If man is evolving, why is there still war?

[dad]

As I said, if you won't read it then that's your problem.

Show us where in the spam link that homosexuality is genetic. Or fail.

So you think sexual orientation is a choice?

If you mean perverted ones, then of course.

Just out of interest, do you think yours was a choice?

God's choice.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Show us where in the spam link that homosexuality is genetic. Or fail.

Have you read the link yet?

If you mean perverted ones, then of course.

What you think is perverted is irrelevant. You say you think people choose their sexual orientation. So by that measure, you personally choose to be sexually attracted to women rather than men. The implication is that you could, if you really wanted to, decide to be sexually attracted to men. Yes? Or do you perhaps think that is a ridiculous suggestion? Do you see the implication?

God's choice.

Ah, but crucially you know that it was not yours. Arousal just happens when you are exposed to certain stimuli. But you have been suggesting that homosexuals choose which stimuli causes their brain to release the chemicals that cause arousal. How does that work then?

 

[dad]

Have you read the link yet?

I do not read links. I look at your summation of something from a link. Not seeing anything. Why pretend you got something?

What you think is perverted is irrelevant.

I go by what God thinks. Not by what some bent school trustee wants to foist on kids.

You say you think people choose their sexual orientation. So by that measure, you personally choose to be sexually attracted to women rather than men.

I said God chose. He made man a certain way, your bent ideas aside.

The implication is that you could, if you really wanted to, decide to be sexually attracted to men. Yes?

No. Once a bird has tasted flight, they wouldn't want to crawl around kissing a turtle butt.

Or do you perhaps think that is a ridiculous suggestion? Do you see the implication?

Yes. I see the implication of a poster not comprehending nature and how God set things up.

Ah, but crucially you know that it was not yours. Arousal just happens when you are exposed to certain stimuli. But you have been suggesting that homosexuals choose which stimuli causes their brain to release the chemicals that cause arousal. How does that work then?

Some people get excited robbing folks. The test is not what a man can be aroused by, but what God says. Man lies and says whatever it takes to justify sin.

 

[Golden Yak]

You're a piece of garbage. Pointlessly obsessed with needless hatred.

So done with this place. 1% interesting discussion, 99% smug, stupid bigots using their idiot faith to justify smug, stupid bigotry.

 

[dad]

You're a piece of garbage. Pointlessly obsessed with needless hatred.

So done with this place. 1% interesting discussion, 99% smug, stupid bigots using their idiot faith to justify smug, stupid bigotry.

No one needs to mollycoddle folks that cannot admit that sin is sin.

 

[AV1611VET]

Arousal just happens when you are exposed to certain stimuli.

Not if they know it's a sin.

And if you want to go that "natural" route, let's bring up NAMBLA, shall we?

If you want to justify homosexuality with science, then let's see you justify NAMBLA with the same science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not if they know it's a sin.

And if you want to go that "natural" route, let's bring up NAMBLA, shall we?

If you want to justify homosexuality with science, then let's see you justify NAMBLA with the same science.

You can't. You forgot about the concept of age of consent.

 

[mzungu]

They do claim that mutations are beneficial, no? They do claim species evolve and get better..no? There is more war today than in Adam's day. Funny, that.

Once more we are faced with someone who has absolutely no idea as to what the Theory of Evolution is all about! There is no end to ignorance!

 

[dad]

Once more we are faced with someone who has absolutely no idea as to what the Theory of Evolution is all about! There is no end to ignorance!

War is not what evolution is about. Since you apparently feel that traits are well defined, and that war would not be a trait that involved evolving, where did war come from? Something in the air just inspired man to aim weapons at big cities?



"Adaptation:
The adjustment or changes in behavior, physiology, and structure of an organism to become more suited to an environment. According to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation."


http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Definitions.html

War seems to be a behavior...and you seem to agree evolution is not responsible.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't. You forgot about the concept of age of consent.

I'm not familiar with age of consent when it comes to being born with a proclivity to having an alternate lifestyle.

If homosexuality is in your genes, then what about pedophilia?

(And for the record, this is one gross, sick conversation, in my opinion.)

 

[Mediate]

Not if they know it's a sin.

And if you want to go that "natural" route, let's bring up NAMBLA, shall we?

If you want to justify homosexuality with science, then let's see you justify NAMBLA with the same science.

Let's see the things you chose:

Did you choose to be born? No.
Did you choose to be male? No.
Did you choose to be made of chemicals in a universe made up the way our's is made up? No.
Did you choose to be born into Western society? No.
Did you choose to be attracted to the sex you are attracted to? No.
Did you choose the chemicals that lead to sexual arousal? No.
Did you choose to be brought up in the manner you were brought up? No.
Did you choose to have been born in the 20th Century AD? No.
Did you choose the language you were taught to speak? No.
Did you choose to have been growing up in a predominantly Christian society? No.
Did you choose to be educated in state schools towards capitalist fiat-currency ownership? No.
Did you choose to have the colour hair you had? No.
Did you choose the colour eyes you have? No.
Did you choose the genetic disposition to height you have? No.
Did you choose to be a member of the human species? No.
Did you choose to have ten fingers and toes? No.
Did you choose to have complex eye structures? No.
Did you choose to have five sense, rather than for instance, three, like a worm? No.
Did you choose to be bound into momentary conscious experience as is the nature of spacetime and observation of it? No.

You chose literally nothing but what choices were presented to you within a bigger picture that you chose no part of, and even the choices you do make are choices arisen through a set of circumstances that are most broadly completely out of your control.

You did not freely choose the visual, tactile, or aural objects that make up your memories, your surroundings or your circumstances and mental conditioning. You did not freely choose a vast number of the momentary experiences that shaped your life. You did not choose for people to die, for consciousness to be arisen, nor for life to be mortal.

What you see as ''choice'' or ''free will'' and ''character'' are actually labels you ascribe to interdependent circumstances vastly out of your immediate control resulting in certain beliefs you hold.

If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you'd probably be black haired, brown eyed, Muslim, home-schooled and speaking Arabic. Our lives contain an element of choice, but the circumstances surrounding our perception of the world in regards to the place, time, date, objects, memories that make up our perspectives of the world are ultimately out of our control.

What you believe is ''free will'' is actually the ability to choose from several directions of motion, a choice ultimately culminating from past experiences of conditions and circumstances not chosen by you.

You're a Christian, most probably because you live in a predominantly Christian society. You're white (or black) because your parents where most white (or black). You're straight because chemically, your body responds to certain sexual stimuli (women). You're human because your parents were human. You're American because that's where your parents decided to conceive you. You're born in the twentieth century AD because that's when your parents met one another and had you. You're constricted by momentary conscious experience because that's how observation of spacetime from specific points works. You're educated to Western standards because you were born into a Western world through no conscious choice of yours. You relate certain things to other things because those other things happened to be the tactile, aural, visual and sensory circumstances that contribute to your retained knowledge of the world.

Choice is a nice word that we use to allow ourselves to think we have it, but really, most of what you are was completely out of your control. Perhaps that scares you? It makes me think, perhaps, that we're exactly what we're supposed to be, otherwise we'd be something else entirely. In that, there's no room for elitism. You're at the mercy of circumstances and time just as much as the rest of us.

 

[AV1611VET]

Choice is a nice word that we use to allow ourselves to think we have it, but really, most of what you are was completely out of your control.

Does that include NAMBLA as well?

Or suddenly, does your scientific logic not apply?

How is NAMBLA exempt from these things we're born with?

 

[Mediate]

Does that include NAMBLA as well?

Or suddenly, does your scientific logic not apply?

How is NAMBLA exempt from these things we're born with?

Being chemically attracted to something is not the same as that attraction's moral implications. You're asserting homosexuality is wrong because it's a choice. I'm showing you that in fact, very little is a choice.

You didn't choose to be attracted to women, just like paedophiles didn't choose to be attracted to kids. That has nothing to do with whether paedophilia is right or wrong. But here's why sex with children is wrong and homosexuality is not:

Consent.

Adult men and women can consent to same sex relationships. Children cannot consent with full understanding of their actions. Pedarasty is the rape of a child. Consensual adult homosexual sex is not forced, coercive or physically or mentally violating.

It has already been shown in numerous studies that a large number of people who are attracted to children would prefer not to be attracted to children. They would prefer to be free of what they see as a burden. They no more ''chose'' their sexual preference than you or I did.

However, sexually abusing a child is morally wrong, by my moral standards, because a child cannot give consent. It is a violation of a child. It is a harmful experience for a child. It is an abuse of power. It has lasting and often irreparable consequences for that child's development.

NAMBLA don't fit into those who would rather not find children attractive. They lobby for the removal of age of consent laws. They are, for want of a better word, sick.

 

[AV1611VET]

You didn't choose to be attracted to women, just like paedophiles didn't choose to be attracted to kids.

I guess this is about as close to an agreement I'm going to get from you guys, eh?

That has nothing to do with whether paedophilia is right or wrong.

That is correct.

This is about genes, not morality.

I already know pedophilia is wrong.

But here's why sex with children is wrong and homosexuality is not:

I'm not interested in why one is wrong and the other is not.

They're both wrong, according to the Bible.

But that aside, this isn't a discussion about morals.

Now I'm trying to talk science, and you suddenly want to switch to morals.

LOL.

They are, for want of a better word, sick.

They are sinners.

But that aside, I assume you're saying they have genes that prompt them to do things that are against the law?

(Heaven forbid you'll say something I can understand.)

 

[Mediate]

I guess this is about as close to an agreement I'm going to get from you guys, eh?

That is correct.

This is about genes, not morality.

I already know pedophilia is wrong.

I'm not interested in why one is wrong and the other is not.

They're both wrong, according to the Bible.

But that aside, this isn't a discussion about morals.

Now I'm trying to talk science, and you suddenly want to switch to morals.

LOL.

They are sinners.

But that aside, I assume you're saying they have genes that prompt them to do things that are against the law?

(Heaven forbid you'll say something I can understand.)

That is roughly what I'm saying, yes. But let's be more specific:

They have biological mechanisms that release chemicals known for sexual attraction, and in their case, those chemicals are released on sight of children. Whether they follow those sexual urges and actually engage in child abuse is a matter of the choice presented to them (as I explained earlier). The precursor for their sexual attraction is biological, not chosen by them. But they do have an element of choice in that they can choose whether to actually give in to their sexual urges.

Let me also say that human law is not cosmically objective. Nature, genetics, biology, these things do not abide by human laws. They come before human laws ever existed, and they will exist when human laws no longer do. There is absolutely no logical reason why genes can't prompt a person to have desires that might lead them to do something against the law.

We know that homosexual people have biological mechanisms that make them attracted to the same sex. That this attraction goes against your biblical moral code does not falsify that the biological attraction is unchosen by the individual.

 

[AV1611VET]

They have biological mechanisms that release chemicals known for sexual attraction, and in their case, those chemicals are released on sight of children.

Are you saying the same chemicals that attract a man to the same gender is [mis]used and applied to children in instances of pedophilia?

How is it that these chemicals just happen to be different between heterosexuals, but for homosexuals they are misapplied?

It sounds to me like you're saying:

Chemical A makes one prefer the opposite gender.

Chemical B makes one prefer the same gender.

Chemical B can, however, be misapplied and used to target infants & children.

(I seriously can't believe I'm discussing this.)

 

[Mediate]

Are you saying the same chemicals that attract a man to the same gender is [mis]used and applied to children in instances of pedophilia?

I don't know if ''misused'' is an apt term. In pedophiles, the chemicals responsible for sexual attraction are released upon sight of children. Now, whether that's an inborn result of a predisposition or whether some unknown past psychological trauma or event is responsible for the fact that those chemicals are released upon the sight of children, is something that I don't know. What I do know is that those chemicals being released is not a choice in the same way that it isn't a choice when you see an attractive lady and ''things start happening''.

How is it that these chemicals just happen to be different between heterosexuals, but for homosexuals they are misapplied?

Again, misapplied assumes there's a deliberate motive to release those chemicals. But actually, the release of those chemicals is a bodily function. Obviously when you're attracted to a woman, you don't really ''choose'' to be attracted to her, you just sort of are. Whether or not you act on that attraction is another thing altogether.

It sounds to me like you're saying:

Chemical A makes one prefer the opposite gender.

Chemical B makes one prefer the same gender.

Chemical B can, however, be misapplied and used to target infants & children.

(I seriously can't believe I'm discussing this.)

The chemicals responsible for attraction, nomatter the sexual preference, are very much the same, and nobody ''decides'' if the body will release them. The body just does it. What a person does decide is whether to act on that inborn attraction or not.

Take your interactions with men as a good example. When you see a man, your body doesn't release attraction chemicals. When you see a woman, it does. In both cases, you don't ''choose'' whether the chemicals are released, but when they are released, you do choose what your next step is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Take your interactions with men as a good example. When you see a man, your body doesn't release attraction chemicals. When you see a woman, it does. In both cases, you don't ''choose'' whether the chemicals are released, but when they are released, you do choose what your next step is.

For about the third time:

Are ... they ... the ... same ... chemicals?

 

[[serious]]

Are you saying the same chemicals that attract a man to the same gender is [mis]used and applied to children in instances of pedophilia?

How is it that these chemicals just happen to be different between heterosexuals, but for homosexuals they are misapplied?

It sounds to me like you're saying:

Chemical A makes one prefer the opposite gender.

Chemical B makes one prefer the same gender.

Chemical B can, however, be misapplied and used to target infants & children.

(I seriously can't believe I'm discussing this.)

Not at all. Chemical A triggers sexual attraction. There is no chemical B.

 

[Mediate]

For about the third time:

Are ... they ... the ... same ... chemicals?

It was answered in the penultimate paragraph of my post, if you'd actually bother to read things.