Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2013, 11:52 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 11:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If there is no god, than we should all look to/hope for survivability-enhancing opportunities that are naturally evolving. Since a homosexual homo sapiens pair cannot reproduce, we should consider the repudiation of homosexuality natural and life-affirming. In fact, designed evolution should enhance any anti-homosexual stance.

Discuss. Thanks.

It appears Pleasy is another fundie closet case.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 12:23 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 11:40 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 02:17 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Where to begin.

First of all, this notion that you have where no god means evolution? Shitcan that right now. Evolution is not automatically arrived at without the existence of a god. Rather, evolution is evaluated through examining extensive evidence exhibited in existence.

Second. I will repeat myself. You. Do. Not. Understand. Evolution. And after all the times we've had this discussion, it's obvious that you never will, so while I'll address my comments to you, I'm actually speaking to anyone else who might be reading this thread. While we might find an evolutionary chain of causation leading to the instincts (eg empathy) that form the underlying basis of human morality, evolution does not dictate morality in the sense that you think it does. Evolutionary theory is explanatory, descriptive, and predictive. It is not prescriptive or proscriptive. It tells us how things happened, what happened, and what is likely to happen. It does not tell us what to do and what not to do. You are confusing eugenics with genetics, Social Darwinism with real Darwinism, which is a common and low equivocation put forward by the most wretchedly disingenuous leaders of right-wing Christianity and the cretinous suckers who believe their lies. (I'll refrain from speculating on which category you fall in.) Knowing that certain behaviors will result in higher or lower populations does not tell us to pursue one behavior or the other. By your logic, knowing that gravity makes people fall would create a moral imperative to push people off of cliffs.

Third, there's a difference between "life-affirming" and "maximized output". "Life affirming" does not condone, say, forcible copulation (ie rape) of women at every potentially fertile moment to produce as many babies as possible. (Nor would your maximization logic actually reject additional, same-sex copulation under those circumstances.) You completely ignore issues of quality of life, memetic reproduction, societal structure, kinship, and attempt to reduce the entirety of healthy human existence and sexual activity to a single variable.

Finally, why do I object to the "repudiation" of homosexuality? Well, repudiation is a very interesting word, and my objection depends on the nature of your repudiation. Not counting a form of divorce, it means basically "refusing to accept". Well if that's all you're doing, I have no objection at all. DON'T accept it. Cover your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and go "LALALALALA!" in attempt to drown out the sound of a society that has the gall to actually disagree with you. Become a hermit locked in your house, never emerging. More power to you! If you want help in that, I'll happily glue your lock shut. But when you do more than simply refuse to accept it; when you become an agent of oppression; when you and your socially conservative ilk salivate at the notion of regressing society to the age of Stonewall beatings and Inquisitorial burnings for homosexuality but discover to your dismay that the civilized world no longer tolerates your brand of religious bigotry wielding a bloody sword and calling it virtue; when in your despair you opt for a rearguard of stalled incrementalism; when you call the bullying of gay teenagers freedom of religion for the bullies; when you call the beating of a child who shows the slightest imagined homosexual trait to be good parenting; when you call the denial of the right to be at a loved one's hospital bedside a defense of marriage; when you call exclusion from the military of an able-bodied soldier willing and able to defend the country patriotism; when you channel your money and missionary efforts into engineering the lifelong imprisonment of homosexuals in developing nations like Uganda (oops, wait, your conservative Christianity was aiming for the death penalty... missed it by THAT much); when you not-so-secretly dream of expanding your persecution to infidels and heathens, other races and the other sex, to every other category that is other than you; when, in short, you bring your lies, falsehoods, hatreds and other symptoms of your faith into the public domain and attempt to distort society with them; why then, I'll be there, objecting most strongly, and seeking to block you at every turn.

PS: What is "designed" evolution? That sounds almost like a contradiction in terms.

I think I just fell in love, will you marry me?

Not before the first date. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
19-12-2013, 01:07 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 11:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If there is no god, than we should all look to/hope for survivability-enhancing opportunities that are naturally evolving.

This is a non sequitur. 'Nuff said.

(18-12-2013 11:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Since a homosexual homo sapiens pair cannot reproduce, we should consider the repudiation of homosexuality natural and life-affirming. In fact, designed evolution should enhance any anti-homosexual stance.

Discuss. Thanks.

Designed evolution? Ok what about a mule? It can't reproduce but it is useful. Should they be repudiated?

You're making the error of assuming that there is a purpose to life. You're equating the value of something to it's ability to reproduce. Just because something can reproduce does not mean that it should. What about perfectly healthy heterosexual couples who don't want children? What about a man who has had a vasectomy? This is as optional as you seem to think homosexuality is. Is your conclusion the same?

You fail to understand that we (everything) are here as a consequence of nature. Nothing more nothing less.

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 06:20 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
I would point to the evolutionary and social advantage of menopause. Menopause exists to allow mothers to become grandmothers, nurturing another generation of children whose genes the mother shares. Homosexuality is in an evolutionary sense a little similar to menopause but kicks in a little earlier. Men and women are restricted in their ability to reproduce by conventional means. Evolutionarily speaking, this increases their ability to care for related offspring whose genes they share. Socially speaking, it also increases their ability to care for orphans and others society would otherwise have to take the burden of collectively with poorer outcomes for all. If homosexuals do not support or adopt children directly, they have more resources available to them which they also tend to plough back into society for the good of society. Childless couples tend to be the givers while we couples with children tend to be the takers of society - all the mind of raising the next generation of course.

Homosexuality, in appropriate moderation, can be and is good for both society and the evolutionary success of the genes they carry.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
19-12-2013, 07:51 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 12:52 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  I cannot believe this guy is starting another post on this same topic - enough of your disdain, bigotry and arrogance. Look, either your god created people of differing sexual orientations, or this trait is a product of eveolution. I know the god cause is (of course) out of the question for you, so just shut up and let evolution carry on its way without some periodic psuedo-analysis from some jackass.

I think it is because of the Duck Dynasty thing in the news. Phil Robertson said some things that A and E didn't like.

Why are you still reading this line when it is obviously my signature line?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 08:00 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because :
SexuallyPleasingJebus would have to stop sexually pleasing Jebus.
Duh.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 09:14 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(19-12-2013 06:20 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I would point to the evolutionary and social advantage of menopause. Menopause exists to allow mothers to become grandmothers, nurturing another generation of children whose genes the mother shares. Homosexuality is in an evolutionary sense a little similar to menopause but kicks in a little earlier. Men and women are restricted in their ability to reproduce by conventional means. Evolutionarily speaking, this increases their ability to care for related offspring whose genes they share. Socially speaking, it also increases their ability to care for orphans and others society would otherwise have to take the burden of collectively with poorer outcomes for all. If homosexuals do not support or adopt children directly, they have more resources available to them which they also tend to plough back into society for the good of society. Childless couples tend to be the givers while we couples with children tend to be the takers of society - all the mind of raising the next generation of course.

Homosexuality, in appropriate moderation, can be and is good for both society and the evolutionary success of the genes they carry.
My, my; would you look at that. It's a novel argument and a compelling one at that. Thumbsup

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 09:44 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
Oh, look! PJ went poo. That's a good boy. Now time for your nap.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like houseofcantor's post
19-12-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(19-12-2013 09:14 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(19-12-2013 06:20 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I would point to the evolutionary and social advantage of menopause. Menopause exists to allow mothers to become grandmothers, nurturing another generation of children whose genes the mother shares. Homosexuality is in an evolutionary sense a little similar to menopause but kicks in a little earlier. Men and women are restricted in their ability to reproduce by conventional means. Evolutionarily speaking, this increases their ability to care for related offspring whose genes they share. Socially speaking, it also increases their ability to care for orphans and others society would otherwise have to take the burden of collectively with poorer outcomes for all. If homosexuals do not support or adopt children directly, they have more resources available to them which they also tend to plough back into society for the good of society. Childless couples tend to be the givers while we couples with children tend to be the takers of society - all the mind of raising the next generation of course.

Homosexuality, in appropriate moderation, can be and is good for both society and the evolutionary success of the genes they carry.
My, my; would you look at that. It's a novel argument and a compelling one at that. Thumbsup

Yabut, I made it firster and terser. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-12-2013, 07:58 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 02:17 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 11:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If there is no god, than we should all look to/hope for survivability-enhancing opportunities that are naturally evolving. Since a homosexual homo sapiens pair cannot reproduce, we should consider the repudiation of homosexuality natural and life-affirming. In fact, designed evolution should enhance any anti-homosexual stance.

Discuss. Thanks.

Where to begin.

First of all, this notion that you have where no god means evolution? Shitcan that right now. Evolution is not automatically arrived at without the existence of a god. Rather, evolution is evaluated through examining extensive evidence exhibited in existence.

Second. I will repeat myself. You. Do. Not. Understand. Evolution. And after all the times we've had this discussion, it's obvious that you never will, so while I'll address my comments to you, I'm actually speaking to anyone else who might be reading this thread. While we might find an evolutionary chain of causation leading to the instincts (eg empathy) that form the underlying basis of human morality, evolution does not dictate morality in the sense that you think it does. Evolutionary theory is explanatory, descriptive, and predictive. It is not prescriptive or proscriptive. It tells us how things happened, what happened, and what is likely to happen. It does not tell us what to do and what not to do. You are confusing eugenics with genetics, Social Darwinism with real Darwinism, which is a common and low equivocation put forward by the most wretchedly disingenuous leaders of right-wing Christianity and the cretinous suckers who believe their lies. (I'll refrain from speculating on which category you fall in.) Knowing that certain behaviors will result in higher or lower populations does not tell us to pursue one behavior or the other. By your logic, knowing that gravity makes people fall would create a moral imperative to push people off of cliffs.

Third, there's a difference between "life-affirming" and "maximized output". "Life affirming" does not condone, say, forcible copulation (ie rape) of women at every potentially fertile moment to produce as many babies as possible. (Nor would your maximization logic actually reject additional, same-sex copulation under those circumstances.) You completely ignore issues of quality of life, memetic reproduction, societal structure, kinship, and attempt to reduce the entirety of healthy human existence and sexual activity to a single variable.

Finally, why do I object to the "repudiation" of homosexuality? Well, repudiation is a very interesting word, and my objection depends on the nature of your repudiation. Not counting a form of divorce, it means basically "refusing to accept". Well if that's all you're doing, I have no objection at all. DON'T accept it. Cover your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and go "LALALALALA!" in attempt to drown out the sound of a society that has the gall to actually disagree with you. Become a hermit locked in your house, never emerging. More power to you! If you want help in that, I'll happily glue your lock shut. But when you do more than simply refuse to accept it; when you become an agent of oppression; when you and your socially conservative ilk salivate at the notion of regressing society to the age of Stonewall beatings and Inquisitorial burnings for homosexuality but discover to your dismay that the civilized world no longer tolerates your brand of religious bigotry wielding a bloody sword and calling it virtue; when in your despair you opt for a rearguard of stalled incrementalism; when you call the bullying of gay teenagers freedom of religion for the bullies; when you call the beating of a child who shows the slightest imagined homosexual trait to be good parenting; when you call the denial of the right to be at a loved one's hospital bedside a defense of marriage; when you call exclusion from the military of an able-bodied soldier willing and able to defend the country patriotism; when you channel your money and missionary efforts into engineering the lifelong imprisonment of homosexuals in developing nations like Uganda (oops, wait, your conservative Christianity was aiming for the death penalty... missed it by THAT much); when you not-so-secretly dream of expanding your persecution to infidels and heathens, other races and the other sex, to every other category that is other than you; when, in short, you bring your lies, falsehoods, hatreds and other symptoms of your faith into the public domain and attempt to distort society with them; why then, I'll be there, objecting most strongly, and seeking to block you at every turn.

PS: What is "designed" evolution? That sounds almost like a contradiction in terms.

You tried, and did not, refute what I wrote, but I appreciate the effort. Nor did anyone else even try.

The best "response" was "should we abandoned the infertile and mentally disabled also, then?"

The evolutionary answer is a resounding yes. Not the CHRISTIAN answer. The evolutionary, HONEST answer.

My point is we all have subjective ideas in part and logically formed opinions in part. Without God if we are evolved, you must admit evolution speaks AGAINST homosexuality and that you are adding a subjective opinion to go against evolutionary impetus.

Say all you want that I don't understand evolution. I darn well understand propagation and its necessity and you are all being disingenous here.

On evolution alone without your imagined positivist ethics there is every reason to repudiate homosexuality. Stop being dishonest, atheists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: