It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Evolutionary dynamics of male homosexuality.

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by skyshow
reply to post by doctormcauley

Hey, doc, the only gay agenda is Starbucks in the morning, a trip to the gym for a workout, and maybe a dry martini later on while watching reruns of AbFab. That's pretty much the extend of the gay conspiracy!

But the stereotypes you present are entertainin. The actual research appears to paint a different story and it's a lot more boreing. It's the ones who fall outside the norms that make the reading interesting.

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!)

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:15 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ChronMan

ChronMan...It is difficult to answer your post, since I don't know how to selectively 'quote' certain segments. I refuse to do that, anyway, since it appears disingenuous.

Sorry, had a phone call interruption. What I remember was a term 'Neuronal'....I'm going to look that up, because it seems a new term that I am unfamilar with.

BUT, if 'Neuronal' refers to the neurons, which, of course, are in the brain, then I thnk you're helping me make the POINT that homosexuality is not a choice, it is Nature.

"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.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:23 PM

Originally posted by undo
what people do with their body parts is not the issue.
what people do with their hearts, is.

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

and it does say that being celebate and unmarried is the ideal state of a christian, because you can dedicate your entire life to the pursuit of it and it won't be as compromisable because you don't have the responsibilities of marriage.

i've seen preachers in excess of 300 lbs condemning gays.
i've seen people who love money more than anything else, condemning gays.
i've seen people who've been married and divorced several times, often for no other reason than they are tired of trying to get along with the other person, condemning gays.
i've seen people who have no problem with porn, condemning gays.
etc, and you know what i mean, etc.

the issue at hand is not your sin or your flesh, it's your ability to be forgiven for that sin and your hopeful and eventual ability to rise above the circumstances of that sin. it isn't the action that condemns but the intent and therefore the desire.
meat sacrificed to an idol, ya know, is not sinful to eat. where the sin comes in is the stumbling block it provides for others who have weaker faith.

so what you're doing is expecting the gay to have stronger faith than you do, demanding they not cast a stumbling block at your feet, so you won't have to judge them, which is the real crux of the issue.

what did jesus say? did he say we inherit the kingdom due to our personal perfection?

these scriptures have an overal interpretation. they should be read as a cohesive unit and not cherry picked to assuage an aversion to a particular topic.

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

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by ChronMan

Quite frankly, 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]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:35 PM
reply to post by ChronMan

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

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?

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:39 PM
reply to post by undo

Again, 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.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:42 PM

Originally posted by undo
Well the battle is between the natural man and his spiritual side.
So what they are arguing is in essence, true. Nature does make
some odd decisions.

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

Galatians 5:19-25 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

THAT WAS THE LAW without it their is no need for a savior. The law is what convicts the sinner and Christ is what redeems him.

in the below passage
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law

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

to leap over by the teachings of Jesus. But not because any particular aspect of the natural man is any more sinful than any other in God's sight,

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?

We got that part, already. The part we need help with is the ongoing, daily struggle, which we are all engaging in at various levels. You might be a shining example of spirituality in one area and a complete washout in another. Same for all of us.

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

- Con

[edit on 27-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:50 PM
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.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:54 PM
I'm not going to say being gay can't be genetic because there is no proof either way on the subject. I have no doubt given time science will find the answer to that.

However I did find it odd throughout this debate people quoting animal dominance proof that homosexuality was genetic. A male dog is not gay just because it gets it on with another male dog. It's showing who is the dominant male. It both humiliates and hurts the other dog that is being dominant. Watch a documentary on a wolf pack once you find the alpha male will do it as a sign of punishment to other males in the pack that get out of line. In the animal kingdom it's all about showing superiority over inferiority.

Now humans use this same tactic in prisons mostly. In the outside world where we have guns and bombs we show superiority by war or killing another man. Now wolves can kill each other but packs seldom kill other members because it reduces population which can be bad for pack when hunting or fighting so threat to the pack. Therefore it is a dominance issue and animals are not gay, they use at as tactic to keep others in line not for pleasure or sexual reasons. They just plan use it to prove they are boss. I always hate it when people bring up the animals in a debate such as this.

Also to put a few more things out there saying it isn't a choice and demanding it has to be purely genetic is a load of bull. There is Polynesian tribe where sex and gender roles are decided by the societies needs not by genetics. If the tribe needs a female but all that was born where males some of those males will be raised females. They have rights of females such as marriage and so on even though genetically speaking they are males. It just goes to show that environment, culture, and choice can also play a part. Also and yes there are members of the tribe that have rebelled due to choice.

I'm not saying it isn't possibly genetic because it could fit into genetics for one simple reason. It could for all I know be a genetic form of population control. Yet I am also saying in some instances it is purely choice, environment, or culture. I'm also saying the animal kingdom uses what we would call gay or homosexuality in a very different way, they use it as punishment and humiliation. All and all both sides could be right but for now there is only proof leading one way and that is that it is choice.

However I have heard something about high levels of estrogen or testosterone in the womb can lead to sexual Identity problems which might lead to homosexuality or transexualism. Yet again that is environmental and not genetic.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:00 PM

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]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:05 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ChronMan

Quite frankly, 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]

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]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:12 PM
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.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:33 PM
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.

RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi police have detained a woman for violating rules banning women from driving in the conservative Muslim country, a newspaper said on Sunday.

The woman from Buraida north of Riyadh was stopped by a police patrol after driving 10 km to collect her husband, al-Hayat newspaper said.

The woman's "legal guardian" -- her husband -- was required to sign a declaration that he would not allow her to drive again, it said. It was not immediately clear if she was released or would face legal action.

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that forbids women from driving on the basis of fatwas, or religious opinions, from clerics who say it is un-Islamic.
Reuters Sun Jun 15, 2008

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]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:41 PM
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...

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:45 PM
Here is a very interesting article on moral relativism


Moral relativism has the unusual distinction — both within philosophy and outside it — of being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism, far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone. Nonetheless, moral relativism is a standard topic in metaethics, and there are contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it: The most prominent are Gilbert Harman and David B. Wong. The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.

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

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 04:11 PM
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:

Argument from Incredulity

The argument from incredulity is a type of argument from ignorance, as it argues that the absence of evidence (or a convincing explanation) of some premise is evidence that the premise is false (or unexplainable). There are two forms of this fallacy, depending on whether it's the arguer's own incredulity or the incredulity of science (or the populace as a whole):
"This is unexplainable" (meaning, of course, "I can't explain this"). This is the argument from personal incredulity, and it contains the (usually unwritten) assumption that the speaker is a superhuman genius who should be able to understand everything -unless he or she is missing an assumption. So the superhuman genius concludes that some assumption ('God did it', 'aliens did it', 'psi was involved' or whatever) is true, because it makes things easier to understand. For example:
"There is no way I can explain how the human mind really works using conventional physics. (Unwritten assumption: If the brain really was governed by simple physics, I should be able to understand it). Therefore, it must be tapping into the computational power of the quantum universe."
"Scientists cannot explain this" (meaning, of course, "as far as I know, science can't explain this"). This variation contains the unwritten assumption that scientists are superhuman geniuses and should be able to understand everything unless they are missing an assumption. This undue veneration of scientists is a form of scientism, or using science as an ersatz religion. On top of that, it is simply not true in many cases - scientists do have an explanation, and the speaker just doesn't know it. For example:
"Scientists are at a loss to explain the evolution of the platypus by Darwinian evolution. (Unwritten assumption: If it was of a Darwinian origin, scientists should know how it happened). Therefore, it didn't evolve."

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 04:51 PM
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...


posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:00 PM
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.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:29 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog


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.


posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:38 AM
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 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]

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in