Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2013, 08:34 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
In all fairness. It's pretty straight forward. Homosexuality in an already successful animal makes no difference whatsoever. I'd guess (admittedly a guess) that % wise, we've always had the same amount of Homosexuality in our species. Fortunately, as the passage of time has rolled forth, more of the aforementioned % have been in a position where it no longer needs to be a secret. ... I've read the thread and the science side has been addressed but I'd like to add this... You are tiring, in a boring tedious way. Tying your personal phobias very weakly to evolution just so you can post something on here to be a bigoted prick and flame the atheists is like watching paint dry. From the bottom of my heart, fuck off you dull sack of tedium ... Merry Christmas x

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2013, 01:42 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(20-12-2013 09:39 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

No sir it's you. It's resoundingly you.

Do you consider The Theory of Gravity to be morally repugnant because it forces new born babies and rapists to fall at the same terminal velocity? Do you feel to repudiate any social distinction between babies and rapists would be intellectually HONEST do to the Theory of Gravity?

The truth of the matter is you trying to twist a field of science, totally unrelated to the study of morality, to justify your already existing bigotry. Which is not intellectually honest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2013, 02:45 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(21-12-2013 01:42 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(20-12-2013 09:39 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

No sir it's you. It's resoundingly you.

Do you consider The Theory of Gravity to be morally repugnant because it forces new born babies and rapists to fall at the same terminal velocity? Do you feel to repudiate any social distinction between babies and rapists would be intellectually HONEST do to the Theory of Gravity?

The truth of the matter is you trying to twist a field of science, totally unrelated to the study of morality, to justify your already existing bigotry. Which is not intellectually honest.

..... wouldn't rapists have a higher terminal velocity due to the square-cube law? The rapist would have a higher ratio of volume (and thus mass) to surface area and thus would overcome more air resistance and fall faster.

Shocking Did I just go there? I better delete this before I hit "Post Reply".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2013, 09:49 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
Here's a novel thought: If you don't approve of homosexuality, don't do it. Anything outside of your own personal little bubble of space is none of your business.

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thinkerbelle's post
22-12-2013, 03:07 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.
If repudiation of homosexuality is something natural then let nature do something about it and NOT us.

English is not my native language.
that awkward moment between the Premortal Existence and your Resurrection
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Alla's post
23-12-2013, 09:08 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
Again, some of you posting to do not understand/or have not been informed re: modern evolutionary theory.

Because of complexity, diversity and etc. evolution is now understood to have self-correcting principles within, that is--it's guided--in part by traits that enhance survivability. Putting aside my subjective views and the scriptures for the moment, a plain sense understanding of homosexuality would say that using our free will to encourage gay marriage, to tolerate homosexual activity and coupling, in no way, shape or form enhances the survivability of the species--this is one of hundreds of ways in that you as atheists who care for other people, for their rights, against slavery, for tolerance and diversity, against people oppressing people, be it religious intolerance or anything else, go AGAINST classic and modern evolutionary theory and support other agendas and human agendas.

There are many implications to your positivist ethics and care for the weak, etc. Some of you hide behind saying we've evolved to become a social species... no, there are deeper, more existensial implications. Deal with it. Be real.

Evolution demonstrates that destructive behaviors like homosexuality and abortion are cons, not pros, for humankind. You are accountable to the Creator.

That is all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 09:19 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(23-12-2013 09:08 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Again, some of you posting to do not understand/or have not been informed re: modern evolutionary theory.

Because of complexity, diversity and etc. evolution is now understood to have self-correcting principles within, that is--it's guided--in part by traits that enhance survivability. Putting aside my subjective views and the scriptures for the moment, a plain sense understanding of homosexuality would say that using our free will to encourage gay marriage, to tolerate homosexual activity and coupling, in no way, shape or form enhances the survivability of the species--this is one of hundreds of ways in that you as atheists who care for other people, for their rights, against slavery, for tolerance and diversity, against people oppressing people, be it religious intolerance or anything else, go AGAINST classic and modern evolutionary theory and support other agendas and human agendas.

Perhaps you should try not to appeal to our plain senses? Most of us here have learned not to trust them. I suggest you learn it as well.

Also, evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. Trying to make sense of it using "plain sense" is doomed to failure.

(23-12-2013 09:08 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  There are many implications to your positivist ethics and care for the weak, etc. Some of you hide behind saying we've evolved to become a social species... no, there are deeper, more existensial implications. Deal with it. Be real.

Evolution demonstrates that destructive behaviors like homosexuality and abortion are cons, not pros, for humankind. You are accountable to the Creator.

That is all.

Again, you attempt to appeal to some people's sense of duty to a creator. Why do you continue to believe such arguments will be successful in these forums? Hope springs eternal, perhaps?

Try relying more on your sense of reason than on your faith. Perhaps then you will understand the people you are attempting to persuade. Until then, your attempts are almost guaranteed to fail.

It seems you do not understand your audience. Not a wit. Get to know us first. Listen to us, rather than preach at us. Try to understand the world as we do. Until then, deaf ears, my friend.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cardinal Smurf's post
23-12-2013, 09:30 AM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(23-12-2013 09:08 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Evolution demonstrates that destructive behaviors like homosexuality and abortion are cons, not pros, for humankind. You are accountable to the Creator.
That is all.

Try asking your questions again at some point in the future when you are interested in the answer.

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
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
23-12-2013, 12:28 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(23-12-2013 09:08 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Again, some of you posting to do not understand/or have not been informed re: modern evolutionary theory.

Because of complexity, diversity and etc. evolution is now understood to have self-correcting principles within, that is--it's guided--in part by traits that enhance survivability. Putting aside my subjective views and the scriptures for the moment, a plain sense understanding of homosexuality would say that using our free will to encourage gay marriage, to tolerate homosexual activity and coupling, in no way, shape or form enhances the survivability of the species--this is one of hundreds of ways in that you as atheists who care for other people, for their rights, against slavery, for tolerance and diversity, against people oppressing people, be it religious intolerance or anything else, go AGAINST classic and modern evolutionary theory and support other agendas and human agendas.

There are many implications to your positivist ethics and care for the weak, etc. Some of you hide behind saying we've evolved to become a social species... no, there are deeper, more existensial implications. Deal with it. Be real.

Evolution demonstrates that destructive behaviors like homosexuality and abortion are cons, not pros, for humankind. You are accountable to the Creator.

That is all.

You continue to betray your ignorance and misunderstanding of evolution. There is no guidance.

Homosexuality is not destructive and contributed to the survival of kin - those with shared genes.

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
23-12-2013, 12:31 PM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2013 01:46 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(23-12-2013 09:08 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Again, some of you posting to do not understand/or have not been informed re: modern evolutionary theory.

Because of complexity, diversity and etc. evolution is now understood to have self-correcting principles within, that is--it's guided--in part by traits that enhance survivability. Putting aside my subjective views and the scriptures for the moment, a plain sense understanding of homosexuality would say that using our free will to encourage gay marriage, to tolerate homosexual activity and coupling, in no way, shape or form enhances the survivability of the species--this is one of hundreds of ways in that you as atheists who care for other people, for their rights, against slavery, for tolerance and diversity, against people oppressing people, be it religious intolerance or anything else, go AGAINST classic and modern evolutionary theory and support other agendas and human agendas.

There are many implications to your positivist ethics and care for the weak, etc. Some of you hide behind saying we've evolved to become a social species... no, there are deeper, more existensial implications. Deal with it. Be real.

Evolution demonstrates that destructive behaviors like homosexuality and abortion are cons, not pros, for humankind. You are accountable to the Creator.

That is all.

Okay. Now you've corrected your biggest mistake. Previously you'd been presenting evolution as providing an imperative. In your clarification, you've switched to providing a different imperative -- the survival of the species -- and described evolutionary theory as telling us that support of homosexuality does not advance it and may actively interfere with it. Your argument, though still deeply flawed, is now considerably more coherent.

... you also just randomly threw in "abortion" and "accountable to the Creator", possibly because you felt this topic wasn't contentious enough on its own. I'll leave them aside as distractions from this main topic.

So, getting to the errors in your new, revised topic. Let's start by introducing you to r/K selection theory. As a scientific theory, it's been repudiated as being overly simplistic and having too many exceptions, and replaced by something considerably more complicated, but it is still useful as an informal way of looking at survival strategies. It basically describes two survival strategies, r and K, that a species can adopt. These are taken from the logistic curve's equation, with the variable "r" referring to the species rate of reproduction, and the variable "K" referring to the carrying capacity of the local ecosystem.

An r-selected species is one that adopts a strategy of high reproduction rates, with low odds that any given individual will survive to breed. Salmon are a good example. Salmon will spawn hundreds of eggs, and typically only a handful of these will survive to adulthood to spawn again. Rats are another example. This strategy deals with the horrific nature of, well, nature, by trying to beat the odds with raw numbers. It often works. The r-selection strategy works best when the species is nowhere near the local carrying capacity, perhaps because of colonization of a new ecosystem or a recent die off. If the species IS near the carrying capacity, r-selection can backfire through overpopulating and triggering the ecosystem's collapse. But then, that may create exactly the sort of die-off that this sort of species recovers well from. All in all, it's a perfectly viable strategy for a species which is physically capable of it.

From an individual perspective, being in an r-selected species sucks. Your most likely outcome will be to die as a child. Food supplies are always strained and disease is common. Competition between members of the species is fierce. Parents care little or not at all for their offspring after birth.

In contrast, we have K-selected species. K-selection emphasizes few offspring, each with a high chance of reaching adulthood. Parents put a lot of effort into protecting and nurturing their offspring. Being a K-selected species is about beating the odds in nature by being individually prepared to meet every single challenge. Examples include dolphins and elephants. K-selected species tend to reach a careful equilibrium with the local carrying capacity, and are not prone to the same horrific cycles of overpopulation and die-off as r-selected species. From an individual perspective, being in a K-selected species rocks for every reason that being in an r-selected species sucks.

Humans are very much k-selected. We have strong nurturing instincts and lavish years upon years on preparing our children for adulthood. Our primary survival advantage, the ability to learn and reason, depends on education and passing on of teachings from one generation to the next. Our second survival advantage, an ability to coordinate and approach problems as a society, rather than as individuals, depends on there being enough food that we aren't slitting each other's throats to eat at night. (Remember, this is in contrast to species like rats.) We are relatively long-lived and recover from die-offs relatively slowly.

With this in mind... and bearing in mind that you also never actually clarified what you meant by "repudiating"... let's look at the world we actually live in and possible strategies towards homosexuality.

Strategy 1: Accept people who engage in homosexual behavior as equal members of society. Offer them the same rights, do not offer them violence, and basically treat them as human beings. Do not ostracize, shame, or otherwise persecute them. Death-camps are right out.

Strategy 2: "Repudiate" homosexuality. In one way or another, cast the gays out of the family, out of the social circle, and out of society. Death camps? Sure!

How does this tie in to survival of the human species? Strategy 1 works pretty darn well, actually, and strategy 2 doesn't. Individuals of a homosexual tendency are less likely to reproduce, of course, but can assist societies in other ways and thus enhance the survival of the species as a whole. Who contributes more to our collective survival? The quiverful family that has a dozen children which society as a whole must assist in caring for, or the gay scientist who has no children herself but perfects a vaccine that ends up saving millions of children? For that matter, what are the biggest threats to the human species? It's not a lack of reproduction. We're not pandas. Things might be different if our population were stagnant or declining through a failure to reproduce, but that's not the case. If anything, we're suffering from an epidemic of slow overpopulation. (We're still at equilibrium with the carrying capacity, but we've used technologies we didn't fully understand to temporarily inflate that carrying capacity in an "ecosystem bubble" that looks increasingly likely to burst.) So what does threaten us? War, strife, and mutual violence, for starters, all of which are more likely to be triggered by religious fundamentalism and a habit of victimizing our fellow humans. World epidemics, which are made worse by large populations but cured through education and science. On and on. All the dangers we face as a species are best faced through a k-selection strategy, and not an r-selected strategy. If anything, what's called for is a move away from r-selection traits.

Bottom line, reproduction rate is not the end-all and be-all of species survival. In species such as our own, it is scarcely the beginning. Education and careful care and understanding for/of our ecoystem is far more critical for the survival of humanity. Not only are you attempting to reduce the entirety of human survival to a single variable in your campaign against homosexuality... you're fixating on the WRONG variable. Because that's the variable that supports your position, and to hell with the truth.

Which brings me back to the question I raised back on page... what, 2, 4?... And which you never answered. Exactly what do you mean by "repudiate"? Come on, this is what you're advising us all to do. Be proud of your plan. Give us specific details. What exactly are you telling us to do, when you tell us to repudiate homosexuality? Death penalties? Second-class citizenship? Going around "beep"ing them on the nose? You had to have had something in mind. It's not like you'd have randomly wasted our time for no purpose at all. No, you'd never do that.

EDIT: For the tl;dr people. Discussion of r/K selection theory, actual analysis of what the threats and opportunities regarding human survival are, accusation that PJ is oversimplifying to reduce this to a single variable, accusation that it's the wrong variable, and challenge for PJ to clarify what he means by "repudiate".

For the people who thought that the tl;dr section qualified for tl;dr: Get checked for ADD.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: