Jef wrote:People are not their beliefs, you can respect a person while thoroughly disrespecting their beliefs.

The point is that while you may believe that, others may not. For that matter, others may believe that but may take severe exception when discussing certain topics close to their heart. My mother, to use a personal example, is a very open-minded person, an ex-Unitarian Universalist, doesn't shy away from debating a topic, and/but is a very old-school feminist. She's not particularly radical (in the nutty Dworkin sense), but she definitely has a few views that don't stand up to scrutiny. She gets absolutely livid if I (or anyone) attempts to discuss pornography in terms that don't involve pornography's (alleged) inherent abuse of/disrespect towards women.

She would agree with you, "people are not their beliefs, you can respect a person while thoroughly disrespecting their beliefs", but her claims don't always match reality.

I would disagree on the "people are not their beliefs" bit, to, but I think the above dispute is sufficient.

lewis.breland wrote:BTW: They really were going to kill me when I said that in Darwinian terms homosexuality was PROBABLY nothing more than a genetic malfunctioning of the sex drive. They fucking flipped! I thought I as going to be lynched!

(assuming your avatar is a portrait here)

Hmm on the whole I'd say you're wrong on the Darwin and gay people thing. In fact I'd say you're better equipped than me to reproduce and I'm straight. More intelligent, gregarious, better looking, sharper dressed and well over 10 years younger. A version of you in the past would have taken a wife, had kids and really the only difference would be the gender of the bit on the side.

The numbers of women inwardly saying "bugger!" (if you'll pardon the expression ) with a disappointed sigh on first meeting you and discovering your sexuality are surely legion. "He's perfect he must be gay" I'm equally sure is another common feminine first impression.

thedistillers wrote:Homosexuals are welcomed in the big family of Christ, as long as they have the honest intention to live a life of chastity, serving Christ. Homosexuals who have no intention to do so should not call themselves Christians.

Chastity?!!

<God mode>Thou speakest not with the word of the Lord thy God!</God mode>

How dare you reduce the reproductive capacity of Humanity by 10%. You're goin' straight to hell for that one!

DaveScriv wrote:

Which is one of many reasons why I don't understand why any self respecting gay person, or anyone else for that matter, would want to be a Christian, now or at any time in the last 60 years or so.

Good post (these are almost the exact words I usually use ) You would have to be some kind of self-loathing idiot to want to be a christian. You can't just wave away the long history of anti-gay doctrine and practice in the church (that is why it is even more delusional for a gay to be one than a straight). It's obvious this lunacy is resorted to by almost all believers as they ignore various parts of the bible and the very foundations of the church and its doctrines and creeds. How much theology, leading to core tenets of the faith, was developed based on the bible being a literal text? A phenomenal amount of ink has been spewed over the meanings and implications and lessons and ..... of just the garden of eden story, and almost overnight, for most non-fundie xians it suddenly became allegory. How does that work?

You ain't gonna find gays in bars any more intellectually gifted than in some testosterone-fueled sports bar. I have come across many believers, but haven't gotten into any decent arguments with any. As you found, the arguments are as irrational as any found elsewhere, it's just sadder coming from gays.

@Lewis
Please quit acting as if they know why there are gays, why it seems a stable, permanent percentage of the population. They do not know, this is the third time I have said this to you, why do you think they know? Don't you think it would be common knowledge and even make the papers? Every fucking hint of an answer appears already, if some guy eureka-ed it, believe me it would make the network news pronto. There are many many hypotheses, but it ain't known. They don't even have that settled a definition of gay, have no clear idea of the population of gays (keeps changing), the whole bi thing is up in the air, how are they going to get a reasonably firm answer any time soon?

As for it being a malfunction, I think this was covered already, but if they don't know why we are here, they sure can't say it is a malfunction. Again, it may be a sickle cell thing, it may be an altruism thing, it likely may be some kind of thing that hasn't occurred to anyone yet.

crank wrote:

As for it being a malfunction, I think this was covered already, but if they don't know why we are here, they sure can't say it is a malfunction. Again, it may be a sickle cell thing, it may be an altruism thing, it likely may be some kind of thing that hasn't occurred to anyone yet.

Regarding sexuality differences as a malfunction ignores the fact that it doesn't prevent reproduction. It may inhibit but not as much as fertility levels.

(I'm guessing the Gay bar was in the United States of Jesusland) I wonder if the prevalence towards Christianity is simply a matter of trying to blend in as in a kind of, "Well at *least* I'm not an atheist.".

Atheists become a common hate figure and so the gays end up with a rapport with the Christian breeders, who, as we have seen in this thread, see Gayness as something that can be cured (or avoided through Chastity), whereas Atheists are unreconcilable as they deny God exists.

crank wrote:

DaveScriv wrote:

Which is one of many reasons why I don't understand why any self respecting gay person, or anyone else for that matter, would want to be a Christian, now or at any time in the last 60 years or so.

Good post (these are almost the exact words I usually use ) You would have to be some kind of self-loathing idiot to want to be a christian. You can't just wave away the long history of anti-gay doctrine and practice in the church (that is why it is even more delusional for a gay to be one than a straight). It's obvious this lunacy is resorted to by almost all believers as they ignore various parts of the bible and the very foundations of the church and its doctrines and creeds. How much theology, leading to core tenets of the faith, was developed based on the bible being a literal text? A phenomenal amount of ink has been spewed over the meanings and implications and lessons and ..... of just the garden of eden story, and almost overnight, for most non-fundie xians it suddenly became allegory. How does that work?

You ain't gonna find gays in bars any more intellectually gifted than in some testosterone-fueled sports bar. I have come across many believers, but haven't gotten into any decent arguments with any. As you found, the arguments are as irrational as any found elsewhere, it's just sadder coming from gays.

@Lewis
Please quit acting as if they know why there are gays, why it seems a stable, permanent percentage of the population. They do not know, this is the third time I have said this to you, why do you think they know? Don't you think it would be common knowledge and even make the papers? Every fucking hint of an answer appears already, if some guy eureka-ed it, believe me it would make the network news pronto. There are many many hypotheses, but it ain't known. They don't even have that settled a definition of gay, have no clear idea of the population of gays (keeps changing), the whole bi thing is up in the air, how are they going to get a reasonably firm answer any time soon?

As for it being a malfunction, I think this was covered already, but if they don't know why we are here, they sure can't say it is a malfunction. Again, it may be a sickle cell thing, it may be an altruism thing, it likely may be some kind of thing that hasn't occurred to anyone yet.

Ah, alas. Science has not the answer. There are many theories in the fields of biology and psychology, and they are all pointing in a very similar direction: embryology. That's all I'm REALLY claiming. When, at the bar, I said that I was the product of blind selection, and that my sexual impulses are 'malfunctioned' I was TRYING to get conversations rolling. It was a prelude to a discussion on embryology and genetics (offering a picture of the several scientific theories out there). So, I understand very well that science doesn't have a definite answer yet, but I'm also open to the fact that it might not be a very pretty one and indeed, if it turns out to be a 'malfuntion' then so be it. But I think humans had better approach it as a genetic 'difference' rather than a 'disorder' since we've already been through that nightmare.

Thanks for the post.

Lewis

When homosexuality is put in the context of Darwinian evolution, it often comes across as a mechanical process and makes it easy to fall into thinking that homosexuality is a malfunction or a detriment.

To me it seems (read: I can't back this up with any science) that the development of sexual orientation is more like the development of a dominant right hand, left hand or both. There are shades of this too, such as people who write left handed but play guitar right handed.

The mechanical view doesn't take into consideration how we learn behaviors within a group. I can easily imagine hetero sex being strongly encouraged for the benefit of the survival of the group and homosexuals within the group wanting or being forced to tow the line to benefit the group.

An important aspect that undermines the idea that homosexuality is a malfunction or deficiency is that humans have evolved to the point where we have reproductive technologies that don't require a penis into a vagina. Doesn't this make "malfunction" or "detriment" a moot point now? We have survived long enough to not make this a limitation on reproduction.

lewis.breland wrote:BTW: They really were going to kill me when I said that in Darwinian terms homosexuality was PROBABLY nothing more than a genetic malfunctioning of the sex drive. They fucking flipped! I thought I as going to be lynched!

I didn't catch this before.

You are phenomenally dumb if you expect to affect anyone's beliefs saying stuff like that. I don't care how right you are (or think you are) no one likes some young preachy dick coming in TO A BAR telling everyone what's what. If some Christian came in and said "hey everyone, no offense intended but everyone who enjoys the kind of lifestyle you all do is PROBABLY going to hell", they'd probably receive the same treatment.

You are the up close and personal equivalent of an internet troll, whether you intend to be or not.

OF course I didn't expect to change anyone's mind. Thought it would be quite the conversation starer, though.

Rather like my "God Save King George" bit when I reenact the grenadiers from the revol. war period! Lots of fun. Just like a bit of reporting of the consensus! Cheers, old chap! Sure you'd have joined my team ole'ad.

mark1961 wrote:

lewis.breland wrote:BTW: They really were going to kill me when I said that in Darwinian terms homosexuality was PROBABLY nothing more than a genetic malfunctioning of the sex drive. They fucking flipped! I thought I as going to be lynched!

(assuming your avatar is a portrait here)

Hmm on the whole I'd say you're wrong on the Darwin and gay people thing. In fact I'd say you're better equipped than me to reproduce and I'm straight. More intelligent, gregarious, better looking, sharper dressed and well over 10 years younger. A version of you in the past would have taken a wife, had kids and really the only difference would be the gender of the bit on the side.

The numbers of women inwardly saying "bugger!" (if you'll pardon the expression ) with a disappointed sigh on first meeting you and discovering your sexuality are surely legion. "He's perfect he must be gay" I'm equally sure is another common feminine first impression.

thedistillers wrote:Homosexuals are welcomed in the big family of Christ, as long as they have the honest intention to live a life of chastity, serving Christ. Homosexuals who have no intention to do so should not call themselves Christians.

Chastity?!!

<God mode>Thou speakest not with the word of the Lord thy God!</God mode>

How dare you reduce the reproductive capacity of Humanity by 10%. You're goin' straight to hell for that one!

Well, thank you lovely! Rather like NOT to be chaste. Would slow the damper, don't you think? Rather prefer the logical argument, eh! Praise!

Loren Michael wrote:

Jef wrote:People are not their beliefs, you can respect a person while thoroughly disrespecting their beliefs.

The point is that while you may believe that, others may not. For that matter, others may believe that but may take severe exception when discussing certain topics close to their heart.

As my signature on RDF used to read: 'The truth will set you free... but first it will piss you off!"

That people may 'take severe exception' to what I say just isn't a good enough reason for not saying exactly what I think. Especially when the reason I am saying it is usually that I 'take exception' to what they think.

You might have some motive for not engaging in an argument with your mother about the merits of pornography. I, however, do not.

lewis.breland wrote:Glad to see you're on here! I think you're right. I just can't help myself. It astonishes me that gay people can be religious. I mean, it takes an awful lot of cherry-picking and twisting the Bible to make them OK in God's eyes. That should give them a hint, don't you think?

Gay people are just human and are as open to deception as heterosexuals are.

Jef wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

Jef wrote:People are not their beliefs, you can respect a person while thoroughly disrespecting their beliefs.

The point is that while you may believe that, others may not. For that matter, others may believe that but may take severe exception when discussing certain topics close to their heart.

As my signature on RDF used to read: 'The truth will set you free... but first it will piss you off!"

That people may 'take severe exception' to what I say just isn't a good enough reason for not saying exactly what I think. Especially when the reason I am saying it is usually that I 'take exception' to what they think.

You might have some motive for not engaging in an argument with your mother about the merits of pornography. I, however, do not.

The truth need not piss anyone off, and I think that quote is somewhat representative of what's wrong with not having a filter between one's brain and mouth. It's how you say things, how you introduce topics and new ideas that matters. It's not simply a matter of "saying what you think"--that's a great way of presenting oneself as an asshole and it's an ineffective, often contra-effective way of spreading whatever truth is in need of spreading--it's a matter of how you approach people, how you approach topics.

Oh, come on! You can't always be gentle around a bunch of fellow drunks and ghetto queens with nothing better to do than argue about the origins of the universe. lol

Loren Michael wrote:The truth need not piss anyone off, and I think that quote is somewhat representative of what's wrong with not having a filter between one's brain and mouth. It's how you say things, how you introduce topics and new ideas that matters.

The quote comes from Gloria Steinem, one of the people at the forefront of the feminist movement and certainly not someone with a great deal of compunction about telling it straight. Last time I checked the Women's Movement could hardly be described as being dramatically unsuccessful in changing people's views, and nor could Ms Steinem be described as an uninfluential figure. I'll forego to speculate on whether she has a sufficient filter between her brain and her mouth.

Political Correctedness is waaaay overrated.

lewis.breland wrote:
Not at all. The Darwinian purpose of sex is to reproduce. That's the point. Homosexuality doesn't make any evolutionary sense outside the theories of group selection or some other less likely ones.

You are wrong. Modern synthesis of evolution theory says that genes that tend to help their own reproduction in a given environment tend to be more common in that environment than other genes that don't help their own reproduction or do so in a lesser manner.

A gene that can help its own reproduction by making some of its carriers infertile will be common. Just think about ants or bees, for an instance.

The conclusion is that since homosexuality is quite common among our species, there are good chances that genes that increase the chance of some individuals to be homosexuals are either beneficial or neutral for their own reproduction. Otherwise they would be less prevalent.

I must have pushed the wrong button a couple of days ago. Gets in the way of pushing people's buttons.

You're not actually going to win points amongst gay people by telling them they're an aberration.

In any event, it's probably false. Forget political correctness; there's just the fact that only humans seem to have a large gay population. (Note that I mean Gay here as the G in LGBT, not the L or the B.)

I realize that it seems unlikely that another mechanism than individual selection (such as Selfish Gene) could have done it, but when you're dealing with the vast unlikeliness of humans alone having lots of gay males, they don't seem so unlikely.

I don't know how it worked, but I rather suspect that it had something to do with one of our genetic bottlenecks and is related to our lack of estrus and maybe hairlessness as well.

epepke wrote:I must have pushed the wrong button a couple of days ago. Gets in the way of pushing people's buttons.

You're not actually going to win points amongst gay people by telling them they're an aberration.

In any event, it's probably false. Forget political correctness; there's just the fact that only humans seem to have a large gay population. (Note that I mean Gay here as the G in LGBT, not the L or the B.)

I realize that it seems unlikely that another mechanism than individual selection (such as Selfish Gene) could have done it, but when you're dealing with the vast unlikeliness of humans alone having lots of gay males, they don't seem so unlikely.

I don't know how it worked, but I rather suspect that it had something to do with one of our genetic bottlenecks and is related to our lack of estrus and maybe hairlessness as well.

Very well put. And I should say that we ought to, as you have, always hedge our suspicions with "we don't know" first and foremost, because to be scientifically sound about this issue, we don't!

It does seem likely that something other than 'the Selfish Gene' could be responsible for homosexuality. As a matter of fact, it seems that homosexuality defies much of evolutionary theory if it is indeed inborn (which I have every confidence it is). Modern science seems to point in that direction. And though many theories have come about to give some hindsight into the rainbow that is human sexuality, there is no conclusive 'sexual theory' which encompasses homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. I suppose that will be my own line of work after university.

I should also note that we can not rule out the posibility that homosexuality IS a sort of 'malfunction' which is a rather common one if it turns out to be so. I can't let my personal beliefs get in the way of my science, but that isn't an argument to say we have anything to 'overcome' or to 'fix' about ourselves. It seems to just be one of those things that occur with only some pattern some of the time and randomly at other times. I think this is a topic we've really got to research and look into because it affects so many people's lives.

Thank you for your post!