2 hot button topics: evolution vs creationism and gay vs straight

If one believes in an all powerful and all knowing surpreme being who all created life, that would include gay life. Which means gays are around for a purpose that is part of a master plan that you cannot fathom, not being all knowing and all

But

If you believe in evolution, where passing along genes and improving those genes is the end game. Then any small subset of people who, by natural instinct cannot or will not pass along their genes must be a negative genetic mutation.

Well this may get me in a spot of bother but im going to say it anyway.

I dont know why the anti-gay community is so anti-gay and why that really matters. Gay people keep to them selves and thier community's but the thing is if gay people cant have children without massive paper work and hassle via adoption or surrogation- surely its not a sustainable "race - term used very loosely here".

Do some people really think gay people are a threat of some sort?

a reply to: thinline

Dear thinline,

Now, that was an impressive OP. I know, it doesn't have any of the external marks of a super star OP, but you've introduced at least 1 1/2 ideas which are fresh to ATS. They are thought-provoking and can't (or at least shouldn't) be dismissed with a quick answer.

With any luck, this won't get sucked off-topic too quickly. I'm off to think about it. Some very ominous bells are ringing.

Really nice work.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: thinline

your representation of evolution is fatally flawed

You can believe in God and evolution.
Gay people have children all the time.

originally posted by: thinline
If one believes in an all powerful and all knowing surpreme being who all created life, that would include gay life. Which means gays are around for a purpose that is part of a master plan that you cannot fathom, not being all knowing and all

But

If you believe in evolution, where passing along genes and improving those genes is the end game. Then any small subset of people who, by natural instinct cannot or will not
pass along their genes must be a negative genetic mutation.

I believe in evolution. I also believe in live and let live. I also believe that all this speculation about homosexuality as a detriment has nothing to do with survival of the human species.

a reply to: charles1952

Nothing about this thread is fresh.

originally posted by: thinline
If one believes in an all powerful and all knowing surpreme being who all created life, that would include gay life. Which means gays are around for a purpose that is part of a master plan that you cannot fathom, not being all knowing and all

Very true.

But

If you believe in evolution, where passing along genes and improving those genes is the end game. Then any small subset of people who, by natural instinct cannot or will not pass along their genes must be a negative genetic mutation.

Not necessarily. In fact, the existence of gay people may just be evolution's way of controlling the population to a certain degree... Then again, gay people have kids all the time. And guess what? Those kids are overwhelmingly straight! So, it's not about passing on the gay gene.

a reply to: thinline

Living things are just devices developed by the replicating molecules we call genes. They help genes survive and reproduce. A gene that makes some people homosexual may promote the survival and reproduction of others who carry it. For example, a gene that makes men gay may have beneficial effects in a woman's body.

I get the feeling that those who are Gay now were homophobic in a previous life...
& therefore Judgement was returned by the creator...

Not as a punishment, but as a life lesson!!!
For me it is a valid theory for the rise in the LGBT community!!!

As for your point about evolution, I can't say being Gay/Lesbian is detrimental to such a theory...
Their genes can still be passed by sperm & egg donation/usage...
Not all Gay/Lesbian couples adopt!!!

So genetically they still have a lot to offer evolutionary progress!!!



Peace everybody!!!

a reply to: thinline

Dear thinline,

Sorry I've taken so long, I really needed a good long sleep. Let me try to explain what I meant.

If one believes in an all powerful and all knowing surpreme being who all created life, that would include gay life. Which means gays are around for a purpose that is part of a master plan . . .

Is "Gay Life" a different form of life, which was created separately from "Straight Life?" Or, is "Gay" just a question of sexual attraction?

It is generally believed (at least in the Catholic Church) that the Devil can not create anything, but he can destroy, corrupt, or distort something once it has been created. Off the top of my head, I can see two possibilities. Gay came about because God had a purpose for it and it's a good thing, a part of His plan. Or, Gay is a corruption or distortion of the sexual attraction between opposite sexes which God created as a good thing.

I'm not arguing either side, nor do I want to. Does pure reason indicate that one alternative is more likely than another? Which? God created or the devil corrupted? Why? (Again, using reason, not emotion.)

If you believe in evolution, where passing along genes and improving those genes is the end game. Then any small subset of people who, by natural instinct cannot or will not pass along their genes must be a negative genetic mutation.

I've had discussions on and off ATS about peoples' belief concerning the source of morality. I get one of two answers if the conversation is serious and goes on long enough.

1.) The ultimate source of morality is God. Pleasing Him is the goal.

2.) The ultimate source of morality is consciousness. Survival of the species is the goal.

As a thought experiment, consider. You have the power to create a totally homosexual population, or a totally heterosexual one. Which one do you choose if the ultimate "good" is the survival of the species?

if you go with heterosexual, is that because homosexuality is less successful at preserving the species? That it is less "Moral," but that Society can "tolerate" a certain amount of it?

Thinline, I still maintain that your OP presented some fresh thoughts. I'm grateful for those who say they have seen all this before. I'm sure they can discuss it without ad hominems and superficial slogans and reactions. I'm looking forward to learning from them.

With respect,
Charles1952

How bout this for a hot topic. Believe whatever you want and sleep with whoever you want. Nothing I say is going to change your point of view, nor does anything you do in your bedroom impact my quality of life. Have a nice day.

a reply to: thinline

S&F'd for sheer controversy value

the common theme seems to be;
limitations, knowing when enough is enough, not crossing certain lines, respecting certain foundations (etc etc)
/double-checks.. yeah, we're good here

(leading question)
and who supposedly *sets* these limitations?

i like the way your mind worked but you're assuming this God didn't intend for his creations to *be* a certain way..
(argumentative: or would you prefer the creations had no minds of their own; 'robots', and weren't free to choose their own actions..?)

you've pointed out the flaw in the 'evolution is god' alternative (..kudo's)
it led to nowhere. it meant nothing. (so meaning has to be ascribed to it; hello human condition)

the common theme in all of this seems to be about *choice*

looking forward to smutty wordplay on how we're meant to break new boundaries, explore new frontiers

a reply to: charles1952

As a thought experiment, consider. You have the power to create a totally homosexual population, or a totally heterosexual one. Which one do you choose if the ultimate "good" is the survival of the species?

So procreation is considered imperative to survival, and yet rape is considered a sin. Why is that?

if you go with heterosexual, is that because homosexuality is less successful at preserving the species? That it is less "Moral," but that Society can "tolerate" a certain amount of it?

Leading off of my previous question, I'm sure most people would say rape is a violation of our human rights, at the very least. But would you not also say that it is our human right to love whomever and however we please, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights? You pick any extreme on any topic and you're going to end up with problems. Moderation is key.

originally posted by: thinline
If one believes in an all powerful and all knowing surpreme being who all created life, that would include gay life. Which means gays are around for a purpose that is part of a master plan that you cannot fathom, not being all knowing and all.

I'll address this first one.

Let's run with it. God created gays, and they have a purpose. OK. Then you also have to understand that they were around way back in OT days when God himself said "Marriage is between a man and woman," And, they were around when he reiterated it again through Christ in the NT. Christ also preached that marriage is between a man and woman ... in Imperial Roman days when it was well known that gays were around and society had a certain tolerance threshold for them.

So maybe I can't fathom God's plan, but I can fathom what He told us in plain language, twice.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: charles1952

As a thought experiment, consider. You have the power to create a totally homosexual population, or a totally heterosexual one. Which one do you choose if the ultimate "good" is the survival of the species?

So procreation is considered imperative to survival, and yet rape is considered a sin. Why is that?

Rape has a very statistically poor change of leading to procreation unless someone is incarcerated and raped serially. Bad argument.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: thinline
If one believes in an all powerful and all knowing surpreme being who all created life, that would include gay life. Which means gays are around for a purpose that is part of a master plan that you cannot fathom, not being all knowing and all.

I'll address this first one.

Let's run with it. God created gays, and they have a purpose. OK. Then you also have to understand that they were around way back in OT days when God himself said "Marriage is between a man and woman," And, they were around when he reiterated it again through Christ in the NT. Christ also preached that marriage is between a man and woman ... in Imperial Roman days when it was well known that gays were around and society had a certain tolerance threshold for them.

So maybe I can't fathom God's plan, but I can fathom what He told us in plain language, twice.

But we're not talking about marriage, are we? Most heterosexual couples are reproducing without marriage anyway. Marriage has nothing to do with it. We're talking about homosexuality as a survival mechanism. Does it hurt or help evolution? Also, Jesus never said a blessed thing about homosexuality in itself.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: charles1952

As a thought experiment, consider. You have the power to create a totally homosexual population, or a totally heterosexual one. Which one do you choose if the ultimate "good" is the survival of the species?

So procreation is considered imperative to survival, and yet rape is considered a sin. Why is that?

Rape has a very statistically poor change of leading to procreation unless someone is incarcerated and raped serially. Bad argument.

I would also imagine that not every woman is represented by those statistics. Probably plenty that would rather such memories remain buried and forget it ever happened.

originally posted by: charles1952
Is "Gay Life" a different form of life, which was created separately from "Straight Life?" Or, is "Gay" just a question of sexual attraction?

I can't speak for the OP, but I thought your post was interesting and wanted to answer for myself. IMO, the term "gay life" is meaningless. There is no such thing. Life is life and people have different sexual orientation, just as they have different dominant hands, different hair color, different personalities and different genders.

As a thought experiment, consider. You have the power to create a totally homosexual population, or a totally heterosexual one. Which one do you choose if the ultimate "good" is the survival of the species?

if you go with heterosexual, is that because homosexuality is less successful at preserving the species? That it is less "Moral," but that Society can "tolerate" a certain amount of it?

Interesting question. IF my ultimate goal is survival of the species, and those are my only two choices, I would create a heterosexual population. Simply because homosexuality is less successful at that. There would be FAR fewer accidental pregnancies and abortion would be virtually nonexistent.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Rape has a very statistically poor change of leading to procreation unless someone is incarcerated and raped serially. Bad argument.

I'm not so sure... Pregnancy results in about 5% or 32,000 women in one year.

The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.

Source