What science says about homosexuality

[LightHorseman]

So can we at least dispense with calling anti-gay positions as ignorant, hateful, bigoted and phobic? I mean, even darwinism (which is a popular scientific perspective) is not supportive of "gay rights." Gruelingly and mercilessly so even.

And I KNOW that you know this isn't accurate, because I can remember linking you to the large volume of research about how homosexuality in men appears to be linked to a recessive gene carried by their mothers.

So either, you don't understand how heredity works, or, you don't care about any information that contradicts what you want to be true.

Which is it?

 

[Andreusz]

Can we go back to the OP?

Levay (a gay activist), was thoroughly discredited in his work about being born gay. It is easy to look that up on the internet.

Also, science has shown us, that the digestive tract from mouth to anus is not part of the sexual functions of the human anatomy.

Actually, scientific observation shows that sex is not always about reproduction. It follows that oral and anal sex are valid forms of sexual activity. You are trying to draw ethical inferences from scientific observations, which shows that you don't understand science. And your observations are incomplete in the first place.

Science, once again, shows us that homosexuality is a rare condition and is always an aberrant one where it is exhibited in a species.

Again, no conclusions about the ethics of gay liberation can be drawn from these observations. And what do you mean by 'aberrant'?

So can we at least dispense with calling anti-gay positions as ignorant, hateful, bigoted and phobic?

As explained above, your claims are ignorant.

I mean, even darwinism (which is a popular scientific perspective) is not supportive of "gay rights." Gruelingly and mercilessly so even.

This is not true. There is some evidence that a certain percentage of homosexual individuals in a population helps that population to reproduce, that is, homosexuality appears to have Darwinian benefits.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Um... that isn't remotely true at all.

Reality on the walls at work say otherwise.

Google "p spot", and go from there. (assuming that PC-F has never had, nor ever wants, to recieve the sort of job that euphemistically includes the word "blow" in its common name)

Deviant and unnatural behavior is oftentimes exciting and enjoyable. Riding a motorcycle is both unnatural and fun. My point is to defend against the charges that being anti-gay is based on meanness, bigotry or hatefulness. It is based on logic and reason.

Motorcycles are fun, but ask a mother of a child killed or seriously hurt on one if she doesn't oppose them for good reasons. And I'll bet she doesn't like motorcycle advocates as well.

 

[IzzyPop]

Can we go back to the OP?



Levay (a gay activist), was thoroughly discredited in his work about being born gay. It is easy to look that up on the internet.

Levay himself actually warned people against drawing too many conclusions from his study.

Also, science has shown us, that the digestive tract from mouth to anus is not part of the sexual functions of the human anatomy.

Neither are nipples, hands, lips, tongue, eyes, neck, ears, back, thigh, feet, or hair. And yet all of them can be part of sex.

Science, once again, shows us that homosexuality is a rare condition and is always an aberrant one where it is exhibited in a species.

Along with blue eyes, left-handedness, polydactylism, albinoism, and a host of others. Are they immoral as well?

So can we at least dispense with calling anti-gay positions as ignorant, hateful, bigoted and phobic? I mean, even darwinism (which is a popular scientific perspective) is not supportive of "gay rights." Gruelingly and mercilessly so even.

Wrong. There are a few theories, supported by evolution, that suggest why homosexuality is a beneficial trait within a cooperative species.

 

[LightHorseman]

Reality on the walls at work say otherwise.



Deviant and unnatural behavior is offtentimes exciting and enjoyable. Riding a motorcycle is both unnatural and fun. My point is to defend against the charges that being anti-gay is based on meanness, bigotry or hatefulness. It is based on logic and reason.

Motorcycles are fun, but ask a mother of a child killed or seriously hurt on one if she doesn't oppose them for good reasons.

What ever. You have no interest in reason or fact. I've tried, and if you had shown the slightest interest in what anyone else had to say, I'd continue to converse with you. But you are only here to preach your pre existing beliefs, regardless of what science, evidence, or anyone else may have to say. I'm simply not interested any more in trying to discuss things with people who only want to preach their own POV without interference from anyone else. [ignore]

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Actually, scientific observation shows that sex is not always about reproduction.

Not in naturalism. Which is the basis for the secular belief system.

It follows that oral and anal sex are valid forms of sexual activity.

Valid? They are fruitless to the extreme. You can't have you evolutionary derived morality and your position too. Fun does not equate with equality.

You are trying to draw ethical inferences from scientific observations, which shows that you don't understand science.

Me? Tell that to all of your secular pals. I'm just using science as observation and result.

And your observations are incomplete in the first place.

Not according to origin of species, anatomy, biology and physiology. I'm not the one basing my views on emotionalism.

Again, no conclusions about the ethics of gay liberation can be drawn from these observations.

Gay liberation seems to be heading towards a quasi Christian morality. Marriage and monogamy as the highlight of meaning. I'm digging the irony of it all.

And what do you mean by 'aberrant'?

1. Deviating from the proper or expected course.
2. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.

A male is "designed" sexually for the female. The female, "designed" sexually for the male. Sorry sir, that's in your science books as well. So much for my being ignorant.

As explained above, your claims are ignorant.

And I prove you wrong every accusation of it.

This is not true. There is some evidence that a certain percentage of homosexual individuals in a population helps that population to reproduce, that is, homosexuality appears to have Darwinian benefits.

Let's not go there OK? Darwinism finds meaninglessness in those that do not reproduce. Old models replaced by newer ones. Homosexuality creates no models at all. Again, science is on my side. My point once again is shored up by sound reason, science and logic. What you are doing is appealing to emotionalism and the passion for justice that seperates humans from the animal kingdom. Which by the way, I do not oppose.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

What ever.

Isn't that a bit cliche?

You have no interest in reason or fact. I've tried, and if you had shown the slightest interest in what anyone else had to say, I'd continue to converse with you.

I respond to everyone that responds to me. That is the definition interest.

But you are only here to preach your pre existing beliefs, regardless of what science, evidence, or anyone else may have to say.

Obviously the science I present is not what you and your preexisting positions want to hear. I don't care if gays are gay, I just want to be able to oppose gay activism by using logic and reason and science and not be outllawed.

I'm simply not interested any more in trying to discuss things with people who only want to preach their own POV without interference from anyone else. [ignore]

That is ironic.

 

[Penumbra]

Let's not go there OK? Darwinism finds meaninglessness in those that do not reproduce. Old models replaced by newer ones. Homosexuality creates no models at all. Again, science is on my side. My point once again is shored up by sound reason, science and logic. What you are doing is appealing to emotionalism and the passion for justice that seperates humans from the animal kingdom. Which by the way, I do not oppose.

That's only an issue if humanity is interested in increasing its population. We've already spread around the Earth and we're increasing in population whether we like it or not.

This combined with anti-abortion arguments, and we have too many people, both born and unborn.

So I don't see how being unable to reproduce is a weakness anymore.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

That's only an issue if humanity is interested in increasing its population. We've already spread around the Earth and we're increasing in population whether we like it or not.

That's not the issue at all with gays versus Christians. It is about the sensible and logical reasons to oppose lascivious licentiousness and and "anything goes" environment. In darwinism, logic and common sense, anything does not go.

This combined with anti-abortion arguments, and we have too many people, both born and unborn.

Abortion by medical procedure is also completely unsupported by nature. Why is ti that those that hold to a secular (naturalistic) belief system can have any logical reason to support abortion? Or, gay behavior for that matter.

So I don't see how being unable to reproduce is a weakness anymore.

That's not the issue. In this thread, science does not support gay activism. Only emotionalism and self interest does. My position is to shore up why Christians are not bad people for being anti-gay. Logic, reason and science are on the side of the Christians. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[Norbert L]

I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying it is hypocritical to follow instructions which you feel are wrong? And are you also saying that worshipping an occasionally immoral god is immoral?

If you are, I don't think I agree. It's not necessarily hypocritical to follow instructions even if you feel they are wrong, but it would be hypocritical to except others to follow them even if you do not.
As for worshipping a God that has been immoral, it depends on how you think it is now. If you think it has changed for the better, and have discarded its previous commands on account of their immorality, you are behaving according to your own morality, not against it. If however, you worship it and follow all its commands, even the immoral ones, you obviously are partaking in its immorality.
Homosexual Christians who would think other homosexuals as abominations or green jelly would obviously be hypocritical and immoral. Not to mention a bit lunatic.

Did I entirely misunderstand?

It's hard to explain without getting into some theology, which is something that starts to go beyond what science can explain and the specific purpose of this forum. In essence it's about double standards and wether or not the written word is consistant with its statements that are revealed from a Higher source. Or is it just a collection of wise sayings written by falliable wise men.

To start with a semi-theological premise(depending how someone interprets what that "Creator" exactly is) that true morality has never changed:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

When there's an absolute self-evident morality that appears and has never changed, plus a Holy God made self-evident that morality with a Bible that reflects both, then someone or something must have practiced hypocrisy in their stance on sexual morals.

In principle, this puts those homosexuals who believe practicing their sexuality within Christianity as no more a sin, in another apostate form of teaching. From an Atheist's point of view, this puts that same group as having an amoral position. Thus lacking what should be a self-evident and absolute morality.

Now that begs the questions you asked:

1) Are you saying it is hypocritical to follow instructions which you feel are wrong?

2)And are you also saying that worshipping an occasionally immoral god is immoral?

1) it makes someone else(God,man or Bible) hypocritical for moral instructions which are wrong.

2) Worshipping a god that teaches it's his will for society to change their moral standards can have other implications for the heterosexual as well as the homosexual communities.

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

You shall not murder.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s


All the above does assume that the Bible is 100% inspired and in line with that eternal self-evident moral behavior and not some collection of falliable wise men sayings.


So those who proclaim Christianity teaches an active homosexual lifestyle is no longer a sin, that this "Creator" within time changed that particular part of morality. A religious group who suggest that self-evident and consistant morality can change...

Would an Atheist homosexual believe that it is a good thing? What is to prevent that particular sexual morality from reverting back? Christian homosexuals who believe practicing their sexuality is no longer a sin become somewhat of an oxymoron by associating with Christianity and it is possible for an Atheist homosexual to question that belief system as borderlining on lunacy.

 

[IzzyPop]

That's not the issue at all with gays versus Christians. It is about the sensible and logical reasons to oppose lascivious licentiousness and and "anything goes" environment. In darwinism, logic and common sense, anything does not go.



Abortion by medical procedure is also completely unsupported by nature. Why is ti that those that hold to a secular (naturalistic) belief system can have any logical reason to support abortion? Or, gay behavior for that matter.



That's not the issue. In this thread, science does not support gay activism. Only emotionalism and self interest does. My position is to shore up why Christians are not bad people for being anti-gay. Logic, reason and science are on the side of the Christians. That's all I'm trying to say.

If what you state is true, then I suggest you start to use either logic, reason, or science to support your arguments. There are ways that homosexuality helps a cooperative species such as humans. You have been shown this repeatedly. Someone that uses logic, reason, or science in their arguments would either respond to these with a counter-argument or concede that their position is untenable as opposed to just repeating the same unsupported assertion over and over.

 

[apersonsaperson]

Oh, also I do recall reading an article (google it, i'm too lazy to post a link) which had information from different scientific studies. Homosexuality has been found in other species besides humans. Theorists speculate the possible function of homosexual creatures in a species are natures way of birth control to stop, or slowdown excess beings being born into an overcrowded population. This would make sense, considering the planet is overpopulated and we seem to have more gay people than ever.

 

[Norbert L]

OR... OT law is based on tribal pragmatism more than actual morality...

I've already gone off somewhat from the actual topic as you can see from my post above(http://www.christianforums.com/t7371966-33/#post51937531). In essence it would depend on how to interpret the written word about men laying with other men. Is it supposed to be a moral instruction in principle about where sex should not happen, or is supposed to be tribal pragmatism.

That is another topic for another forum, besides which some Christians believe the OT law is not abolished which causes all sorts of other theological issues.

 

[IzzyPop]

Oh, also I do recall reading an article (google it, i'm too lazy to post a link) which had information from different scientific studies. Homosexuality has been found in other species besides humans. Theorists speculate the possible function of homosexual creatures in a species are natures way of birth control to stop, or slowdown excess beings being born into an overcrowded population. This would make sense, considering the planet is overpopulated and we seem to have more gay people than ever.

Not only that, but in a familial or clan structure you would have contributing members that did not have children of their own. Win/win. Genes are passed along by those that do procreate and the survivability of the group increases.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

If what you state is true, then I suggest you start to use either logic, reason, or science to support your arguments.

That statement is the equivalent to the schoolyard: nyah-nyah-nuh-nyah-nah. The Christians that are anti-gay are as sensible as anatomy itself.

There are ways that homosexuality helps a cooperative species such as humans.

How so? We have seen throughout history that society will not cooperate with it and them. Why is homosexuality so repulsive and repugnant to societies throughout history? 5000-years of recorded history and here we are still at the homosexual opposition situation.

You have been shown this repeatedly.

With liberal social and political talking points. Science says that homosexuals don't have sex at all in any way. That's just using observation. Homosexual acts mimick sexuality and nothing more. Please point out how my use of logic here is askewed?

Someone that uses logic, reason, or science in their arguments would either respond to these with a counter-argument or concede that their position is untenable as opposed to just repeating the same unsupported assertion over and over.

And here we are again, I present evidence and you leftists say: Where's your proof? It's an absolutely fascinating thing to behold.

All my position is, is that "anti-gay" (especially Christian) is sensible and justified and not based on hate or bigotry. It is based squarely on biology, physiology, anatomy and logic.

Please show why "anything goes" is sound logic?

 

[IzzyPop]

That statement is the equivalent to the schoolyard: nyah-nyah-nuh-nyah-nah. The Christians that are anti-gay are as sensible as anatomy itself.



How so? We have seen throughout history that society will not cooperate with it and them. Why is homosexuality so repulsive and repugnant to societies throughout history? 5000-years of recorded history and here we are still at the homosexual opposition situation.

Really? You need to read up on history a bit more. Homosexuality was and is accepted in many cultures. While I have no hard evidence, it seems to me that the more patriarchal a society is, the more male homosexuality is abhorred. Something to do with a male debasing himself by taking the woman's role during sex is my guess. Female homosexuality is almost always given a pass.

With liberal social and political talking points. Science says that homosexuals don't have sex at all in any way. That's just using observation. Homosexual acts mimick sexuality and nothing more. Please point out how my use of logic here is askewed?

Unless you are contending that oral sex or anal sex is not sex, you are making no sense at all.

And here we are again, I present evidence and you leftists say: Where's your proof? It's an absolutely fascinating thing to behold.

You are not presenting evidence. You are presenting opinions, half truths, and logical fallacies and calling them evidence.

All my position is, is that "anti-gay" (especially Christian) is sensible and justified and not based on hate or bigotry. It is based squarely on biology, physiology, anatomy and logic.

Please show why "anything goes" is sound logic?

Show me where I have supported 'anything goes'. You are building a straw man instead of dealing with the actual arguments that are presented. That would be a logical fallacy not logic, reason, or science.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Really? You need to read up on history a bit more. Homosexuality was and is accepted in many cultures.

Where in the modern world? It's very recent the inroads homosexuals have made. Very, very recent history-wise.

While I have no hard evidence, it seems to me that the more patriarchal a society is, the more male homosexuality is abhorred. Something to do with a male debasing himself by taking the woman's role during sex is my guess. Female homosexuality is almost always given a pass.

Seems rather a natural occurence. Female homosexuality seems less likely to spread deadly disease.

Unless you are contending that oral sex or anal sex is not sex, you are making no sense at all.

Biologically, anatomically, both fun adventures you describe have nothing to do with sexual intercourse. They are pseudo in the literal. That would be what "sex" is not. Again, logic is on my side.

You are not presenting evidence. You are presenting opinions, half truths, and logical fallacies and calling them evidence.

From your social political correctness dictionary. From the real one, my positions are sound. In the lab they are also supported.

Show me where I have supported 'anything goes'.

Are you not supporting both same-gender marriage and homosexuality as normal?

You are building a straw man instead of dealing with the actual arguments that are presented. That would be a logical fallacy not logic, reason, or science.

I answer directly the positions that are presented at me. I use established science as my guide, and not emotionalism.

 

[David Brider]

Why is homosexuality so repulsive and repugnant to societies throughout history?

I suspect a combination of ignorance, imagination, and the "ick" factor - too many people associate homosexuality with the notion of two blokes getting it on, and get personally rathe squeamish about it.

Fortunately, increasingly people are realizing that in reality, homosexuality is nothing to be scared about.

David

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I suspect a combination of ignorance, imagination, and the "ick" factor - too many people associate homosexuality with the notion of two blokes getting it on, and get personally rathe squeamish about it.

Parents mostly.

Fortunately, increasingly people are realizing that in reality, homosexuality is nothing to be scared about.

David

That's what was thought in ancient Greece and Rome too. And here we are yet again.

Something about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? How's that go?

 

[IzzyPop]

Where in the modern world? It's very recent the inroads homosexuals have made. Very, very recent history-wise.

We go from history to the modern world? Pick a goal post.

Seems rather a natural occurence. Female homosexuality seems less likely to spread deadly disease.

Then why is homosexuality more prevalent among men than women?

Biologically, anatomically, both fun adventures you describe have nothing to do with sexual intercourse. They are pseudo in the literal. That would be what "sex" is not. Again, logic is on my side.

Really? Couple of points on this one. I find this to be disingenuous, at best. They are sex. It's in the name of the act, for goodness' sake. It is not coitus, but it is sex.

Secondly, humans do not have sex solely for procreation. If that were the case, there would be obvious signs when a woman is in estrus. Instead, we use sex for bonding purposes and pleasure, as well. This pleasure part includes a whole lot more than just sticking it in and going to town. Given that the contractions of a female [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] help move any sperm deposited along to help improve the chances of pregnancy, the simple fact that most women cannot [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] from vaginal stimulation alone leaves an interesting conundrum for those that insist that sex is vaginal intercourse alone.

From your social political correctness dictionary. From the real one, my positions are sound. In the lab they are also supported.

Wrong. See above.

Are you not supporting both same-gender marriage and homosexuality as normal?

No.

I answer directly the positions that are presented at me. I use established science as my guide, and not emotionalism.

Your argument is nothing but emotionalism. You find it distasteful. I get that. As I stated earlier in this thread, I find certain act distasteful, but I do not consider practitioners of those acts to be less than me. I do not lobby for them to be second class citizens. I do not consider them to be evil.