' ) had fought communism and did win, but did not demolish the whole nation? Wouldn't
that make sense? And others have been being to dull even to read over their constitution to find out where
the reason for the misery has been? Wouldn't that make sense?

No, in fact that whole paragraph makes no sense "any of the time."

But you get what I'm saying?

i have to say i am undecided about whether its biological or environmental, but i have seen heterosexual people realising that they are homosexuals and it happened to several people in a group of friends, so i am thinking that this is "environmental" rather than biological...

I think human sexuality is a continuum between hetero and homo. Where we fall is a mixture between our own [pre]disposition and our societal conditioning. Sometimes these are in harmony, sometimes they're not.

Afterall why is our identity assumed to be fixed?

I suppose a related question would be why does [whatever] turn us on? Maybe its a genetic predisposition, say towards being submissive and empathetical which is then furthered though early development, idolisation of the mother for example, and reinforced in our sexual/experimental age, if our culture is permissive for instance, and we conclude with a homo. Of course I'm being awefully sexist in my example here but hopefully what I mean is still appreciable.

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Originally Posted by Retromingent

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

The disease bit was meant to be humorous.

On a serious note,
most theists believe that when it (disease) happens to devout people, God's just testing them; and when it happens to non-devout people (not necessarily atheists), he's punishing them for some huge misdemeanor. I only believe this to some extent. For the most part, I believe God just allows nature to do whatever it wants to (though not to the extent that a deist does), except on rare occasions; but that's just my belief: you can believe whatever you want...

This was interesting all the time. What if god was not the one responsible for diseases. As an sample,
when god (or 'Gott' ) had fought communism and did win, but did not demolish the whole nation? Wouldn't
that make sense? And others have been being to dull even to read over their constitution to find out where
the reason for the misery has been? Wouldn't that make sense?

No, in fact that whole paragraph makes no sense "any of the time."

But you get what I'm saying?

I'm sorry, but I do not get what you're saying. My reaction to your comment is that if God was not responsible for the creation then it means the definition of "God" has been changed. When we use the word God especially within the Judeao-Christian sense, we are talking about a single entity responsible for the creation of all things, not just some things. So, that has to include diseases. This is not my view as I am not religious. But typically when "God" is used this is the way it is taken to mean. So, if you want to change definition it is fine but that needs to be stated.

But I have to say that is sounds like you are rationalizing the ideal of a beatific benevolent God in face of contradicting evidence. If God created everything, which is the dominate monotheistic view, and God is all that is beautiful and good, which many believe, why is it not evident in nature?