It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Or it is OK for a majority-Christian country to ban homosexual marriage because it makes them happier as a whole, even if it hurts a few individuals?
Why should I care about other's happiness anyway?
if that one guy has his moment of ecstasy right before the bomb goes off, and there is nothing objectively wrong with it, why should he deny himself that, even if it does come at the expense of a few other people?
I don't understand what's so great about other people.
Who cares about other people?
Oh, sure, once or twice, and lots of people will claim He is today...but I haven't heard a voice from the heavens. Do you think He is running around smushing people He doesn't like?
I think circumstances, like war, make it morally permissible to do things we wouldn't otherwise do.
It's not supportive of objective or subjective morality, it's just the way I see the world.
Lucid Lunacy
if that one guy has his moment of ecstasy right before the bomb goes off, and there is nothing objectively wrong with it, why should he deny himself that, even if it does come at the expense of a few other people?
Clearly he wouldn't deny himself that since he is deranged. We obviously need rules in society. The absence of god doesn't negate that obvious truth. If you're asking why it would be bad for society if someone blows up a building killing innocent people in it…. you're not thinking hard enough about this. People would suffer. That impacts society negatively. Do you really not see how? So we clearly have a precedent for taking measures in preventing that kind of suffereing. Doesn't require objective morality from god.
Tell me is this attitude towards your fellow brethren one you got from 'objective morality' If so, again, no thanks.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean others struggle with reasoning for caring about others wellfare. Perhaps it's your limitation?
I think circumstances, like war, make it morally permissible to do things we wouldn't otherwise do.
It's not supportive of objective or subjective morality, it's just the way I see the world.
"just the way you see the world" and that doesn't support moral relativism.
Rosha
BDBinc
Rosha
BDBinc
If people are wanting this gay gene nonsense to be true to make homosexuality - in their mind- "natural" or "not a sin" -that is the bias.
As you are well aware, I was replying to a hypothetical question not to the study so just please stop taking cheap shots at me and twisting my words to suit your platform. Its bad form, so obvious and really low.
Ro.
But I have not addressed you since the time you admitted you have no knowledge or training in genetics to argue the topic and it wasn't a good idea to argue with idiots.
Note my comment was addressed to the thread in general not you , some who keep believing from the thread title that there is a gay gene discovered when no such findings were produced by the study .
And I also kindly provided the reason for the cognitive bias on this media BS which is being eaten up.
You did not address me though you used my words quite happily. My comment about arguing with idiots was in reply to your unnecessarily snide comment in reply to me. I do know something about this, only that knowledge is not from a scientific perspective and I do have a stake in scientific outcomes on this, regardless of your opinion of it. In any case, you have already been debunked on your position already. You can keep spewing it out , as much as you like, your free to, it wont change that. You will only ever convince those who already dont read or think, that repetition of a flawed argument is somehow validation of it. Meh..how you waste your energy is your business. Just dont use my words please to bolster your platform. A simple request I am sure you can understand. As I have said quite clearly, I feel sciences best role in this is to remove the current moral disparity, remove the excuse active abusers are using to manipulate fear, to murder and harm other humans. That way at least, when you do choose to abuse and harm another human, it really is all on 'you'....no more blaming ' superior or inferior genes' for giving you right 'right' to do it. It is not much, but it is a start.
done.
Ro.edit on 17-2-2014 by Rosha because: (no reason given)
Bedlam
tothetenthpower
Defect I suppose is a matter of opinion. Luckily fact and opinion are different things .
Well, fact would be that the purpose of mammals is to reproduce. This behavior is non-reproductive. And this research shows it's a genetic mis-fire that's only conserved because it generally increases the fertility of females whilst occasionally inducing homosexuality...maybe.
But back to the question - if you could fix it by spraying a carrier virus with a gene patch up your nose for $20, what would you do? What would society do? If you were gay, would you do it? Would society mandate it? Ban it?
BDBinc
Tell me how is it that expect "science" to end corruption remove just the excuses for abusers, people that harm & murderers.
"Science" has been corrupted so how can it bring you morality.
Don't keep waiting for science to bring you morality, or dispel excuses for harming others (when they do not agree with your opinion).
If you want to see those things shouldn't you manifest them as an example.
"Science" can not form a man's character or tell him who he is.
My position on the study remains valid, there was no gay gene discovered, and it was just untrue media claims.
Mainstream media science is not your friend - its a control mechanism.
In time you may understand this and also how the media is used to make people fight, harm, spread fear and abuse one another.
edit on 18-2-2014 by BDBinc because: (no reason given)
Rosha
BDBinc
Tell me how is it that expect "science" to end corruption remove just the excuses for abusers, people that harm & murderers.
"Science" has been corrupted so how can it bring you morality.
Don't keep waiting for science to bring you morality, or dispel excuses for harming others (when they do not agree with your opinion).
If you want to see those things shouldn't you manifest them as an example.
"Science" can not form a man's character or tell him who he is.
My position on the study remains valid, there was no gay gene discovered, and it was just untrue media claims.
Mainstream media science is not your friend - its a control mechanism.
In time you may understand this and also how the media is used to make people fight, harm, spread fear and abuse one another.
edit on 18-2-2014 by BDBinc because: (no reason given)
Sigh.
I am not asking science to bring me morality. My morality was and is, in born. I've never needed any external to know that harming others is wrong...or why it is wrong.
Science is being used to justify current abuse. Too many fearing people clinging to it, "science says no gay gene so see its "not natural" and so ' its not natural' becomes a catch cry, one you think you have a right to use in order to abuse people based on your fear and/or your god belief ....' freedom of religion ' hmm.... sure...pfft....only if its your religion.
So yes, it is my hope, yes just a hope, that science can one day, just as easily, can be utilized to ensure this justification and mask of bigotry is removed forever.
Its not a cure all..just a place I personally, think is good to start. It is the Galileo moment to me.
This study was not reporting from media claims and your misinterpretation of the study and your denial of that study's outcomes is just proof that you can enter denial well, not that there is no biological basis for homosexuality.
I dont owe you any explanation in any case..though I try to be kind I cant help freethinking right now.. " go away..I dont care ."
I'm off to have some really good gay sex right now...and I will enjoy it freely because I do accept myself and what I am and am not...and well..stuff you...its your denial..your fear, your crap..your prison....so its YOURS not mine to own...so ..go eat it..eat your fill..I really, dont care anymore.
Ro
EnderMEM
reply to post by BDBinc
So do you not believe that their is no biological basis for homosexuality?
So you are in the opinion that 100% of homosexuals make the choice to be homosexuals?
If so, why do you think the evidence that shows otherwise? What do you make of the evidence showing otherwise (eg. all the size differences in specific areas of the brain when comparing heterosexuals to homosexuals)?
I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I would be very interested in hearing your opinion on this, and any facts that you may be able to use to back it up,
Thanks
Phage
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
Disclaimer, I do not like the TONE of this crud at all, but it does make the point I wanted:
No. It doesn't.
the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm
Xcalibur254
reply to post by BDBinc
While neuroplasticity does occur it doesn't change the gross anatomy of the brain. When we discuss the differences between the heterosexual brain and the homosexual brain we are talking about differences in gross anatomy.
I will admit you are partly right. There is no singular gay gene. However to then seemingly imply genetics plays no role in sexuality is ridiculous.
EnderMEM
reply to post by BDBinc
Yes, all brains are individual, but the structures throughout the brains are similar from person to person.
Are you saying that homosexuality caused an increase neural input that caused the differentiation? So the individuals changed the size of their hemispheres and brain structures simply because they were homosexual?
What is your standpoint on homosexuality? Do you believe that homosexuals make the choice to be homosexual, or that their biology dictates sexual orientation.
To be clear on my standpoint: I believe that homosexuals are born homosexual and it is directly tied to their biology. I believe this due to multiple studies on brain (eg, measurements, fMRI, etc.) that I have gone through when I studied behavioral neurosciences as an undergraduate. I have dissected many brains, and have held them in my hands.
EnderMEM
reply to post by BDBinc
I agree that the ruling is still out on Xq28, although I'm not willing to throw away the possibility that something in Xq28 could contribute to homosexuality. The jury is still out at his point.
We do look at similarities in science, in this particular case we notes the similarities between heterosexual women and homosexual men in the hypothalamic region known as INAH-3 (these studies can be found in the journal of hormones and behavior). So the real question we have is a chicken and the egg type of question. Does the brain, in particular INAH-3 in the hypothalamus, dictate sexual orientation, or does sexual orientation dictate the size or INAH-3? What is your opinion on this? I believe that the levels of testosterone, or lack thereof, throughout gestation and early childhood will dictate the size of INAH-3, and thus cause homosexuality.
As for "mainstream science" being corrupt: a lot of this research happens at he university level. PhD students working with doctors in the field tirelessly on these findings. These findings are then presented to other scientists in the field, and get picked apart quite vigorously. If they ever make it to a journal then they have been picked apart by some of the leading experts in the field by many universities. Maybe the mainstream media will semsationalize this kind of report, but science uses it as just another stepping stone.