Evolutionary dynamics of male homosexuality.

Sounds like you have been reading my posts....

So you'll remember seeing this:

"Conversion": Presenting images of gays that look like regular folks. "The image must be the icon of normality."

Remind you of anyone (YOU!)

"Neuronal Glitch" translates to "Mental Glitch".

Maybe thats why you misinterpretted what I was conveying.

I never made any arguments about Homosexuality being Unnatural because anything that occurs in this Natural Universe is in fact Natural. Now something being a choice doesn't disqualify it as being Natural because in its core, even a choice is Natural. Unnatural cannot exist or be produced in a Natural World. One can debate that something "doesn't occur in nature." but aren't we in Nature? isn't everything we do, something that has occurred in Nature?

My problem with your argument is you continue to percieve it as "Black and White". I say: "I believe SOME" homosexuals made that choice and provided an argument as to why it might be so. You respond by making an absolute statment saying: "No, Its NOT a Choice." Its funny because you succumb to the same thing you're criticizing. Until you've surveyed each and every Homosexual, you cannot make the statement that homosexuality isn't a Choice. Read my comparison I made with Homosexuality as Being a Choice and Cannibalism in pg. 8.

According to this logic, Pedophiles would feel justified in their Filth.



So subscribing to a particular Religious Belief is a prerequisite to criticizing Homosexuality?

reply to post by ChronMan

---

Quite frankly, ChronMan....you have it backwards. A lot of Gay men 'chose' to get married and have children, in order to adapt and comply ieth the 'views' of society. AND to comply with the views of their familial pressures as well.

Gays who 'come out' are actually very brave. AND, staights who stand up to promote tolerance, and acceptance, are also very brave.

I will defend, to my death, the right for any straight couple to engage in whatever kinky sex they wish. It's NONE of my business!!! And it's NONE of your business, either!!!!

EDIT....well, I made a typo. Must mean I'm Gay!!! Didn't correct it, you can see it plain as day!!

[edit on 6/27/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by ChronMan

---

Depends on the culture. My grandmother married at age 12, here in America, about a century ago. Her husband was an adult by our definition... he was over 18, and if I remember correctly, closer to 20. Today that would be considered pedophilia, but back then it was not out of the ordinary. Which leads right back to the central premise that in God's sight, anything that is orientated on the flesh is inherently against the spirit, with the exception of faith, hope and love (not to be confused with sex). There has to be an over-reaching definition because morality is frequently reinterpreted at the cultural level, which changes with the times and location and the people in charge.

So biblically-speaking, the flesh is in a war with the spirit, which is not to be ultimately confused with cultural laws or norms. God is not a respecter of persons. Our culture or status has no bearing on his reality.

Does that answer your question?

reply to post by undo

---

Again, undo.....you manage to exceed my expectations!!

It is the fallacy of the internet, that we try to state our positions, and get completly misunderstood, at times.

By the grace of god undo but we all have thorns in our flesh and this is the thorn in thiers and I will speak to it directly without worrying about others that insist I am singling out one sin, sensationalizing it as worse than others when I have mad no such comparison about all the other sins that have nothing to do with this thread.

It is the flesh and the spirit and with unbelievers it is BOTH for the have no concept of their bondage to powers and principalities that not only have the flesh but the spirit also. When I speak to them I am in large part speaking to those same powers and principalities

The battle with Christians is the flesh but not the spirit, we can do nothing about the flesh unless we walk in the spirit.

Notice the two fold message in this verse






if they are not led by the spirit ( and I think it's safe to assume they are not,) than GUESS WHAT



Nor are they any less, undo. I don't know why I have to sugarcoat this particular sin this thread is attempting to inform as an excuse for homosexual sex. I am not the one bringing it up they are and I would be re-mis in my testimony if I was to skirt the issue because of the sensitivities of someone suggesting that I am using prosecutorial vindictivness ostrasizing a particular sin when the sin in question and the one being promoted here is Gay sex sin which is the question I was answering.

Why is that creating so much doubt in my testimony for you?

Do you not have enough faith in God to know that maybe what I am saying is just what someone needs to hear whether you or I think it isn't?





Ok ok I see where you are coming from UNDO. I will abdicate my participation here in this thread.

Ultramediacorp@gmail.com

- Con




[edit on 27-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology

---

Con....I have no 'bleeping' thorns in my flesh!!!

Sometimnes I might get a splinter.

Please take your religous diatribes somewhere else!!

Your thumping is getting no reaction, it just causes us a headache.

con,

i don't see it as sugar coating, because, as you mentioned, if someone is trying to justify an action, they must realize others disagree and what those reasons are for disagreement. the gospel message is the opposite. it doesn't condemn, it forgives. i don't know how else to put it without making it sound as if you are completely wrong (cause you aren't, completely wrong... the NT does say this is an activity that needs to be refrained from). the issue at hand is whether that approach will solve the problem if the person isn't even aware he's in a battle to bring his flesh under submission. i mean, we have the benefit of being aware of that, and we still screw up.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by undo]

Seriously, debating with you is useless.

You continue to miss the point being conveyed and its becoming boring having to simplify everything to an elementary level only to have you misinterpret the point again. You have apparent issues with comprehension, that doesn't help any debate.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by ChronMan]

reply to post by undo

---

Why do you continue to make Religious references?

Again I say it... Subscribing to a particular Belief isn't a prerequisite to criticism. Today, we as a society define an 18 year old dating a 12 year old as pedophilia, we are no longer in the past. And you know just as well as I that the past was in many ways terrible in tradition.

Undo, you are a very interesting person.
I usually react negatively when people introduce God and religion to everything around them. That is not because I have inherently anything against either of those things, but because very few people have your grasp and understanding of Christianity.

Nature in itself is neutral. The natural world just is. The forests, the animals, the clouds, have no conceptual position of themselves. Humans, depending on their society and culture, put concepts and labels to all that surrounds them.
Let me give you an example:
Let's say that in this moment a little baby girl is born in either of three places.

1. Thailand: In Thailand, no matter what our Western sensibilities might be, it is legal if she registers with the state, for her to become a prostitute at the age of 18. Not only that, but this girl will not be ostresized and will often be respected for supporting her family.

2. Saudi Arabia: According to their modesty laws women can't drive so as to not be exposed to potential sin.


3. USA: Here, neither of those two extremes are acceptable.

Same girl, born in three different cultures, all of them convinced that under their cultural interpretation of their religion, have their moral compass absolutely right.
Three cultures that all have their "doctormcauley/Conspiriology" and will judge each other's morality from their own blinder assisted view.
But this little girl is the same little girl no matter where she is born. Same thing applies to homosexuality. No choices here, just natural babies being born, the luck of the draw will determine if they are fortunate enough to be born into a tolerant culture.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by schrodingers dog

---

sd...If I could give you a thousand stars, I would!!

That is quite likely the best-written post I have seen, in my short time on ATS!!

I thought about adding more comment....but just read above...

Here is a very interesting article on moral relativism


It speaks to the point in my previous post.
I might start a thread on this as a stand alone topic.

Much of the unfounded opinions expressed on this thread from those who reject homosexuality as an inherent behavior is based on the following false premise:

As a believer and gay I'd like to say that a person is not the job he has, his status or in this case his sexuality. We are first children of God and spiritual siblings. No matter how much it saddens me to witness all that intolerance and lack of acceptance I am calm and certain, because I know that He loves me infinitely as He loves each one of His children.

There is no other thing that makes me feel happier than when I experience or see unity in diversity. I hope I'll live long enough to see that realised on Earth among her people...

Alexandros

reply to post by Alexander1111

---

Alex, agapi mou,
From your lips to god's ears.
I envy your tolerance and your ability to exercise it in light of some of the comments thrown your way.
Asteri for you.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

---

Euxaristo!

I respect every person's opinion, but no words I am not in agreement with can make me see a person in negativity. This is something I learned through my personal relationship with God and through all the bad experiences I have had because of my sexuality. I wouldn't ever want a person to experience what I and most gays (or many other people who are often victims of discrimination) have experienced.

Alexandros

I'm going to post this incase some of you might have missed it. This is quite profound, actually, and explains quite a lot:

Yes and not only then, but today as well. Consider the Mormon church for an example (and this could easily be any number of denominations or even outside of Christianity, and any denominations of any faith of superstitious belief in some god), and their mandatory 10% tithing practice. Take the average yearly income for an adult male and lets say 40 years of working, and supposing that this one Mormon male who is being "fruitful and multiplies" has 5 children who each have 3 children...then do the math and figure out the total revenue take by the church over those 4 decades among the family. Now, what if one or two of the kids were gay? What if the dad was gay? He could repress it, stay married and in the church and it would result in all of that revenue, however if he does not repress it, comes out and leaves the church, then the church looses all that money. Calculate it all up, you'll see we are talking about millions and millions of dollars throughout the organization, and the same goes for the Vatican, and other organized religions. Thus there is a strong incentive to support translation interpretations that do not accept the homosexual.

(using $40,000.00 average annual income for the example)

40 (years) x 40,000.00 (annual income) = 1,600,000.00
1,600,000.00 x .10 (LDS tithing rate) = $160,000 per working person between ages of 20 & 60, assuming they retire at 60 and start at 20)

5 children by age 25 (assuming their 20 years until they work) so 15 years of working time at 40,000 = $600,000.00 times the 5 kids gives us: 3,000,000.00. 10% of that finishing up the 40 years would be: $300,000.00

Add up the 5 Kids (remember this whole estimate only covers this one man's family for 40 years) and the dad gives us $460,000.00, but he has a wife and she probably works now as well, so using the same average yearly income we add another $160,000.00 to this, and now we have $620,000.00 in revenue for the church...now let's finish this off with the 3 kids each that the five all have now say for the last five years of grandpa's working life and this would mean 3 x 5 = 15 kids at $40,000.00 for 5 years = $3,000,000.00 X 10% = $300,000.00

So I get a total of $920,000.00 for this one guy in revenue for the church. Now of course average incomes will vary and change over time. Some of the kids might be female. Not all will stay "believers", others might be excommunicated, maybe two will have incomes in excess of $100,000 per year....maybe grandpa works until he is 70, and maybe the kids all start working at younger ages etc...but this is just a rough estimate.

Almost a million dollars lost, if he goes gay before his mission (and this does not include adjustments to the revenue value over time as a result of returns on each yearly revenue streams investment...or interest if they hold the cash in a fund... if so, we would be talking about significantly more than a million dollars). Obviously someone being gay is a big threat to the church treasury.

Oh, and also we didn't account for all of these people having gone on a two year mission for the church (which the family pays for themselves) and say each one gets two new long standing members for the church each...well you just added a ton more money revenue stream for the church on top of that previous million or so...perhaps even $millions more.

Nope, I'm afraid god frowns on loving one of the same sex it would seem. It's so bizarre why so many continue to believe and give their money to such rackets!


[edit on 28-6-2008 by skyshow]