by VorJack
A fascinating article from, of all places, Details Magazine about the attempts to “pray away the gay – that is, to exorcise the spirits of gayness from homosexuals:
“Are you gay?” the prophet asked him.
In a quiet, gentle voice, Kevin acknowledged that he was.
“Speak up,” the woman commanded. “I can’t hear you.”
Yes, Kevin repeated, he was gay.
“You need to be delivered from homosexuality,” the prophet said into a microphone so that all the church could hear. Kevin was embarrassed, but he stayed put. This was no normal preacher—she spoke God’s truth. According to church dogma, homosexuality is a sin foisted on humans by demons who take possession of their bodies and compel them to act against God’s will. These evil spirits can be exorcised by those trained in spiritual warfare in a ritual known among Pentecostal Christians as deliverance. Perhaps, Kevin thought, this prophet could finally deliver him from his demons.
The prophet placed her hands on Kevin and began to pray over him. “Come out, come out!” she shouted. “In the name of Jesus, I command you to come out! You gonna free him right now!”
Kevin closed his eyes, thinking to himself, “There’s something wrong with me; I need to change.” A part of him believed this prophet could do what no one else had been able to do during previous deliverance attempts—make him heterosexual. But the prophet was loud and she looked at him with disgust and contempt as her chants became more and more belligerent. Even now Kevin can’t bring himself to repeat the most hurtful things she said. He soon began to cry. And then, with the prophet still exhorting the demons in him to depart, he blacked out and collapsed. When he regained consciousness, he stood up and returned to his seat. His shame was turning to rage. He searched his mind and thoughts and found he was unchanged—he was still attracted to men. In the past it had been family members—his mother, his aunt, or his uncle, the church’s pastor—who performed deliverance on him. This time it was a stranger, and she had pushed him beyond the breaking point. Never again, he decided, would he allow himself to be treated this way.
It was, by Kevin’s count, at least the 10th time since he was 16 that he’d subjected himself to gay exorcism.
Everything is caused by demons and all ills can be cured by prayer. Here, I think, we’re seeing more of the spread of some of the stranger Pentecostal ideas into all corners of America, along with movements like the New Apostolic Reformation. The article notes that the above scene takes places in West Springfield, Massachusetts, where gay marriage is quite legal.
I wonder if you can pray out the gay from a gay goose?
” According to church dogma, homosexuality is a sin foisted on humans by demons who take possession of their bodies and compel them to act against God’s will.” This is the statement I always get stuck on. I don’t think most christians really think about what this statement seems to mean. I seem to hear a lot of christians say that all that happens is part of god’s plan and will. If this is true how can demons do anything that isn’t part of god’s will? If demon possession isn’t part of its plan then how can it happen? How many times are plans people make completely thrown off track because of small things happening that weren’t part of the plan?
That’s a good point. I have to say I’ve heard a lot of different explanations for these kinds of things.
Like something about how God somehow has a plan and knows everything that is going to happen, but he has to let everyone have free will at the same time. I think the closest explanation to making sense that I’ve heard was something like:
God knows everything that is going to happen, so he just changes the timeline in specific locations so that his goal is achieved.
Sounds kinda evil though. I wonder what the spirit of homosexuality looks like?
“HAY HAY HAY!” *waves hand in feminine manner*
- or maybe it looks like a character from a Tom of Finland drawing. Really, the term “homosexuality” covers such a broad range of behaviors that it doesn’t tell one much about a person. At least, I don’t find that it tells me anything about a person that I will find useful in interacting with them.
Good article on free will vs. predestination (Luther, Erasmus.) : http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov95b.html
“Really, the term “homosexuality” covers such a broad range of behaviors that it doesn’t tell one much about a person.”
Very true. I just enjoy being silly far too much. Hopefully I have not bothered anyone yet with my random attempts at humour.
=D
I used to think that all these folks who think that homosexuality is a choice should try being gay for a while. I’m certain I couldn’t.
However, since many of these anti-gay folks are proving themselves to be closeted, they could just ‘choose’ to be gay for a while then use that ‘choice’ as fuel for their rhetoric.
I feel very sorry for Kevin.I hope he breaks free before it weighs on him so heavily that it becomes too much to bear.
Maybe some of those people are gay . . . so it isn’t so difficult for them. They probably wouldn’t admit that, though.
Man! When my parents found out I was gay, all they did was send me to a Christian therapist. Where’s my gay exorcism, goddammit?!
I always rip on my mother about how she’s got two sons from her first marriage – one’s bi, one’s straight, one’s a male nurse, one’s a roughneck, one has his nipples pierced – and she could learn a lot about how people believe in clichés by getting people to guess which is which :D
Jordan,
I feel very fortunate, I wasn’t raised in a very religious household and didn’t come out as a teen. These pseudo christians are in reality anti family, forces families apart. Recent reports show that gay youth homelessness is on the rise. I hope that didn’t or doesn’t happen to you. Keep the lines of communication open with your folks. They love you but are confused about what actually IS Gods plans.
I read a bumper sticker once
“Jesus, protect me from your followers”
Don’t let religion keep you between you and your folks.
Hang in there
you can call me
KID
There’s a great little show I’m currently obsessed with. They covered this topic in this episode : http://current.com/shows/infomania/91311537_thats-gay-conversion.htm
And I especially love the intro :)
No individual is born “gay”. Women have all the chromosomes it takes to be women & men have all the chromosomes they have to be men. There are certain cases where there are abnormalities in the genes & this can be classed completely separately. For a person who is said to be gay but have abnormalities in their genes, it is not choice & they really cannot be classed as gay. To people who have no abnormalities, it may simply be due to unrecognised influences. Thereby choice?
Throwing words like chromosomes around doesn’t make you sound smarter it just show how ignorant you are.
Tell me Camille, have you ever been sexually attracted to a woman? Could you *choose* to find women sexually attractive? Could you *choose* to perform oral sex on another woman? Could you *choose* to enjoy it? No? Then I’d STFU if I were you.
I can do all of that. Were you asking me? Cuz I’ll do that right now.
Not you Ty, I want you to choose to become my man-gimp. Now put the rubber mask on and get in the box.
“get in the box” … fnaarrr, fnaaarrrrr
Boomboom!
lol, wut
Well after the stories this week it’s not going to be a good time for Basil if Boris has his way …
I’m still not convinced it wasn’t a cat or a small terrier.
I tend to agree – of course the Daily Telegraph has beenn using it in its latest “crusade” to protect the countryside … personally I rather like the fact the there’s often a fox in our garden.
The farmer whose land is next to my parents leaves out snares on the fence-line between the properties, so I often come across them trapped. I must have let a dozen of them out – and they’ve all sat there, completely docile, and waited for me to take the snares off of them and calmly trotted off into the woods. Not like badgers. Them buggers just attack you.
You forget about the nurture side of things. Funny enough, it’s probably a mix of both nature and nurture (nurture not meaning a Freudian “overbearing mother” or “distant father,” but the environment of the womb).
There’s actually a lot of theoretical discussion about the “gay gene,” and how natural selection could favor such a thing. One example is of a potential explanation is the Heterozygote Advantage, where individuals that carry the “gay” gene recessively are more fit (in an evolutionary sense) than those who don’t, so the gene is passed on.
Essentially, it’s a compromise. The advantage to heterozygous individuals is so great that it compensates for the failure of homozygous* individuals to reproduce.
Another explanation is what’s called the “Gay Uncle” theory. The idea is that, because raising a human child is such a labor investment, lineages that have individuals who do not reproduce have more caregivers for the children. Human clutch/brood size has already been whittled down to one or two offspring, and maybe nature has found a way to invest even more resources in the children than just the immediate parents can provide.
The point is, we don’t really know, and we may never know what makes people gay. It’s likely multifactorial, and there’s almost certainly nothing they can “do about it.” Personally, I wonder if it doesn’t betray some inner homophobia to even look for a gay gene in the first place. Nobody’s rushing to find the gene responsible for preferring brunettes.
*haha, that’s funny
“Nobody’s rushing to find the gene responsible for preferring brunettes.”
Exactly. I for one think there is a little bit of a false dichotomy between “people are born gay” and “people choose to be gay”. There are all kinds of factors in each persons life which may affect the development of their sexual preferences. And I’m not referring specifically to orientation. Within the categories of gay and straight there is still quite a bit of variation, and a gay gene begs the question of top and bottom genes.
Hey, Camille. Chew on this for a second: according to your logic, no one is born “straight” either. Happy Friday, drive-by poster!
When I first realised I was gay, I would have done anything to become straight. I even bought copies of FHM and tried to make myself straight, but it didn´t work. It annoys the hell out of me when a straight person says that homosexuality is a choice because what the fuck would they know about it? Luckily, I´m older now and couldn´t care less what anyone thinks about it.
I dunno. I think being gay might be sweet. I don’t have a gay bone in my body, but if I did, I think I’d be pretty stoked. I imagine a life of nothing by two person xbox gaming punctuated by hummers. That’s what it’s like, right?
Being gay saves me at least $25 a year on flowers.
Damm Cheapskate!
I’d never be your Boyfriend. :P
Actually, the sweetest thing about being a gay man is that you never have to remember to put the toilet seat back down.
Unless your partner is pierced, natch.
Earlobe only. And he was a real wuss about that.
Actually, sweetest thing about being gay is that you’ll never have kids.
At least, that would be an upside for me.
That’s the thing that always gets me about people like Camille the Drive By Troll up there:
If you could choose your sexuality, why would you choose the one which will get you discriminated against in all walks of life, put you at a higher risk of assault and murder and make half of your family (depending on the family) disown you? Plus, how many gay men want kids? I know a couple of gay couples who want to start families – why would they choose to be gay and make it harder on themselves if they’re the kinds of people who want kids?
Like most ignoramuses who insist that homosexuality is a ‘choice’, the troll has an agenda. If homosexuality is NOT a choice, it cannot be a sin, as any sin involves choosing to go against God’s word. And if it’s not a sin, the Bible is wrong. Oops!
Same with the anti evolution brigade. No Adam and Eve, no original sin, Jesus’ supposed sacrifice becomes meaningless and the whole stupid edifice comes crashing down. Reason will never overcome the emotional investment.
Excellent! and absolutely correct! Take heed!
…And don’t forget the ones who commit suicide because they’re gay and don’t want to be. The gay teen suicide rate is astonishing. If it really was a choice, wouldn’t it be less drastic for them to just decide not to be gay anymore and move on?
Obviously you all do not understand me. Anyway, my last statement ended with a question mark because I myself am not too sure about the topic. All I meant was that it is a preference. I absolutely do not discriminate. I was looking at the picture from a scientific perspective vs a psychological perspective & that was my conclusion. Peace..
Obviously you all do not understand me.
Probably. It’s a little hard to interpret what you’re getting at. For example:
Women have all the chromosomes it takes to be women & men have all the chromosomes they have to be men.
No one is suggesting that homosexuality is a third gender.
Rofl @ the furious back-pedalling! Tell me, what exactly was unambiguous about your opening salvo of “No individual is born ‘gay’ “? I understood you perfectly well, thanks!
Well if its not a gender or a preferance, What is it?
It´s when you are sexually attracted to people of the same sex.
I think it’s more than just sexual; I know gay couples who love and respect one another deeply in ways that one or two of my straight friends could learn a lot from.
…Lets try “orientation”, perhaps?
I would think “aspect of person’s make-up” or possibly “character trait”. I can’t choose to be gay any more than, for example, Elizabeth can choose to not be a overbearing, boorish ignoramus.
I love your topical humour.
:-)
It is being able to choose to wear totally co-ordinated stylish clothes, it is the ability to do a cosmetic make over to make you beautiful, it’s the ability to stylishly re-decorate your apartment or house and finally without gay people your digs would be trashy and so would your make-up and dress code! So it really is a choice…..your choice to have a make over or not. I’m glad that issue has been settled!
I’m gay and I can’t do any of those things. I walk out of the house and unless I’m deliberately spruced up for a wedding or a job interview, folks look at me and ask, “Did you dress yourself, or did you just have somebody bag you at the grocery store?”
Cargo pants are never going to be fabulous. I hang my head (cheaply and comfortably) in shame.
I don’t know about shame but I look as if my haberdasher had lived and died in a previous century and probably on another planet. If gay people were measured by how tidy they kept their lodgings, I’d be considered as straight as a board……ugh, what a thought. And with my shaky hands, I don’t dare apply cosmetics to anybody of any race or gender! But I am still gay and I have known that for as long as I can remember. It is not a choice and NOT a sin!
I don’t believe in sin as an atheist, I believe in moral and immoral choices. And I don’t believe sexual orientation is a choice at all, based on my personal experience. Mine feels very, hmmm…’innate’, I guess, is the best word. It certainly isn’t something I picked.
Tidy, fabulously decorated lodgings? I’m an absent-minded science geek partnered with another absent-minded science geek. I keep our environment microbiologically non-hazardous- you won’t get food poisoning or toxoplasmosis in our house. The rest of housecleaning is optional . Sometimes I actually recycle the old magazines and dust the bookshelves.
And I don’t do drag.
Wow, I really need to turn in my pink card for First Degree Failure To Comply With Stereotypes.
Despite our differences, I do respect your outlook on gay life. Drag? me?….he-he…that would be the day. They don’t make size 15 high hells and I will not shave the hair off my face! I do recycle and bi-annually dust the shelves….I won’t go into more detail…..ugh!
Even if it _was_ a choice. It would not be immoral. Consenting adults.
There’s that too. :)
Ooh I agree, except misuing the word believe. This is a classic believe vs opinion mismatch really. I hate the word believe so much because it implies ignorance on the person, that they are willing to accept something without evidence. You have evidence of your claims and therefor dont need to believe in good/bad moral/immoral concepts.
Other than that, live long and prosper in any way you want science geek duet!
If you really want to know, I think distinction is usually made between three aspects:
Sex (what you have in your pants)
Gender (your social role, like masculine or feminine)
Orientation (the sex you prefer in a partner)
So you could be a female, butch, heterosexual; or a male, effeminate, homosexual … just as two examples.
And each of these is a spectrum. Toggle Orientation and you get a sliding gradation from straight to bi to gay. Toggle Sex and you get male, intersex, female. Same for gender.
Someone correct me if I’m totally off here.
Thank you James. I’ve seen this throughout the animal kingdom on National Geographic & humans aren’t alone. I don’t know what the big deal is with humans. We always want to prove something or unprove it. As I’ve said, I don’t discriminate. I was just comparing scientific findings to the psychological. Thats all.
No, you weren’t. You might think that’s what you are doing, but you clearly understand neither of the things you are attempting to compare.
Umm….did that brain dead, idiot preacher happen to skip over Matthew 7:1, where it says: “DO NOT JUDGE OR YOU WILL BE JUDGED”. Exactly what part of that suggestion do they NOT understand?
I tire of people who bravely announce that Jesus is Lord, while completely ignoring what their “savior” commanded and taught. How about: “He that is without sin, throw the first stone”. Are these con artists and frauds blind to what they hold sacred. When I went to a Pentocostal Church I was told the demons of homosexuality could be cast out and then I would be saved! Having sex with women guarantees a free ticket to heaven??!! So let me get this right: Having sex with ONE man dooms me to hell, while having sex(consentual or not) with a 1,000 women will get me on the heaven express??!! Does anybody see a problem with this?
Of course, I see that if I do have non-reproductive(that’s obvious!) sex with a man, I won’t be able to bring yet another child into an already over populated world! Ah, shucks(sorry for swearing!), aint that a shame! The only demons this “preacher” probably has to deal with is his unfortunate desire to fellate a man and can’t come to terms with it! Most homophobes are closeted fags(I can say this as I am one!)……I really pity the “preacher’s” wife!
Now concerning exorcism, this is definately all psychological. Right??? Custador?
Sorry, are you asking me if there are actually demons possessing these people? Or what are you asking? Are there “success” stories? Um, clearly not unless you define success as “succeeding in getting people to deeply repress their own natures and loathe themselves and lie to themselves and everybody else about who they are”.
To quote you, ” I understand you perfectly well, thanks!” LoL. You just made my day. That was a rhetorical question. I’ll leave while I’m laughing. Ciao!
Drive by wanker for Jesus.
*Yawn*
Seriously? Scoring points by not making any sense and then pointing out that I understood you in an earlier comment? Um…. How is that even vaguely funny? Go away, strange little fundie.
U all have an interesting way of expressing views and opinions. Example, name calling and judging opinions harshly if they are not like yur own. It is so christian-like.
Is there a point you’re trying to make?
I only ask because you’re point is… Well, it’s wrong. People who express a rational opinion and who can back it up don’t have an issue here. It’s just the retards who are ruthlessly ridiculed.
Everything is not subject to opinion. When someone says something wrong that’s stupid, that is not subject to opinion, it’s ok to tell that person they are wrong and also stupid.
“You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your facts” Sam Harris.
No comment.
How are those guest avatars generated, by IP address or e-mail address? Either way, it would appear Roy = Camille.
Meh – wouldn’t be the first Liar For Jeeeebus on here.
it would appear Roy = Camille
Oh wow! Is that what we call bisexualism? LOL. Or errr, ummm…hermaphroditism…or maybe a state of halfway-completed transgenderism? To Coy Ramille I say, “You go goy (birl?) ! ^_^
Seriously now, perhaps it is these Pentecostal fanatics who are the ones possessed — possessed by their own sense of self-grandeur, self-importance, pseudointelligence and self-righteousness!
I think the guest avatars are generated from the IP address.
Anyway, Roy and Camille share the same IP address, so they are at least coming from the same computer.
They are generated from email.
And yes, the email is the same, the IP is the same, and Roy = Camille.
[slow golf clap]
Let’s find out.
Yep, definitely e-mail.
Now you spoilt the fun I could have had Elliot. Anyway, I’m not gay so go ahead & bash me for giving what I believe was an un biased opinion. After all, I was the one being called names & being ridiculed all the while. Makes me wonder what you people are really like in the real world if you all can’t accept other people’s views. It really hurts to know that minds could exist that are so small that they rather call people names rather tham ask for an explaination as to what they really mean. With that said, have fun. I know where I’m not welcomed & that would be in small places.
A) Learn how to reply to a nested set of comments on a thread. Here’s a hint: You use the REPLY button.
B) You’re so full of shit.
“After all, I was the one being called names & being ridiculed all the while. Makes me wonder what you people are really like in the real world if you all can’t accept other people’s views. It really hurts to know that minds could exist that are so small that they rather call people names rather tham ask for an explaination as to what they really mean.”
Shades of stupidity are not opinions and views as your reply. Do you really need to told why? Many don’t have the heart to do.
Christians. Even when they’re flat out wrong they just claim to be victims.
Hey, it worked for their founder, didn’t it? Right? ;-)
Being gay/what makes a person gay is not something you can really have an opinion or a view on. You said what you meant, and you’re ignorant and bigoted, so what do you want us to do, tolerate how ignorant and bigoted you are, because it’s your right to your opinion, even if it’s based on your gut feelings and stories people told you? You started off trying to talk about chromosomes to try to sound educated, but you didn’t know what you were talking about, some inane blather. Then you rounded off to your alter ego, and blame Elliott! for spotting your sock puppetry (lame on your lame ass) within minutes, and cry about the way people don’t respect your “views,” which are already established to be horseshIt you made up to sound smarter than the average fundie. Boo HOO.
RoyCamille, Liar for Jeebus is concerned…and confused. She’s about as bad as a certain recently banned cretin who couldn’t make a point to save her life.
From the article:
Come quickly, Lord Jesus, indeed! (Reminds me of the Cartman line about “I want to feel your salvation all over my face”.)
way back when I was in the Navy (1974-77), I had a dear friend and we got close enough for me to ask questions. Understand that I was raised in a very WASP household in Ohio. But, I knew all people had their own lives and one night after several cocktails I worked up the courage to really talk to her……
I said I thought she was gay and she acknowledged that it was true. I then asked her…..”when did you know?”…………to which she answered without missing a beat,
” I don’t remember being anything else”, and then relayed having feelings for her third grade teacher, who was a female………..
thus, a hick from Ohio got educated that day at the ripe old age of 19.
fuck religion and their false dogma
I’m falling for your honest words lol If I don’t think I could have made it any clearer how I feel about religion and dogma myself!
I find it funny the preacher was saying “come out come out!” If I was there I would have said if he hadn’t came out already I am fairly sure he is out now…. Then my humour would be lost on the audience…
Not lost, tonight when I head to bed your words of wisdom will ring like a clear bell in the wind
Oh wait your talking about the church masses… yea I dont think they would find it very humorous…
Wakey wakey folks. Time to dust off this folder & have another go at it.(not now, obviously) Yes, same I.P, different individual. I look forward to your continued enthusiastic critique. Read you all later :-)
Let me state, btw, that it is my view that no one is born gay & that homosexuality is a choice!
Also that Romille was right when she likened you, atheists, to Christians, I would say however, religious people on a whole. You are like two sides of the same coin, since you are no better than they are.
1. Christians are set in their views & so are you. Make no mistake, you’ve just traded one dogma for another.
2. Christians congregate to repeat & thus reassure each other of their views & so do you. Truth be told, all you’ve done is swap the alter & pews for a mouse & monitors, quite religiously, i might add. I shall have to investigate whether a virtual collection plate is passed around.
3. From what I’ve read on this page, your passion & lack of tolerance for people againts your beliefs is identical to those religious fanatics. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were to put a jihad on this computer.
4. Then there are the crusaders. Both groups have individuals &/or groups, Jehovah witnessess if you will, that go out there to impose their views on others. Yes, I’ve seen the atheist posters & adds on buses & billboards.
5. The individuals from both sides that capitalize on their “followers” by writting books etc (Mr. Dawkins)
Camille we’ve already established that you’re wrong. Fuck off.
I’m guessing that anyone who agrees with me is also wrong? I am not a christian as you attacked me saying & I do still believe that there are sensible gays & atheists out there. You however are not one of them & your lack of intellect which is replaced by name calling, jugding & cursing proves me correct. Obviously Julien didnt finish what he began & it would be appropriate for you to hold your fingers until he is. Fucking me is not an option for you. I do not know you & do not care to. My views & expressions are my own as yours are yours. I however do not have to resort to your level for myself to be understood. With that said, go ahead & lower yourself more. Not because people here are gay or atheist means they are blind to what you are about. Carry on.
You are wrong to assume that I am Julien, Custador. I am not! Hope you have a good day..
Your Julien is a sock puppet, give up.
Hey Daniel, want to play “whose IP?” for us?
Then it would help if you and Julien would stop leaving the same email address.
Time to stop feeding that troll I think. Just another smug, self-satisfied theist with no justification whatever for their superiority complex. Meh.
Hey! You learned the proper use of the Reply button, I’m impressed.
Why is it that the god-bots who come to troll never seem to find that button? Like, seriously, it’s strange; happens almost every time.
Also, if you’re not the same person, then why is your name “Camille M Julien” up above.
You’re not very good at this all around, are you?
No I’m not very good at this all round. Neither are you. Did you find my IP address as Julien yet? Sigh! If I must go into detail, Yes I am Camille, yes I was Roy & yes I was Camille M Julien. You cannot & I mean cannot prove that I am Julien by an email address or a IP address. Julien is using my email address & later will be using my IP as well. What can this prove to anyone except that the messages are coming from my email & IP? Julien could be my brother, father, husband or son. Big deal with the whole IP address & email address thing. If I was Julien, I would have finished what I started because clearly his whole comment is lacking closure. Sue me for letting someone use my computer & email then.
Your name is Camile M Julien and the other person using your computer is named Julien. Hmmm. Yeah. Because everybody self-refers by their surname.
Sigh!
Not only that, but when this Julien all of a sudden shows up to pick up where you left off, you show up again after being gone about a week. I imagine you thought of some stuff but you didn’t want us to think it was you posting and gave it some time, but we caught you sock puppeting again. Give it up, dummy.
Don’t they have their own email address? I mean, for what valid reason can you explain someone using your computer but also inputting your email address when they post under their own “name”? You are a loon. What you post under all your sock puppets is really indefensible ignorance, and now you are trying to pretend you are really 3 different people — well, 2 — we have already caught you trying to pretend you were someone else. Why would we believe you are letting someone use your computer and email address now, when they are using the name Julien, just like you did? You aren’t so bright, ma’am, so just go away and stop taking us for fools. You’re nothing but a troll and a waste of air now.
What exactly have you established? That homosexuality isn’t a choice? I’ve read your post & see no sign this. Please elaborate, if you will.
’1. Christians are set in their views & so are you. Make no mistake, you’ve just traded one dogma for another.”
Dogma? When presented with facts that contradict my beliefs, I change my beliefs.
What do you do?
I assume he is an agnostic. He doesn’t have any belief or opinion.
Every morning he checks if the sun has arised, unlike those dogmatics who believe it will arise everyday just because it always do.
Yes francesc, I am agnostic. & you may not know this, but the sun won’t always rise (need details?) & technically speaking, it doesn’t rise. Which way is up? Which way down? Are you really at the top of the world? Or held by gravity on it’s side? Thats perspective for you.
“technically speaking, it doesn’t rise”
Really? A very strong assertion. Can you prove it beyond any doubt or is it a dogma?
Touhg it wouldn’t be inertial I can define a SR where I’m the center and the direction “up” is the opposite to gravity, in wich the sun “arises” every morning. It is not an SR I would recommend for some purposes, but it is pretty intuitive.
Moreover, the sun will keep arising as far as “morning” in earth do exist, and for some time after life in earth has disappeared, so my implicit statement “sun arises every morning” is not incorrect given a definition of “morning”, “arises” and “sun”.
UrsaMinor, then why do you call yourself an atheist? The correct term for you, is agnostic, T.A.P agnostic, to be exact. As for facts, what facts were presented to you that made you change your belief from, whatever, to “atheist”? This I gotta read.
I don’t believe I actually labeled myself an atheist in this thread (and I’m too lazy to go back and read through a hundred entries again to double-check), but yes, I am.
I’m an atheist and not an agnostic because I don’t believe in any god, and I don’t see any wiggle room for the possibility of the existence of any god given our current state of understanding of the universe. There is no reason to sit on the philosophical fence and say “I don’t know”.
But if new evidence is uncovered pointing to the existence of a god, I will change my position on the matter.
“You are like two sides of the same coin, since you are no better than they are”
“Bald” is not a hair color. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
1.- “Christians are set in their views & so are you. Make no mistake, you’ve just traded one dogma for another”.
Being convinced of a philosophy and defending it is not the same as “having dogmas”. A dogma is a subset of religious beliefs, not even all religious beliefs are dogmas. Atheist ideas can be discussed, and any atheist should be able to change his ideas matching better the percieved reality. That’s the reverse way of changing your perception of reality to match your dogmas.
2.- “Christians congregate to repeat & thus reassure each other of their views & so do you”
We “congregate” to discuss our ideas. You probably can see some discussions here with different points of view. I’ve changed my mind relating to some concepts thanks to others comments. Of course, when it comes to the existence of god, atheists usually agree, as it happens in republican/democrat congresses about some topics.
Also we enjoy -I assume it’s not only me- the conversation with intelligent people.
3.- “From what I’ve read on this page, your passion & lack of tolerance for people againts your beliefs is identical to those religious fanatics”
You, as some religious people out there, are -voluntarily?- mixing up the respect for a person and the respect for his beliefs. We are not trying to forbidden your religious beliefs, we are not burning you because of them; we are only saying that we find religious beliefs pretty irrational and sometimes very funny. Shouldn’t we comment when someone says “hey, earth is flat!”? Would it be disrespectful to explain him why we think he is wrong?
4.- “Then there are the crusaders” “Yes, I’ve seen the atheist posters & adds on buses & billboards.”
You mean evangelizers. You can distinguish him because evangelizers usually don’t try to kill every muslim -or christian heretic- they can find.
In some way I agree with you, but in fact I don’t have problems with christian evangelizers as far as I can answer them in the same media.
“5. The individuals from both sides that capitalize on their “followers” by writting books (Mr. Dawkins)”
Dawkins wrote some books stating his ideas. He sold it. Where is the problem??
Good night ladies, gents & others.
Camille has abdicated her role in this forum to me. Whether I am accepted as a separate individual or viewed as fraction of a schizophrenic mind is of little relevance to me. Hence I shall continue to use my wife’s email on our shared computer. Of course, it would be easy to use my email &/or my blackberry to help my case as an individual, but why negate the rampant paranoia?
However, you will find that, unlike Camille, I have no qualms about fighting fire with fire, insults with insults. I draw the line at cursing though. Those words are what illiterates use to bring some semblance of substance to what is an insubstantial post. Also, you will find that I am no drive-by troll, rather, that I am the type that would cut down your tree house, clear your forests, pave the area & open a Starbucks (can’t have too many).
“What exactly have you established? That homosexuality isn’t a choice? I’ve read your post & see no sign this. Please elaborate, if you will.”
This was established quite some time ago (google: Alfred Kinsey). All that was established here today is that one more person (I’m counting roy/camille/julien as one person) in the “homosexuality is a choice” camp is a flagrant liar and sock puppeteer.
& there’s the fore-mentioned paranoia, nox. I shall google him & get back to you.
You mean the kind of paranoia where you hear voices in your head named Roy, or the kind of paranoia where you attribute less credibility to people who have been caught in a lie?
Either way nox, I am separate & not bothered by your thinking Im not. So sure, why the heck not? I am Camille & Julien manifests himself when I don’t take my pills. Happy now? Of course not, youre an atheist :-) Btw, note that since no one else is presently on the topic, Im not in a hurry to be either.
You state your case too emphatically to be a separate person than Camille. If you had a separate identity in the first place, you wouldn’t have written someone else’s email in the email field while changing the name of the poster to appear to be someone else, and re-opened the topic by declaring you were someone else posting from Camille’s IP address. It is like you spent the whole day preparing to defend your identity instead of having anything relevant to say. It is a lot like you are some psycho. Maybe that is your choice or maybe you were born that way. Welcome to the internet, you novice sock puppet.
Actually, kodie, I spent whole day at work. That’s something men do. You should google it.
Also, it’s as though the concept of two persons living together & sharing a computer is as far fetched as thy kingdom coming. Hmm, makes me wonder what your life is like. Lonely much?
I will state my relevant points when the time comes. You see, thus far, everyone seems preoccupied with whether Im the left hand puppet or right hand puppet :-)
I don’t know if you would rather make relevant points on topic as if you are really another person and see how far that gets you. I don’t think you are going to get as much respect as you think you deserve, or would you rather weave an elaborate house of cards as to your separate identity? Either way, more entertainment. Everyone already suspects you are just a liar and kind of too stupid to use a computer, so starting with that as a clue to your character, what else do you have to say?
Of course you don’t know kodie. There must be alot you don’t know & you don’t even know it. Which kinda contradicts your stance as an atheist. Isn’t blissful ignorance against your belief? Im not looking for anyones respect. Does the anteater seek the ant colony’s respect? I was what you were. Dumb, blind & dogmatic..
Let’s add incoherent to your list of charms.
Well,kodie, clearly you’re not blind, right? You’re begining to fizzle, btw.
If you had any relevant points you wouldn’t need to waste so much energy on inventing fake identities and whining when being called out. Therefore why don’t you just go and fu*k yourself. And since there are so many of you, you can have an orgy.
Yoav, did you miss the part when I said Im not a drive-by? Since you & the others favour homosexuality, don’t bitch cause I’m sticking up your a$$. I plan to be here for weeks to come. Gasp! Don’t tell me that you intellectually advance super monkeys can only chase cars that drive-by & wouldn’t know what to do with one if you actually caught it???? My GOD!!!!
You think way too highly of yourself. You’re not sticking it to anyone, you’re just one more lowlife troll spewing his/her/its stupid for the whole world to see on the interwebs. You’re a complete waste of time and I’m not going to respond to your posts (regardless of what you decide to call yourself) unless you will be actually going to make a point and not just repeat your proud to be a troll BS.
“Actually, kodie, I spent whole day at work. That’s something men do.”
And women.
& custador, incase you didn’t get it, tonights seemingly hubris intro was mostly directed at you. You see, like kevin, you have a neurosis in that, when faced with an overwhelming situation, be it emotionally or otherwise, your subconscious mind takes you out of it in whatever way it can. In kevins case, he faints. In yours? Whenever faced with the possibilty of being wrong, you turn into a belligerent donkey. Your mindset becomes that of an old gypsy woman who curses anyone who questions her beliefs.
It would help your case if you could actually show Custador to BE wrong. Instead all we get is the same empty-headed twittering in the totally indistinguishable voice of whatever sock-puppet you happen to be using.
Let me reiterate, sunny (my previous post is waiting to be cleared), I’m gonna be here for quite a while so there’ll be plenty time to prove custador wrong. Also, the people replying to my posts are the ones sticking to the puppet rhetoric. I understand your bias though.
Do you have a point?
Just wondering.
Bill, yes I have a point, but Im not getting to it right now. The bashers are being bashed & they lose their spine? There I go again, being hubris. They all must be getting coffee at my newly opened starbucks. Latte?
You know who else never got around to making a point.
–Elizabeth Damaro
–John C
You can’t BE hubris, dumbass.
Nice to see you admit that you haven’t yet proven Custador wrong and are waiting for some future date to do it. I thought I had missed something.
Ookay, that’s all for tonight (when Camille wakes up, I go to sleep) & I’m… Feeling a little… Sleepy(bored, actually)…. Yawn…. She must be… Waking up….. Until… Next… Ti….
Do you have any idea how stupid you are? I mean, does it ever occur to you that you’re cognitively incapable of making a valid argument, much less making a believable lie?
There’s just so much wrong, with everything you’ve written, that I just can’t begin to tell you how pathetic you really are.
This multi-name crap, and your exuses for it, is like the corniest punchline in the worst 1980s B movie in the world. I don’t even know you and I’m embarrassed for you! Even with the anonymity of the internet, you have to live with yourself after making that kind of claim.
I just hope for humanity’s sake that you never breed.
Good night ladies, gents & others.
Nox, as recommended, I googled Alfred Kinsey. I read about him, the Kinsey reports, the Kinsey scale etc. & as is his reports say nothing about being born gay as you alluded to being established. Rather, they were mere statistics about the gay population, be it exclusive or otherwise & about those who aren’t predominantly gay but have had homosexual experiences. However, as I scrolled down on page one (not page 2, 3, 5 or 19) of Google’s some 190,000 results, I saw a referance to a site about Dr. Judith Reisman who has revealed that Alfred Kinsey was himself a homosexual & his reports were fraudulent. I thought to myself, “didn’t Nox see this, or did he do the christian classic & disregard any doctrine that doesn’t support his views?” In light of this I wont judge all atheists by your unthorough investigation. If Dr. Reisman is correct, it wouldn’t be difficult to see the bias in Kinsey’s reports.
***
The topic is Gay Exorcism.
As far as I am concerned, to label that phrase an oxymoron would be an insult to oxymorons. Leave it to the colorful religious minds to conceive such a thing. Exorcism is a concept believable to the feeble minded. I have never experienced the supernatural & thus do not believe it exists until credible & if possible, tangible (lol) evidence is presented.
As for homosexuality, the following is why I believe no one is born gay but rather that it is choice (whether you made the choice or it was chosen for you).
Human beings & practically every other creature in the animal kingdom are products of their environment. Example, Whatever country we are born in, we grow up grow up learning the language(s) of that country & the customs & cultures of that society. We wont see a child born & raised in France speaking spanish or hindi. That child, born in France is fashioned by society into the proverbial french man or woman. However, hypothetically speaking, were we to take that child from birth, move to Spain & raise it there, that child would become a proverbial spaniard. We wont see that child, while having a convo with their spanish friends blurt out random words in french because at the age of 16, their “french gene” has begun to manifest. In fact, unless told they were born in France, this individual wont have an inkling of being originally french. It’s the same for homosexuality. A person has those desires because at some point in their early childhood that preference was instilled in them. As children, or even in the womb, our brains are like super absorbant sponges, absorbing, processing & storing every bit of info it can. Therefore when an individual “discovers” they are homosexual later in life, that doesn’t mean that they were born with the “gay gene”. It means that that particular preference stored in their subconscious mind & is only now manifesting itself. Also, those that have felt that way since childhood, it was because the homosexual influence impacted them stronger thus manifested earlier. A classic example of the latter would be when parents- to-be wanted a boy but got a girl instead (vice versa) their disappointment is alluded to the child. Whether they say it outright or give the impression in a subtle manner. In which case, the boy would grow up effeminate & the girl tom-boyish or butch. Thus preferance, sexual or otherwise is not genetic & any scientist who says otherwise is wrong. Every idiosyncrasy we have as humans can be traced to an external societal influence.
Which brings me to a point highlighted by Roger who said that using the logic of choice, no one is born straight either. Quite right!! Again, societal influences are at play. As children growing up, we are bombarded with stories of Jack & Jill, Romeo & Juliet, Princesses & Prince Charming, boy meets girl, Ken & Barbie etc. Hence society plays a vital part in heterosexual preference.
I welcome all sensible refutes.
Dr. Judith Reisman who has revealed that Alfred Kinsey was himself a homosexual & his reports were fraudulent.
Come now, Julien, surely you are aware that every scientist has his or her detractors. If they are famous and controversial – and Kinsey is very much of both – then they have more detractors.
What matters is the arguments that are made. Even if Kinsey was gay – which seems at least unlikely since he seems to have had a functional married relationship with several children – it does not follow that his results are inaccurate. All people are biased, which is why we have to evaluate the arguments.
Perhaps you are merely looking for a reason to dismiss the man without coming to grips with the research that he and his associates performed?
Hence society plays a vital part in heterosexual preference.
Out of curiosity, what do you think is the probable cause of “handedness” – left handed people vs. right handed people? To my knowledge, a genetic cause has still not been found. Strangely, the numbers for left handedness are similar to homosexuality – just a few percentage points difference in terms of percentage of the population.
I agree with what you said about detractors.
What you said though, about his unlikely being gay because of his family, (whether it was functional or not you do not know) seems abit out of touch, since alot of gay indiviuals have “marriages” to present a semblance of normalcy for society.
Also, did you google Dr. Reisman? If you did, did you read what she had to say about Kinsey & his associates? About what he did to his children? I’d appreciate you looking into that with an open mind & getting back to me.
I myself have researched homosexuality, even conducted interviews with homosexuals. I have learnt alot about them & their society. My views on the topic didn’t come overnight & they are not meant to be an attack on anyone.
I haven’t done any research on handedness, but that falls in the realm of physical attributes, thus it’s illogical to liken it to homosexuality which is psychological, not physiological. & as far as scientific fact goes only ones physical traits can be attributed to genetics. They haven’t found the right handed or left handed gene because they simply haven’t found it. However the precedent for finding physical attributes are there. The same can’t be said for disposition & personality related traits (all societal influence).
Nothing a trip to Google-U couldn’t prove incorrect, many times over.
Isn’t it, though? Thank you Julien for posting such total, total crap that I don’t even feel a vague need to post links proving you wrong.
Custador, perhaps it’s best you sit this one out instead of displaying road rage whilst in the passengers seat. Buckle up, btw.
I shall take that trip, Nzo, & thank you for the reference.
UrsaMinor, it’s good that you admit that there is no “gay gene” & I agree that sexual orientation isn’t exclusively a learnt behaviour & your points on hormone imbalances verifies that. Now, the fact that hormones need to be manipulated, whether by scientific experiments or interruption of the default hormone level pattern to produce such an individual/mammal classes that as a birth defect such as conjoined twins, parasitic twins & the various forms of hermaphrodites, obviously against the intent of nature. Thus, not everything that happens in utero can’t be classed as natural which adds to my point that being “born gay” isn’t natural or to be accepted as such as so many are trying to do. As mentioned somewhere above, if individuals wish to engage in homosexual acts as consenting adults, thats fine & I have no objection to that. However pushing to having it accepted as normal is wrong. Such thinking gives rise to the notion that paedophilia, bestiality & necrophilia is also normal as these persons could claim to being born with the gene for that preference.
I would very much like to comment in detail about your case but lack of detail prohibits me, so allow me broad strokes. Perhaps your case is the result of the forementioned imbalances which would (pardon my frankness) class you as a birth defect which manifested at puberty. Or perhaps during puberty (a highpoint of susceptibility) you were exposed & fell prey to a homosexual subliminal influence. We know of cases where pubescent girls or boys going to same sex schools become “bi-curious”, experiment & thus become lesbian or gay respectively. Again, let me reiterate that these are broad strokes due to lack of detail.
…obviously against the intent of nature.
Nature does not possess intentionality.
However pushing to having it accepted as normal is wrong. Such thinking gives rise to the notion that paedophilia, bestiality & necrophilia is also normal as these persons could claim to being born with the gene for that preference.
This is the naturalistic fallacy. The qualities “natural” and “good” are entirely independent. Strychnine is natural, but it is not good food. The (mostly scientifically settled) debate over the volition of sexual orientation is not about whether specific orientations are good, but merely about whether specific orientations are functions of choice.
So I’m not natural because I had arthritis?
Look, bub, nature is nature. Nature has no intent. Nature doesn’t care for your comfort, your morals, your pleasure, your safety, your sanity, your sense of right and wrong. Nature cannot care, because nature isn’t sentient or alive in some mysterious, magical way. HIV is utterly natural, so is influenza, so is cancer, so is arthritis, so are parasitic twins. It’s all natural.
What you might argue is, are those things desirable to us? As ‘nope mentioned, strychnine is natural but is not good food, so it’s good for us to avoid it.
Why a defect, though? Because you don’t like it? I don’t like blondes, so blondes were born with a birth defect? What about left handed people, of which I am one? Am I “defective” because I have a preference for my left hand rather than the right one?
Illnesses and defects such as arthritis are not good for the individual because they reduce quality of life, they hurt, they are harmful. Things like pedophilia and bestiality are considered wrong because they cause harm to third parties – children and animals both, which cannot consent. Natural does not imply good. I frankly don’t care about necrophilia because I see nobody being hurt by it (except perhaps the family of the deceased). Sure, it’s weird, but then, so are Americans. That doesn’t mean they’re defective or wrong simply because they are what they are!
(J/K, Americans – I don’t think you’re weird… mostly ;))
Homosexuality, however, harms no one – the only thing it ‘hurts’ is the delicate sensibilities of heterosexuals who find it ‘icky’ and ‘weird’ and ‘unnatural’, as well as the homosexuals themselves due to harassment by said heterosexuals, both things easily taken care of through, lo and behold, acceptance of differences and education. It makes no sense to harass or label someone as ‘defective’ because of sexual orientation or proclivities, no matter how weird they are to me, than it makes sense to me to say Americans are defective, or black people, or blond people, or religious people (especially considering religion IS a choice!) because of some imaginary ‘wrongness’ or ‘unnaturalness’ or ‘weirdness’.
The hypothesis that children attending same-sex schools become bi-curious, experiment with homosexual sex, and become homosexual as a result is, perhaps, reasonable on the surface. It makes an underlying assumption that sexual orientation is mutable at least until puberty. An equally valid hypothesis is that the kids who experiment are already homosexual, and that the term “bi-curious” is imposed by those who consider it to be a deviation from the putative universal heterosexual norm of behavior. Mere observation of the fact that some kids experiment with homosexual sex and are homosexual as adults does not confirm or deny either hypothesis- more, and different, evidence is needed. Until that evidence is obtained, it’s a huge and unjustified leap to say that homosexual experimentation leads to being homosexual. It could be the other way around, that being homosexual leads to homosexual experimentation. Both hypotheses predict the same outward behavior.
I experimented with plenty of heterosexual sex before I ever had a homosexual encounter. I was 20 years old before I had my first same-sex experience. Any theory of how sexual orientation develops must account for people like me.
‘Natural’ is slippery word. For a long time, it was pointed out in Western culture that homosexuality can’t be “natural” because it isn’t found in nature (i.e., in other species). It turns out that it is found in other species, almost exclusively social species, abundantly, and is probably related to reducing aggression and competition between individuals in the pack/herd/troop hierarchy. There is also evidence that indicate that social groups with homosexual members are more successful at raising offspring, and can outcompete groups that lack homosexual members. Any behavior that results in raising more offspring is under a positive selection pressure to be maintained. There is no such reproductive payoff to homosexual behavior in solitary species, and the trait gets weeded out of the gene pool in short order. Given what we know at the moment, it remains a plausible hypothesis that, up to a certain point, homosexuality in humans is a positive survival trait for the group. We aid our close kin, and whatever basis there is for homosexuality gets passed on indirectly to the next generation through the genes we share with our close kin. At the root, and in some sense, it must be genetic and heritable (patterns of hormone expression in utero, and the variability thereof, if I had to make a guess).
Invoking “homosexual subliminal influence” to support a particular hypothesis when hard evidence is lacking is like invoking the Invisible Pink Unicorn to explain why socks disappear from the dryer. You are, in effect, inventing phantom evidence to support a preferred hypothesis. What you should be doing is using your hypothesis to make a testable prediction- i.e, “if my hypothesis is true, it predicts that there must be homosexual subliminal influence at work”- and then you must go and see if that evidence actually exists. And your hypothesis must also explain any well-established counterevidence, such as prenatal hormone variation.
It is a complex topic. The popular notion of a ‘gay gene’ is almost certainly wrong, as is the notion that sexual orientation is exclusively a learned behavior.
It has been shown conclusively in several other mammals that sexual orientation is set in utero, in response to varying hormone levels that affect structures in the developing brain. If the default pattern unfolds without interruption, you get heterosexuals. If the hormone levels or the timing of their delivery fall outside certain limits during gestation, you get bisexuals and homosexuals. We know enough about this process now to be able to produce rats of any sexual orientation you like, to order.
Performing hormonal manipulation experiments on humans in utero would be unethical, but so far there are absolutely no data to indicate that the process unfolds any differently in us than it does in other mammals. So strictly speaking, the data indicate that there is no ‘gay gene’ per se, although there may be some maternal genetics that affect the development process, and in that sense there may be a genetic predisposition to producing homosexual children in some cases. Environmental stresses during pregnancy can also affect the outcome regardless of maternal genetics, by screwing with hormone levels during critical developmental windows. This would explain why the search for the long-sought ‘gay gene’ has been so fruitless.
The hypothesis that sexual orientation is learned in childhood does not explain cases such like me, who grew up in a time period and specifically a home absolutely devoid of any reference to the existence of homosexuality. It was not discussed, it did not exist in my mind. I have no homosexual or bisexual relatives. There were no public role models. I was under clear parental pressure to be the stereotypical American Male of the 1960s. Then puberty hit, and I got a big surprise. My brother, on the other hand, was raised in the same environment and is completely baffled by the idea of same-sex attraction.
I agree, marriage and children cannot be taken as proof or even evidence of heterosexuality. Human sexual behavior is considerably more flexible than human sexual orientation. People do what they have to do to fit in and avoid persecution.
Elemenope, the latter part of your post is appreciated, as is your use of the word “mostly” & also you are right about my use of the word “wrong”.
I don’t however, appreciate the former.
Although I was speaking metaphorically, it stands to reason that nature does possess intentionality. A simple example of this is gender. Male & female, under idealistic conditions serve to reproduce thus sustains the species. Reproduction can never occur through homosexual activity. I acknowledge the existence of asexual creatures, however this falls in the minority where nature sees (metaphorically speaking) no other way for the creation of life.
Intentionality implies the direction of a mind. What you’re describing is “functionality”, which does not require intention. And many things have multiple functions; you seem to be getting hung up on just one function of sexuality and elevating it as “most important”. Besides reproduction, sex is a social lubricant, provides pleasure, and stabilizes long-term bonding relationships. Reproduction is merely another function of sex. Homosexual sex can fulfill the others just fine.
BTW, asexual reproduction is *by far* the more common method of reproduction for life on Earth. All prokaryotes, most eukaryotes, most fungi, and most plants use asexual reproduction, and even a few animals do so.
Elemenope & Professional Biologist, while I don’t doubt you are both correct on the matter of asexual reproduction being prevalent, I believe you are wrong about reproduction being merely another fuction of sex. Rather, it is the most important & all the other functions you mentioned are secondary & serve to insure the 1st is achieved. That’s common sense, really. I mean, then whats the point of creating these life long bonds &/or social structures if at the end of the day(or their life) their species dies out?
I myself have read about that traumatic insemination, Siberia, however thats just another deviation of nature.
All other issues aside, common sense is a bad way to feel one’s way through reality. As scientists, and theologians and philosophers before them, have discovered and pointed out ad nauseam, regardless of what one believes we can be pretty sure about one thing: reality is deeply counterintuitive.
As has as already been pointed out, in social creatures (like humans and most other mammals), sex’s non-procreative functions are crucial to the cohesiveness of each group. As a thought-experiment, one may imagine a near future where technology has provided an inexpensive and effective way for humans to procreate without sex. Do you imagine in such a world that people would stop having sex or that sex as a social and cultural matter would decrease in importance or emphasis? I think it unlikely; sexuality is part of how humans construct their self-image and a large part of how they relate to their peers.
Is it unnatural for sterile people to have sex? Women who have gone through the menopause stage should stop having sex because they can no longer have children? Julien or whoever you are, you are a dunce! An absolute dunce! You haven’t thought this all the way through, and I think you are operating out of the bible, no matter what you say about your beliefs.
Professional biologist speaking:
Elemenope is correct. The overwhelming majority of life on Earth (whether measured by number of species, number of individual organisms or total biomass) has no gender and reproduces asexually. Sexual reproduction is the numerical aberration.
Isn’t there a species of lizard that reproduces asexually but especially after stimulating each other through homosexual relations (which makes sense, since there are no males)?
As ‘Nope says, sex isn’t all for reproduction (no matter what religions across the world try to say), especially in social species. Bonding is extremely important for survival and sex is an excellent way to forge bonds. See the bonobos.
Also, I’ve read about some species of arthropod last week that reproduces through traumatic insemination – and ironically, since both males and females have the same structures, albeit nonfunctional in males, it has been found that males sometimes traumatically inseminate other males… which go on to traumatically inseminate females – possibly with the first male’s sperm.
Isn’t there a species of lizard that reproduces asexually but especially after stimulating each other through homosexual relations
Some of the whiptail family. From Wikipedia: “An interesting aspect to reproduction in these asexual lizards is that mating behaviors are still seen, although the populations are all female. One female plays the role played by the male in closely related species, and mounts the female that is about to lay eggs.”
The mounting behavior probably stimulates ovulation in the mounted partner (fairly common in the vertebrate world), and the existing ovulation mechanism was retained after the switch to parthenogenesis. In effect, it’s a quirky little evolutionary leftover like the human appendix or the branch-grabbing reflex in young infants.
It suggests that the switch to parthenogenetic reproduction in this species is fairly recent, and I would expect the requirement for mounting to be lost sooner or later. There are no obvious benefits to it- but you’d better find a professional herpetologist if you’re really curious. Not my specialty.
Sexual reproduction is the numerical aberration.
Where does the debate over the cause of sexual reproduction stand? I haven’t paid much attention since the “red green” hypothesis.
Excuse me, that would be the “red queen” hypothesis.
The “red green” hypothesis states that Canadians have sex just to stay warm.
I had sex with a Canadian in February once. I can confirm that the strategy works. :)
Siberia, to be blunt, yes, you are unnatural.(if only in the sense of your birth defect)
Now, you asked why I used the word defect, then you yourself used the same word in reference to illnesses such as arthritis. You don’t seem sure of what you want to say, which, to me, nullifies the first part of your post. Let me point out, that while defects occur in nature, that doesn’t make them natural. You may argue however, that who am I to say that & you’d be right in making that argument.
I never said that homosexuality harms anyone & I dont harass anyone, unless in your book, research=harassment?
***
UrsaMinor, all of your compelling arguments about puberty & same sex schools can be refered to my previous points regarding children & homosexual influences that manifest later in life.
You mentioned before that when puberty hit you got a big surprise, then you said that you didn’t have your 1st homosexual experience until after 20. Those conflicting statements confuse me. Perhaps if you were to explain what the big pubescent surprise was & how it didn’t count as a homosexual experience I’d understand better.
I’m aware that homosexuality exist in nature, this however still doesn’t make it natural, since dispite all your points, reproduction, which is the default summum bonum of all animals, can’t be achieved.
Your definition of natural seems only to include some form of idealistic representation of “how things ought to be” instead of how they are. You are altogether too ignorant to be having this discussion. Show everyone what your “research” is. You didn’t even know who Kinsey was before someone told you to look him up, so you don’t seem to be off to a good start. Everything in nature is natural. If you want to discuss what you think is ideal and perfect form instead, you are also going to be hit back pretty good.
“Siberia, to be blunt, yes, you are unnatural.(if only in the sense of your birth defect)”
Quick question – do you believe it’s natural to be born as thick as pig shit?
Define “unnatural”
There is nothing conflicting about my statements. I felt attraction to my own gender at puberty. I did not act on this attraction (“have a homosexual experience”) until I was 20. I fail to see how this could possibly be misunderstood, or is in any way inconsistent.
The big surprise at puberty, of course, was that I found I was sexually attracted to my own gender, when I had been raised to believe that all boys were attracted to girls and vice versa. It did not count as a “homosexual experience” at that time because I did not act on this attraction, and went out of my way not to, for many years.
Homosexuality exists in nature, but is not natural? Wow. I’ll let someone else on the thread tackle this if they care to; it’s just too silly to respond to.
Reproduction is not the summum bonum of all animals. Having your genes represented in the next generation is the summum bonum, and there are ways of achieving the latter without the former. I have the genetic equivalent of one child to carry my genes on for me, even though I have never reproduced. My brother had two children, each of whom shares a quarter of my genes. I contribute emotionally and materially to their upbringing, education and general welfare. My genes have good chance of living on as a result of investing that care in close kin. In biological terms, I am as successful as a heterosexual man who has personally fathered one child.
This debate is absurd. Humans stopped being “natural” milennia ago, when we learned to breed plants and animals to provide us food instead of chasing them in nature. No aspect of modern human life is natural, so why should sexuality be?
Er, what definition of ‘natural’ are you using?
The one religious people use to attack homosexuality: existing in nature.
Humans don’t exist in nature?
I think the meaning usually implied, but seldom stated explicitly, is “existing in nature, apart from humans and their works”. But I could be wrong.
That special pleading for humans to be considered somehow apart from nature is what I was objecting to.
Yes, that statement is true only for selected values of “natural”.
*facedesk*
No, you don’t get it, Julien. I’ve a birth defect (which isn’t quite a ‘birth’ defect, as arthritis has nothing to do with genes and I wasn’t born arthritic). I classify it as a ‘defect’ because without medicine. Illnesses and other such things I consider ‘defects’ because their bearers often die, and their survival is challenged. It’s shaky terminology, but it suffices for the moment.
That is not the case with blondness, left-handedness, Americans or homosexuals, is it? What I argued is not that defects don’t exist, but that homosexuality is not a defect – it just is one of millions of iterations of what makes humans, well, humans. It poses no threat to the survival of the species (as homosexuals are entirely capable of breeding and often do), much less of the individual. It’s a non-issue.
You try to bind nature to some sort of ‘norm’, as you did with traumatic insemination. There’s no such thing as ‘norm’ in nature. Nature is nature. It has no objectives, no right and wrong, no clear path. Traumatic insemination works just as well as the elaborate courting rituals of humans. Sickle-cell anemia has a detrimental effect at the same time it has a positive effect. HIV survives just well, as does influenza. Nature doesn’t have a line of thought. It’s a bloody arms race, nothing more, nothing less. What works, works, what doesn’t, doesn’t. ‘Defects’ are as natural as everything else.
*because without medicines I’d have died.
Everybody is arguing about the causes(?) of being gay or not. The issue is all about exorcizing demons of homosexuality. Why are christians so obsessed with demons? How is it that they have missed, so utterly ingnorantly and blindly, their own “demons” of hatred. It amazes me how much they judge and hate not only each other but those who don’t follow “their” doctrine. Please realize that their very approach to issues within their organizations and without are entirely against what their very own “saviour” taught. What gives? Are they so blind that they can’t see how “wrong” they are? In fact most of christianity, what is taught, believed and endorsed, has NOTHING at all to do with New Testament christianity. What then is their agenda……world domination and subjugation?
Um, I’m not sure jabstar. Sent me a copy of your life history(including your family tree) & I’ll get back to you.
***
Kodie, so are you saying that adults sexually abusing kids is natural, since it occurs in nature?
Also, the quote provided by vorjack, to me, points out that no matter how many versions of deviations there are, male-female sexuality is emulated. Hence, thats the way it should be, even though it isn’t.
As for my own private research, it had more to do with the gay societal structure, not statistics of who is gay like Kinsey’s reports & I see nothing wrong with my ignorance of him since many were/are ignorant of Dr. Reisman & her refutes. I live & I learn :-)
It’s a serious question Julien – do you think it’s natural that you’re thick as pig shit or not? Personally I would say you were born that way … which is unfortunate.
p.s. Just how thick do you have to be as to a) create sock puppets with the same e-mail address and b) not understand what “Reply” actually means?
Pedophilia is entirely natural. As in human societies, we find it undesirable, much as we do think murder is undesirable (except when it’s against a rival tribe, during wars) because it ruptures social cohesion, even though it’s entirely natural. Natural does not imply desirable, correct, moral, good, etc..
Seriously, stop trying to bind nature to your narrow human views.
…no matter how many versions of deviations there are, male-female sexuality is emulated. Hence, thats the way it should be, even though it isn’t.
Here you go again, attempting to squeeze water from the rocks; you are trying to draw normative conclusions from behavioral tendencies, attempting to derive what ought to be from what is.
Thank you for the clarification regarding your history UrsaMinor & I’d refer you to my previous “hypothesis” regarding children & sexuality but you’ve said it doesn’t work for you (if not in so many words).
How is my statement silly? Let me give you an example. Bisexual dolphins.Why are they bi? They are bi because as adolescent males they can’t compete with the mature males for females, thus they form gay, life long bonds with other adolescent males who share the same sexual frustration. As they mature & get the chance to mate with females, they do. But they still have their bi friends.
***
Kodie, if thinking I’m christian & all that other b.s helps you, so be it. & as someone said, humanity has deviated from “natural” a long time now, but yes the instances you described are unnatural. Were that to happen in the animal kingdom (excluding humans, who has developed an affinity for the unnatural), one becoming infertile, they would be disgarded or become social outcasts.
Which just goes to show sex has more function than mere reproduction. Thanks for proving our point.
Enough with this rhetoric,
Children on behest of their parents are being abused by christians!
Been told they are possessed by demons.
and you all are debating on whether or not they should be in a class outside of “normal”
rationalizing the same homophobia that exorcism expresses.
The question is this, should children be protected from this form of child abuse??
Personally I’d say yes, kids should be protected, but then you run afoul of the Constitution, at least in the U.S. The right to free exercise of religion trumps most other considerations short of actual physical abuse.
I’d much rather see a system where it is illegal for anyone to teach any child about religion until the age of 18. That preserves the constitutional freedom of religion, but reserves it for adults and ends the proselytizing to impressionable young minds. Upon reaching majority, anyone would be free to explore religion and adopt the religion of his/her choice. One would hope that young gay adults would then be more sensible than to select a church that demonizes them, and have less investment in being “cured”. When you’re born and raised in such a church, however, it’s bad news.
If you believe that nature has intentions and that there is a natural idealism of things “as nature intended,” then yes, I think you are faking atheism. You don’t have a very firm grasp of biology and you are inserting a phantom creator/designer into your arguments.
Your argument about “social outcasts” in nature if a creature becomes sterile also – you are socially outcasting homosexuals as unnatural and not belonging to the natural intention of things as Julien says they should be. That does not have anything to do with whether or not it is actually natural. That has more to do with socially affected acceptance into the group. Your group (whether or not you say you don’t actively hate or bias against homosexuals) says homosexuals aren’t in the natural group. Your self-assessment is not surprising. Of course, you belong to an “us” and you of course, follow that whatever you think is natural IS what is natural, and what doesn’t belong is unnatural (“them”), because you are too dim to recognize what you are doing.
So, show us your research, you goddamned genius of biology and sexuality!
You are correct, your hypothesis regarding children and sexuality doesn’t apply in my case. I am confident that my childhood did not contain any social channeling towards homosexuality.
Your statement is silly in that things that occur in nature are natural by definition. Your example with the dolphins sounds perfectly natural to me. It is adaptive behavior that co-opts existing reward mechanisms (e.g. pair bonding and sexual pleasure) for other purposes in ways that increase an individual’s chances of surviving adolescence and getting his genes represented in the next generation. The adolescent male dolphins who engaged in less adaptive behavior in the same circumstances (e.g., fighting the mature males, deliberately beaching themselves out of frustration, or swimming into fishing nets and getting canned as tuna) have long since taken themselves out of the gene pool.
Natural is what nature is, not what you think it should be. To argue that the dolphins are engaging in unnatural behavior until they return to what you deem natural behavior is just incoherent.
Does anyone want to talk about how christians make gay youths feel worthless and evil???
I was serious as well, jabster. Just saying.
***
Again, Siberia, defects happen in nature but they aren’t natural. It’s not the “functionality” of an organ to develop cancer, or are you going to tell me it is? Thats not the function of the organ or what it’s suppose to do. It happens, yes, I never denied that but it was never the function. That’s what you can’t seem to get. Likewise, Elemenope, the pleasure from sex acts as an incentive to reproduce for those species that would otherwise be reluctant. If sex wasn’t pleasurable for humans on a whole we would’ve been an asexual species, would we not? & I’m talking about from the start of our existence onward. Hypothetically speaking, there would be no hetero or homosexuals. Thus apart from asexual beings, the purpose of sex is to reproduce. Hence I’m not fitting anything into my “human view”. Also, paedophilia, you say it happens in the wild, but again, it’s not natural. & I’d like you to provide an example of this to me, since animals rely on scent to determine sexual maturity. As for the dolphins, it’s natures own incentive working against it. The pleasure to be derived from the act is what drives them to have those encounters. Had female dolphins been made available to them it would not happen.
And again you’re arguing that the only natural things are those that have function. This is where we diverge. I see no such correlation of function implies naturalness and lack of function/differentiated function implies unnaturalness. The appendix isn’t unnatural simply because it has no function, is it?
Cancer has no function, but it is related to a very real function – cell replication. A side effect, if you will. Sickle-cell anemia will continue being selected for even though it’s actively harmful, because the benefits outweight the harm.
If sex wasn’t pleasure, what is to say humans wouldn’t have developed traumatic insemination? Geese do it, as far as I know, and dolphins tend to rape females as well. Adult stallions will attempt to mate with adolescent fillies. Mares have a marked favoritism to other mares, going insofar as to mate with them, which enhances the social cohesion of the herd. The same happens among sheep and goats. Some species of bird develop intense bonds between males – the female is driven away after laying the eggs. It was found that these male/male pairings rear young more successfully than a female/male pair.
Nature selects what works. Sex has a purpose – reproduction – as well as other side benefits that make survival even more likely. It doesn’t conform to your human bias. It doesn’t have to. It IS.
“defects happen in nature but they aren’t natural. It’s not the “functionality” of an organ to develop cancer, or are you going to tell me it is?”
I think this is a pretty stupid or unnatural type of agnostic question.
While I understand the point you’re making Siberia, I don’t agree. No matter what spin you’ve put on it thus far. You views on nature just don’t add up. & unnecessary attributes such as the appendix could’ve been a physical trait of our ancestors that very much had a function & as someone mention above such lingering traits that have no present use will eventually be discarded, as with the female lizards mounting the other females.
***
DarkMatter, you can doubt all you want (& by using the word doubt, you confirm your uncertainty on the matter, not your certainty) but you won’t be able to prove it, now will you? Typical atheist.
There was a documentary about a boy who got a botched circumcision So badly botched that his parents raised him, with the aid of a psycologist, as a girl.It didnt work.The Documentary was called, born a boy raised a girl. Sexual Identity is something one is born with, Sexual orientation is something someone is born with. With all the hatred spewing about homosexuality, how would anybody want to be Gay???
But I thought the topic was religion.
The topics are related. No one proposes exorcising demons from you for being blue-eyed or bald or a lousy bowler, and that is because those variations are accepted as normal and natural. It is very pertinent to the discussion as to whether or not homosexuality can be fairly described as either normal or natural variants in human behavior, because if they are, it then becomes silly (not to mention ethically wrong) to portray homosexuals as possessed by demons and in need of help.
My personal take is that the people who count- the religious fundamentalists- have already made their minds up on the matter. The rest of us are just making noise that they can’t hear.
Um, Kodie, I realize that you view me as a dunce & I accept your view. Also, because of your view you seem to be not paying much attention. I clearly stated to UrasMinor above, that I am agnostic. & that I also stated that I view atheists & religious people as the same, since each of you are convinced you are correct, yet litterally can’t prove it. Unless of course, you have scientific evidence to prove to me that there isn’t without a doubt a creator of this vast & intricate universe. For example, what set off the big bang, & what proof do you have to support your stance?
Both positions are ultimately unprovable. The best you can do is to disprove a particular conception of a Creator, but there’s always room for a more generic Creator no matter how many times you repeat that rinse cycle. What you end up with is that the theist side just has one more step in the chain of questions before you get to “I don’t know” or “I can’t know”.
Well, you don’t need me to tell you that you’re correct, UrsaMinor. Any of you “on this side of the fence cause I know I’m right for sure” atheist care to refute this?
***
Kid, you are right about that.
The burden of proof is on the one claiming that a creator exists. As if anyone in their right mind would try to prove the nonexistence of a fairy-tale creature.
Atheists don’t believe in a god the way you don’t believe in unicorns. The only difference is, we don’t give some special treatment to a “god”, it’s all imaginary.
Moronic from beginning to end.
” Any of you “on this side of the fence …”
Why do you want to know suddenly?
It’s really fairly difficult to be a completely neutral agnostic. Since you imply there is some design aspect to nature and intention, I infer you deep down believe in a supernatural cause, although I cannot prove that either. I can only infer from your cluelessness and references to the intentions of nature that you are more of a deist, or at least raised to that effect to be ignorant, to like to be ignorant, and to stay ignorant and resistant to knowledge and information that disproves and debunks supernatural ideas like the conscious design and intention of nature. You like your ideas so much you are married to them. Maybe you want to have sex with them!
Gosh, no Kodie. Have sex with them? That would be unnatural.
You are wrong though, about me & my views. I never expected you to answer my previous question btw. I knew you couldn’t, atheist.
How do you reconcile science with the merest possibility of a supernatural deity of any kind? Why do you call me atheist like it’s an insult?
I do think you are a load of baloney with a lot of armchair ideas you are in love with, so you think they are right.
Kodie, I thank your person for not being like this type of agnostic Julien.
Julien isn’t agnostic. Julien is Camile, and Camile is a Christard.
When one gets personal about the topic , the flavor of the conversation becomes different.
Everybody has somebody in their family tree that is gay.
(Pardon the spelling) Ostracizing them breaks up families.
Therefore Christians are anti family.
The debate on whether or not gays are natural becomes mute when deciding on if your sibling, cousin, brother, sister, uncle,aunt, or parent are part of the family and thier choice of a spouse should be respected.
Christians are not anti-family. My partner’s family is very Christian fundamentalist, and would like nothing more than for him to rejoin the family. The price of re-admission is to stop being gay and become heterosexual like they think God intended. They will not negotiate on this point one iota- but they do feel terribly, terrible sad and hurt and lonely in their old age and they do want their son back in their lives.
So yes, it tears families apart. But it does not follow that Christians are anti-family.
With all due respect. The Religion is tearing the family apart, by your own admission. I don’t mean the mother stopped loving your partner. Id avise your partner to keep the lines of communication open with parents.
I meant no disrespect for your partners parents
More like anti-non heterosexual family.
That.
Anything thats not an US is a them. and when found that an US is not an US anymore
Drastic measures are warrented either to turn them into an US or discard them as a THEM. The problem is, there isnt any them. There wasn’t ever a THEM. Them is the wall people use when playing political handball. A lot of Fundementalism Religion is actually politics in disguise.
And a lot of politics is actually fundamentalist religion in disguise.
Although, we seem to be entering an era where the masks are coming off.
Christians are not anti-family, they’re just anti-gay, anti-liberal, anti-gun control, anti-Catholic(if they’re Baptist), anti-population control(abortion and gays) , anti-democratic(“you’re going to hell if you don’t listen to us”), anti-evolutionist(if man doesn’t evolve, he’ll waste away), anti-books(burn what they don’t agree with), anti-thinking(well…that’s obvious), anti-Jewish(they read the Old Testament, use it when they want to beat some one up, and then damn the Jewish religion to the fiery depths of hell for believing in it(?!)…..hypocritical, I say!), anti-socialist(despise it when others point out the social gospel of Jesus)……etc…well, you get the idea. Christians are pro-family, pro-hatred, pro-intolerant and above all others…. pro-sociopathic. If this is their “family” they can keep it. it’s time for man to re-evalute the whole concept of family. Personally I think christians pop out of pods and act just like zombies in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” .
Although I see what you are saying, that Christians are anti-family — I don’t think they think they are. While they are demonizing homosexuality, I think very much what they are trying to do is save the family member from the demon. Of course that is totally ignorant and unreasonable, and I don’t respect the practice. If you would extend the idea to a grown child’s choice of partner (be that same or opposite sex), for whatever reasons, many families may rally against the inclusion of the new person to their family. It may be because they oppose homosexuality, or another race or nationality, or because of class differences, or a valid reason such as that person is just not a good person, or would not seem to be a good parent for the next generation.
And yet, often as not, meddling in the relationship does more toward alienation of the blood relative than scare off the marriage candidate. Mama’s boys’ mamas are pretty good at weeding out anyone who is not good enough for baby, for example. I am, I guess, branching out from the original topic also, but bigoted people use the same kind of hate toward a prospective inclusion into their family as people with somewhat more valid reasons. It can cause rifts in families, whoever you are determined to marry, because of who you are and what you want.
I realize what you were saying Elemenope.
***
Kodie, again, it’s like a pattern.
I think you should ask what my views are on “God” before you make such unfounded statements.
Also, I joked about the supernatural in a previous post.
As for my ideas, yes I “love” them & seemingly in the same way you do your’s, since you think you are right.
***
Elaborate, DarkMatter. Stupid in what sense?
***
Nzo, the burden of proof is an atheists’ perpetual excuse for not explaining their belief. It’s tantamount to christian faith.
I doubt your willful comprehesion by your questioning. Maybe you are just pretending to be not stupid?
I still haven’t seen any evidence of your research, why you have reached the conclusions you have reached. You seem to want them to be true and still haven’t gone ahead and posted the research you claim to have done on the subject. It’s very much like you want something to be true, so you assert it without proof, like an opinion. I also don’t know what you mean by ‘it’s like a pattern.’ To what pattern are you referring? Or is this more mumbo-jumbo to fill out your end of the discussion? You seem to fancy yourself some sort of intellect, and it’s obvious you’re not anything like that.
Hugs to all above, I got things to do. Going to New York next week for pride festival AND BE WITH FAMILY for the 4th of July. Great topic, will be montoring on my cell. Yes I AM OUT with family.
:) no one wants to exorcise me.
One more thing. Science is good at finding out how. but not good at finding out why.
Religion is good at finding out why,but is awful at finding out how.
I am practicing Buddhist. God doesnt matter to me. What matters is generating loving kindness and compassion. This conversation seemed cold and dispassionate about the people affected in the main article. I just wanted to warm it up a bit.
Chao
Kid
Religion has zero capacity for finding out why, but it is very good at filling people’s heads with warm fuzzy platitudes that feel good.
I’m back, Buddhism mainly deals with what is, Not so much as why, or how.
Sometimes the urge to disect a topic can be so overwhelming that all you end up with is minced meat. Going back to the point, the argument is whether or not excorcism of Gay youth is Justified. I see no controversey here. I don’t care who is athiest who is agnostic or why. I believe the main article is about a travesty and you all are bickering about small points. Maybe you should be debating on how to deal with it. Call Child abuse Child abuse. end of story. This practice of Gay excorcism and Repairative therapy leads to suicide. Utah has an epidemic of gay youth homelessness. Gay youth that though never lost their faith has though lost their family to the Mormons
I don’t think we’ve been avoiding the main topic so much as discussing things that are relevant to it.
Stop and ask yourself WHY Christian fundamentalists are all hot and bothered to exorcise the gay out of gay youth. Why does it matter to them? Why do they not simply accept the gay people in their churches as fellow Christians?
Because their preachers say that the Bible says that God says it’s wrong. Easy to break the weak links in that chain with a fairly minor exercise of intellectual force, I think.
*Julien – moronic blather
*athiest – well thought out reasons based in logic and science
*Julien – more moronic blather, side-stepping of issues, and wild accusations
*atheist – well thought out reasons based in logic and science
*Julien – not hitting “reply” button, same nonsensical crap as before
I’m calling troll on this. I just can’t believe someone can possibly be this stupid and still know how to work a computer.
Hmmm, very, christian of you.
Sniff.. I feel like a persecuted homosexual.(rolls eyes)
Obvious troll is obvious!
Nobody hates you because you are attracted to the same sex. We are trying to figure out why everyone but you can see how stupid you are.
Kodie by pattern I meant you keep making uninformed statements. You didn’t know my view on the supernatural or that I was an agnostic yet your mind was already made up on labeling me a pseudo atheist. Which begs the question, what else you didn’t bother to learn about before taking a stance? My issue with christians & religious people is that they made up their minds about their god(s) although they don’t have all the facts. It’s the same with atheist. They’ll tell you that god doesn’t exist & the universe just happened, but they won’t be able to tell you more than that. Ask them what happened before the big bang, they’ll lay some “burden of proof” crap on you. Or they’ll ask why you suddenly want to know. You tell them the burden of proof talk is tantamount of excuse that is faith, they’ll then proceed to insult you.
You claim agnostic and then post pure Creationist shite – who do you think you’re fooling? Just another liar for Jeeeeebus. Pathetic tbh.
So I guess you are not going to be making any of those ‘relevant points’ any time soon.
I made them already Nox. I started lastnight. Btw, did you google dr. Reisman? Or is that to be swept under the rug in the typical read no evil christian manner?
Just to make you happy, I did. For some reason you forgot to mention that her PhD is in communications not exactly a topic that make you an expert on human development. Although you have to scroll quite a long way down her website
to find that out, I wander why.
Tissue.
You can keep it & pass it around to your fellow quasi christians DarkMatter.
The crap spewing from your minds, through your fingers has clogged your so called well thought out logic, which, although is “well thought out” it will only get you as far as the big bang & you’re on your own from there.
***
Kodie, I said before that my research is private & I never mentioned it with intent to pass it out in the manner you’re suggesting. It was for the betterment of my personal understanding. Else I would’ve taken it public through a book or something.
Atheist well-thought out logic: There is no evidence to suggest what happened prior to the big-bang, so we don’t know, therefore we will investigate and find out.
Julien: There is no evidence to suggest what happened prior to the big-bang, therefore I know exactly what happened – God did it.
You fail. Hard.
Where did you read me say god did it, Custador? Is it a trend with atheist to misquote an individual to support their view? Interesting. Also, me questioning the naturalist stance of “nature just happened but don’t ask us why” taken by atheist is creationist shite? You’re getting more & more idiotic. You’re not representing well.
Sophistry is as Sophistry does….stupid waste of time.
At least I’m honest about my views and not lying for Jesus through a sock-puppet, Christard.
Oh please Custador, I can & have insulted Jesus & many other religious people before. Your -sticking to me being a closet christian-notion is laughable. Besides, there isn’t much room in that closet with so many atheist in there. & this “atleast I am” talk proves your just a blind sheep with a new shepherd, since you ain’t know anything about anything.
Obvious troll is obvious, as well as obviously lacking in cognitive capacity. Back under your bridge, Christard.
Says the sheep who can’t say why he eats grass…
“I feel like a persecuted homosexual.”
Could it be that this whole Roy/Camille/Julien thing is the result of a botched gay exorcism?
Dare I say Nox, that was a very christian diversionary tactic. You side step my question to restart this Camille drivel. I already said I’d accept whatever name I’m called, yet you revert back to it. I must say, being here is giving me insight into how some atheist really are. Kinda like anthropology huh? Yes super intelligent primate who knows only what he wants to, teach me more of your evasive methods.
I think a better example of a christian diversionary tactic would be making up a 2nd or 3rd name (with the same email address?), and calling oneself an “agnostic” so they can claim to be unaffiliated with religion while advocating conclusions that would only make sense if you had a religious motive to believe them.
The only reason to think homosexuality is a choice would be if you were already committed to the idea that homosexuality is a sin. If it is not a choice it could hardly be a sin. But if you are an agnostic as you claim, then I’d have to wonder what your basis is for thinking that your unknown god cares whether people are gay.
Speaking of which, I’m gonna just pretend you actually are Julien for a second so I can actually address something you brought up.
“Dr. Judith Reisman who has revealed that Alfred Kinsey was himself a homosexual & his reports were fraudulent.”
I could easily ‘reveal’ that dr Judith Reisman is a religious nutter (we’re talking about the same Judith Reisman who has argued that viewing of pornography leads to rape?) who fraudulently reported that Kinsey was a homosexual. But I feel that there is something much much more important that I need to address here…
Who Gives A F*ck If Kinsey Was Gay!?!?!?!
Would you claim that a straight person had a straight bias? Alfred Kinsey got a couple things wrong, in the way that Isaac Newton got a couple things wrong. He still dragged the study of human sexuality out of the church imposed dark ages. And while his theories have been updated with new data, they still serve as the basis for our current ideas of human sexual development. The fact that the first real attempt to approach these questions honestly drew such vitriol from the church and the fact that you and reisman still think calling someone gay is some sort of insult are not evidence for homosexuality being a choice. These things are merely evidence that religious people have an emotional investment in denying any evidence that would contradict the idea that homosexuality is a sin.
I don’t know what big bang you have encounter, saved my tissue. I also don’t know when I am with you until your desertion. You are not mine.
@DarkMatter:
I’m afraid that I do not understand much of the above post except in the most general sense. Would I be correct in guessing that you are directly translating idioms from a second language?
Don’t second quess what you may understand because of fear.
It was an honest question. You do not write like a native speaker.
Engish is not my native tongue. (smile)
Um, so back to my points. I haven’t proven homosexuality is a choice right? Rather, I’ve just given my views on the topic? Is that about right? Anyone?
That sums up my perception accurately.
& exactly how many individuals have proven conclusively that homosexuality isn’t a choice? Anyone?
Every single gay man and woman in the world who will tell you that they didn’t choose their sexuality, they just are gay. Or are you suggesting that every gay person in the world is a liar?
All bow to the wisdom of Julien! Yes, people in America choose to be persecuted and discriminated against! Men in Uganda decide to adopt a sexuality that will get them brutally murdered or jailed for life. Thank goodness you were here to teach us the truth… You phukking IDIOT.
Am I reading right? Custador is actually trying to make a point instead of just throwing insults?
Seriously though, you don’t know that for a fact. Alot of people choose to be gay. Whether it’s because they don’t have luck with women, or they think it’s easier to get a guy (like the dolphins). Maybe their school of thought is “a guy would know what a guy wants & would be more willing to give it than all the runaround with a woman”.
Go boil your head, Julien/Camile.
These are your ideas why people choose to be gay? ????? I’m sorry I gave you more credit than you deserved earlier. You’re really far more stupid than I thought.
We proved in conclusively why being gay isn’t a choice.
Julien, Tell us, Tell us why you think being gay is a choice??
ANSWER THE QUESTION !!!!!
Kid, scroll up up up & you’ll see why I think that.
***
Again Custador, never a point to make. It’s like Danny hired you to be the jester when things get boring.
& your insistence that I’m a liar for Jesus screams the very same tunnel vision you accuse your fellow christians of. Dogma..
there are plenty of guys who dont get girls are not gay.
In fact, straight women complain all the time that the good looking ones are gay!
(I wish that was always the case!)
If you find gays so repulsive, julien, stop being gay.
That’s funny kid. Now this is another example. The men who are in jail that rape & have sex with other men because there are only men within their reach, what about them?
Same question Kodie. Alot of people choose to be gay. A very conscious choice & my post from last night says why else I believe homosexuality is a choice.
Jail inmates do not bring their sexuality with them when they leave the Jail.
Those who use thier hands, are not handsexuals.
When one is in prison, anything is better than no sex at all.
If you think having sex with people of the same sex is abhorrent, then don’t do it! It would be unnatural, ehh ehh.
How to stop him from being one?
For what it’s worth Kid, I sympathize immensely that you have had to spend your life dealing with ignorant assholes who can’t accept you as you are. Glad to hear at least your family is okay with it. Some are not so lucky.
Nox,
I’ll tell you something even more freaky
I got involved with move on.org Now I find myself needing to do a lecture on homosexuality to them. Many of their members what rights GLBT have or dont have. I live in Florida, I can’t even adopt a child because I’m gay.
To Kid…..leave Florida and come to Canada. We have enshrined GLBT rights into our “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”(the Canadian constitution). Come on up, we welcome every one! Marriage and adoption for the GLBT community is an everyday occurence, however be careful in the Province of Alberta……it’s full of Jesus’ rednecks….not pretty! Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver are the places to be(no exorcists!).
Thanks Michael, but I can’t stand the cold, I am an ablsolute whimp when it gets below freezing. My two doggies wouldnt like it either.
But the invite was sweet, thank’s neighbor from the north.
.
It is hot as hell in Toronto in the summer and not too cold in the winter, but I understand fully as so many Canadians know…..Florida is divine in the winter! It wouldn’t hurt to come up and melt with us during the million-people strong pride celebrations. You are most welcome to visit Canada, just leave your bible at home…..during the celebrations people don’t want salvation, but we do salivate!
We exist. Whether it be a complex web of strange circumstances which propel us into the arms of the same sex, or biology, or even god’s will, it doesnt matter. Not to me. If it be choice, its a wierd choice to be subject to that treatment. A brand of wierdness that I think does not fit into my category.
Christians must believe it to be a choice, so they can rationalize that gays are victim of their own choices and are subject to the consequences that are brought on.
If christians would admit it was’nt a choice, Then the christians would have to repent for it can’t be god’s will to subject their own families to such treatment.
Our survey says… DING! The biggest give-away that Julien is lying for Jesus is his/her attitude towards homosexuality. That and his/her insistence that atheists are all really closet religious – Seen this shizzle a thousand times. Lying. For. Jesus.
Exactly Custador, If you don’t have an emotional attachment to the idea that homosexuality is a sin, there is absolutely no reason to believe that people decide to be gay.
And the third biggest give-away that Julien is lying for Jesus is…
We still know you are camille dumbass. Anyone can scroll up at any time and see you explicitly stating your reasons for thinking this stupid sh*t. You have basically admitted to lying for Jesus on the exact same thread where you are now trying to pretend it wasn’t you.
nox, thank you for the back up
anytime kiddo.
Good morning ladies, gents & others.
Let me start by saying everything said yesterday by the atheists of this forum, for the most part, had little or nothing to do with the points I raised concerning homosexuality being a choice. Furthermore, nothing said has disproved the points I made. What I got however, were reasons to continue thinking atheist & religious people are very much alike, in the sense that, they can’t support their “chosen/not changing my mind about it” views with any valid reasoning. Example, (besides the burden of proof EXCUSE) I said homosexuality isn’t what nature intended & gave reasons why I think this, namely, homosexual relations amongst the non asexual population can’t facilitate reproduction. They said, nature doesn’t have intentionality, rather, functionality but can’t say why they think that (*Elemenope said that intentionality implies direction of a mind, but what would she define as a mind? A central nervous system? There are alot of lifeforms that exist without one. Apart from micro-organisms, who very much have intentions, starfish don’t have a central nervous system, rather a decentralized one. So do bivalves such as clams & oysters, corals also have no brain, just a jet of nerves. Then there’s the sand dollar. Sponges have NO nervous system at all. The jellyfish doesn’t have a central nervous system i.e brain, yet it catches fish with the intent of feeding. Not forgetting what is probably one of the longest existing lifeforms on the planet, trees/plants*) Factually speaking, there are no reasons or evidence to support the claim that nature, in the overall sense, doesn’t have intentions.
Another point raised was homosexual pairs in the wild were better at nurturing young, but how that ensures the survival of the species is without having a female to birth the young, whether she is chased away after or not, is beyond sound logic. FACT remains, that a male & female is needed, no matter what small part either play. Even with the precedent of traumatic insemination, a female is STILL needed to pass the semen to. Hence in EVERY facet of sexual reproductive life (humanity included) both sexes are required, thus it is the INTENT of nature & all animal homosexuality (humans included) is unnatural. None of you can refute the above.
To continue on atheist mentality mirroring christian/religious mentality, I refer you to the oh so many instances where, instead of said atheists providing a point to disprove my views (this being the supposed atheist speciality) they revert to an irrelevant, secondary point (namely the puppet issue) in a weak, cowardly attempt to misdirect attention away from their own painfully obvious ignorance. This is something I’ve seen christians do time & time again.
Another diversion used, namely by kid, is to reflect ones own thoughts &/or self hatred onto another, as he did by telling me if i find gays so repulsive, stop being gay & if i think having sex with people of the same sex is abhorrent, then don’t do it. Your subconscious is telling you something kid. He also contradicted himself by 1st saying plenty guys (he didn’t say all) who don’t get girls are not gay, but when asked about inmates he said anything is better than no sex at all, not realizing that the same mentality can be adopted by the forementioned womanless guys. Also, Kodie, who similar to custador in that they is quick to throw insults, when asked the same inmate question, failed to answer. All christian traits.
As for Dr. Reisman Yoav, her PhD & inexpertise in human development doesn’t mean she can’t prove Kinsey a fraud, she did. & Nox, the method you would use to prove her to be a religious nutter wouldn’t be the same method used by almost everyone to insist I’m a religious nutter, would it? Seems inconclusive.
Also, an atheists logic seems to be, unless you have an emotional/religious attachment to the idea of homosexuality being a sin, by proxy, you should believe it isn’t choice. Thats utterly ridiculous.
In closing, opposed to popular OPINION, the most logical stance to take is that homosexuality is a choice & as always, like christians, atheist will sweep that under the rug.
Can I ask everybody to please NOT feed this troll? Between the obvious lies and ignoring the multiple proofs that he/she is 1) Wrong, 2) a sock-puppet and 3) a total idiot, it’s getting tedious.
Sorry, I just started typing, and couldn’t stop!
:)
No worries, I’m done. Julien’s last observation that both sexes are required for reproduction was completely irrelevant to my argument about group survival and reproduction, which I thought was clearly stated.
Also, Julien continues to ascribe INTENT to stochastic processes in nature, a belief which is, at best, a form of animism, and unsupported by anything in the scientific literature.
It’s been a fascinating slugfest, folks, but it’s no longer productive. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Elemenope said that intentionality implies direction of a mind, but what would she define as a mind? A central nervous system? There are alot of lifeforms that exist without one.
[ahem], He would say that a mind is the general capacity to create abstractions and generate emotions (considered impulses for action). Creatures that don’t have nervous systems only react to the surrounding environment programmatically, instinctually, and cannot be said to have intentionality. Micro-organisms do not have intentions, only responses. Teleological explications of biological behavior went out of fashion as a basically intellectually unrigorous way of describing simple behavior, and while modern biologists occasionally engage in language that sounds teleological in order to describe behavioral patterns in some contexts, they are careful to point out that such descriptions are only aids to situate the behavior in context and are not implicative of some general intentionality of nature or even of the specific creature.
Factually speaking, there are no reasons or evidence to support the claim that nature, in the overall sense, doesn’t have intentions.
There is no evidence whatsoever to assume that it does, and Ockham’s razor from there would enjoin us from assuming something not necessary to assume, given no evidence. Especially since to do so in a meaningful fashion requires you to explicate some sort of mechanism by which this normative intentionality you posit becomes manifest; you cannot do this without resort to an intelligence, such as a deity. Prove me wrong, give it a shot.
You continuously attempt to frame probabilistic behavioral observations as some indication of normativity, which is a big no-no. Now, on some level I have some sympathy for the idea that convergence of phenomena can indicate a normative mechanism (being as I am a moral realist), but *only if there is no descriptive historical mechanism present to describe the convergence*. The convergence of animals on heterosexual reproductive behavior is entirely a function of the evolutionary path of complex animals, and the subsequent arising of homosexual behavior in those animals is explicable by the evolution of social animal groups.
I think I’ll just say this:
I don’t really give a crap whether homosexuality is a choice or not; whether it is a product of your DNA, your upbringing, or both. There’s nothing wrong with being homosexual and so it shouldn’t need to be justified. Unfortunately, small-minded bigots, especially of the religious kind, insist that it is inherently wrong, and so we find ourselves in these discussions.
I don’t really give a crap whether homosexuality is a choice or not; whether it is a product of your DNA, your upbringing, or both. There’s nothing wrong with being homosexual and so it shouldn’t need to be justified.
It needed to be said, and I’m glad you said it. A lot of people forget that the “is it right or wrong” argument is *entirely separate* from the “is it natural or volitional” argument. Unfortunately, though, we live in a world populated by people that believe the world was designed in a certain way, and so such people have the appeal to nature tattooed on the inside of their minds, poisoning all their moral reasoning. Beyond that, truth itself (e.g. the facts of the matter) is important to explicate; it is valuable in itself to figure out how the world works, and figuring out human sexuality would be an important part of that world to us, certainly.
Yep, I agree that the discussion of the reasons for homosexuality can actually be interesting and informative in itself. It’s when people apply morality (in particular their definition of morality) to it that things start to go awry.
And as you and others have mentioned several times now, and what people like Julien can’t seem to understand, is that normative ethics can’t be derived in any sensible way from what is “natural” or not.
You keep on drifting from the main topic.
Does ones perception as to whether or not Homosexuality is a choice justify the persecution that Gays suffer. By the way, Christians no longer need “choice” as a weapon, now they recognize it as a Demon possession. Maybe the argument should be, Are Gays and Lesbians Possessed?
It must have been the Beatles that made me gay.
Or it could have been Jonny Quest cartoons?
or Bugs Bunny.
There’s quite a nice family guy episode with Stewie playing with He-Man and Lion-O dolls which he makes compliment each other on their buff arms and sick abs, then turns to camera and makes a snide remark about people buying their kids ridiculously homoerotic toys :D
THATS IT!!! FAMILY GUY IS USED AS A MEDIUM TO CAUSE HOMOSEXUALITY , WHY DIDNT I THNK OF THAT!!!
STEWIE MADE ME GAY!!!!! (I got better).
The point is, which debate is more rediculus
Can I bring my Buddhist sutras and Mala Beads??
But of course, we have a large buddhist community here and there is a temple a mile west of the gay village I respect and love what you believe and how you comment. PTL…..no..not praise the lord or people that love or pass the loot or perpetuate the lies or praise the loot or praise the load…..it stands for us….People that Lust!
Does anyone know what kind of vaccum cleaner a Buddhist should use?
The kind without attachments
what?….no snap on tools?…..aw, shucks!
Michael, if your gay, you may have given me an incentive to come. :)
Gay?…..GAY?…..you’ve got to be kidding! If a gay male were to measure how many times he has had sex with a man by how far he rides his bicycle……I have been to Uranus and back too many times to count, and strangely I’m still HIV negative. Diabetes(type II), yes….damn I miss all those chocolate bars, cheese cake, candy………etc. Thank goodness for glucose free……well…you know what!
As for refugee status, come on up and bring a heavy jacket and snow boots, winter starts here in Toronto around December. Last year we still had roses blooming in early December….go figure!
Whats the phone number for canadian air?
Just kidding.
I am a chocoholic. local grocery has a flavor ice cream called trinity
I call it Father,son, and holy chocolate!!!
I put chocolate shell, then smother it with chocolate syrup and whipped cream.
I call it an anti-depressant
Gets me out of any bad mood
Trinity is also the name of a bomb, and I’m certain that after eating it, my blood rugar levels would blow me up! Sounds terribly wonderful! I’d eat it, anyway! There is an ice cream shop in the town of Bragg Creek, just west(25 minutes) of Calgary(Jesusland) that sells “Foothills Creamery” ice cream. Quite awesome, but I’ll make sure to bring my pills! I go to Calgary every summer(3 weeks) to babysit a siamese cat(I’m not kidding!) so that my mom and sisters can vacation on Vancouver Island(paradise on earth!!). Actually the cat babysits me…..hold me in your prayers, I’ll need them! Some holiday, going to Jesusland to talk to a cat…..yippee!
If things get any worse here, I may apply for Canadian Refugee status
Just please remember that if you do, our temperature is in Celsius. If our high is 32, it is damn hot! Perhaps not as hot as Baton Rouge, isn’t that where Jizzy Swaggart has his loony bin church? The church that forgave him TWICE(without an excorcism) for letting a hooker performed oral sex on him……in his car….in the dark……in a back alley way. Did he think Jesus wouldn’t be looking, after all HE does have those special goggles that let him see in the dark? Of course, I’m being silly…..he didn’t need an excorcism cause he was having “relations” with a woman! Lust with a woman, whether it be consensual or rape, is approved of by God while two men loving each other is tantamount to inviting the devil into their lives.
This is god’s sense of justice?
Jizzy? The man’s name is “Jizzy”? And he isn’t gay?
You never know, maybe the hooker was a man in drag. You have to call him Jizzy for the aftermath of that encounter and because he is so slimy.
Jimmy Swaggert is first cousin to Jerry Lee Lewis. They musta thought Jerry was possessed.
Goodness gracious great balls of fire!!!!
And they DIDN’T think he needed an excorcism? Oh dear, I forgot……..if Jimmy thought that Jerry needed an excorcism, the flock would order one for Jimmy too. The flock couldn’t because that would be admiting that if Jimmy were possessed then they too would have been under the devil’s direction! Just remember!…..sex between two men is damnation eternal but being a leader of a congregation and having sex with a hooker is a guarantee of the best seat in heaven!Praise the Load!
Michael, I work during the day but monitor this thread on my cell. Cant respond till i get home.