Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2013, 08:02 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 12:13 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  If we are placing the value of humanity solely on the ability to reproduce, then we should also repudiate the severely mentally handicapped, sterile men, menopausal women, or individuals whose injuries prevent them from reproducing.

Sounds good, Hitler.

aw crap. Did I just Godwin?

I call you brother, not Hitler. My brother, you are hitting the EVOLUTIONARY nail on the head. Evolution... Nazi racism.

You and I have Bible reasons to love all people. Evolution provides few such reasons as we all know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 08:06 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(20-12-2013 08:02 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 12:13 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  If we are placing the value of humanity solely on the ability to reproduce, then we should also repudiate the severely mentally handicapped, sterile men, menopausal women, or individuals whose injuries prevent them from reproducing.

Sounds good, Hitler.

aw crap. Did I just Godwin?

I call you brother, not Hitler. My brother, you are hitting the EVOLUTIONARY nail on the head. Evolution... Nazi racism.

You and I have Bible reasons to love all people. Evolution provides few such reasons as we all know.

[Image: shhhh-1.jpg]

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
20-12-2013, 08:08 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(20-12-2013 07:58 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

No, you really do not understand evolution. Really.

It's not about propagation, it's about gene selection. When you have actually read a scientific book on evolution, we can have a discussion about it.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
20-12-2013, 08:09 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(20-12-2013 08:02 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You and I have Bible reasons to love all people. Evolution provides few such reasons as we all know.
[Image: hhhhh-57072832678.jpeg]

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like IndianAtheist's post
20-12-2013, 08:18 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
Why exactly are you even here? What purpose could you possibly have here?

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 08:23 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(20-12-2013 07:58 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

[Image: Objection.jpg]

Why do species perpetuate genes which cause the birth of infertile members? Because they serve a utility and thus an evolutionary advantage: In human groups the old and the infertile can still act as care-givers to the young and help ensure their survival while the more youthful adults would do things like hunt (working nowadays) and if I understand correctly this is true for most apes. Even ant's breed neuter castes for similar reasons, not to mention dogs.
Evidence suggests that ancient Hominids took care of their wounded, sick and old as well, long before your coveted Christianity, or even organised religion in general was even in the minds of the most intelligent of con-men and power seekers of the time.

So, in case you didn't get it: Evolution 'rewards' species which take care of their own, including their infertile, disabled and old, which don't often have evolutionary disadvantages.

If you were right and gays and infertiles should, by evolution, be abandoned and thus die off in droves, perhaps you would like to explain this to the 1500-odd species which exhibit homosexual behaviour and tell them to stop perpetuating the genes which cause it.
And while you are busy lecturing evolution on how you think it should do it's job, please tell it that monotremes are fucking ridiculous and ask what the fuck it was thinking.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
20-12-2013, 08:24 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(20-12-2013 07:58 AM)PleaseJesus 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.

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.

[Image: d0db2c4e.jpg]

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like WitchSabrina's post
20-12-2013, 09:15 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(20-12-2013 08:02 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I call you brother, not Hitler. My brother, you are hitting the EVOLUTIONARY nail on the head. Evolution... Nazi racism.

[Image: 3qz98d.jpg]

Because you don't know (and most likely don't care) to educate yourself, you fail to see the difference between Lamarck's failure and Darwin's success.

Stalin and Hitler were not 'Darwinists', indeed they both denounced Darwin's theory of evolution and had his books burned and outlawed; instead they both embraced Lamarkism (and additionally Eugenecis in Hitler's case). Neither Lamarkism nor Eugenetics are part of modern evolutionary theory.


Thanks for reinforcing Godwin's Law pillock...

[Image: godwins-law1.png]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-12-2013, 09:36 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 02:12 PM)Elcarch Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 02:08 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  I'm an old, decrepit, man! What does "fick" mean?

1. Don't look it up on Google, it'll result in oodles of german porn.

2. Because the troll is an inarticulate brute, it cannot pronounced the 'th'-sound, therefore he says 'fick'.

1. No it didn't. I feel cheated.

3. Fick is wot you is if you come from Saaf Lunden (UK)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
20-12-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(20-12-2013 08:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-12-2013 07:58 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

No, you really do not understand evolution. Really.

It's not about propagation, it's about gene selection. When you have actually read a scientific book on evolution, we can have a discussion about it.

Again, Chas, and no suprise here, you make the same one-sentence garbage (you don't iunderstand, PJ) and say nothing of substance or anything logical.

If homosexuality has a root gene than we're talking about propagation and gene selection. I think it's you and not me who doesn't understand evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: