Regarding homosexuality, I have read ALL of the highly speculative papers - including those few of recent vintage, and I am not convinced they make an arguable case that homosexual preferences are anything other than the result of a series of personal choices based on experience.
The obvious inconsistencies especially in male homosexual behavior are, for example:
1. The “Homosexual Agenda”, a spiel that resembles the agenda of a M. L. King. But the content of their “character” is so lacking that only the naive/stupid would argue that they are worthy of special consideration ... even to be married.
2. They herded together to ensure their HIV status would be maintained confidential and demand normal people accept their reasoning: they would be considered outcasts even as their identification was made public. As it is, except for the military, homosexuals have access to all the civil rights normal people do and THEN SOME ... except the benefits of marriage.
3. They want health insurance to cover the extraordinary costs of AIDS treatment, but want their HIV status hidden from insurance companies and ... even from a prospective ‘spouse’.
4. Their public behavior can be outrageously ‘homosexual’ ... GAY even!! ... yet they are rarely arrested for “lewd and lascivious conduct”, and are supposedly beset with grave depression!
5. They are not representative of the ethics of most Americans, and while they have generated inappropriate pity, the basis of that pity is naivete/ignorance.
6. The ONLY way they will be considered for special treatment has come down to how many simple-minded people they can convince that they were “born” homosexual who will then grant them what they clearly do not deserve ... until they adhere to Public Health regulation of EVERY OTHER transmissible-disease carriers AND PROVE THEY ARE DESERVING.
It takes a rational public, in possession of and UNDERSTANDING of ALL the biomedical research, that there is NOTHING REPRODUCIBLE to support a genetic/biological “cause” of homosexuality. And the BS conclusion that they cannot help their BEHAVIOR!!
Naturally, the number of references cited in a work must be commensurate with the scope of the topic. Might I point out, though, that the grand total of scientifically valid sources supporting your opinion that you’ve thus far cited is zero.
Balderdash! Check the “Guide for Authors” of your favorite “hard science” journal. The scope of the topic cannot possibly be handled in one new paper; it can ONLY be approached in a Review.
BTW, “biology” is a hard science along with “chemistry” and “physics”. And given the fantastical nature of some astrophysics, only some physics may be considered “hard science”. Also, the number of people reading chemistry and physics articles is severely limited.
Maybe because a lot of it appears in rags like Scientific American.
Your estimate of anything numerical is rankest BS!
As I said, if your not a scientist, with an earned doctorate in a specific field of endeavor, you’re not a scientist - just a bloviator.
If you acknowledge that biology is a hard science, then you’ll gladly note that most of the papers I linked are of a decidedly biological (rather than psychological) bent. As for your Balderdash!, if you’ll be so kind as to link the source you’re referring to, I would be much obliged. Your posts are generally devoid of content, and I can’t be bothered to engage in a snipe hunt for what “hard” “science” “journals” “feel is an appropriate way to cite sources”.
As for whether or not my (my what?) is a scientist - it is irrelevant, as are my particular qualifications for internet wang-waving. The issue should be whether or not I’m correct and whether my view is substantiated by the facts (it is) or whether I use my alleged qualifications as an argumentum ad verecundiam without substantiating my claims. The greatest scientist in the world might be foolish, indeed, when working outside of his or her chosen field. It is far wiser to realize the limits of our expertise than to attempt to apply them to fields where we clearly have no clue what we’re talking about. If my background is in behavioral neuroendocrinology, then I will feel comfortable in speaking in that realm, and my references ought to reflect this. As opposed, you know, to an OMG PHD HARD SCIENCES!! where I would speak with expertise on that topic and not presume to call the material in an unrelated field bunk by fiat because I don’t like what it says.
I’ve posted my sources. You don’t like them. Fine. Post your own sources. It’s time to put up or shut up, Analytic.
the content of their “character” is so lacking that only the naive/stupid would argue that they are worthy of special consideration ... even to be married.
`
It is precisely this kind of staggeringly ignorant comment that confirms for everyone that you are nothing but a bigoted crank, determined to cling to your ideology-driven position, regardless of an entire body of current research that shows it to be without merit.
A, the ‘behavior’ you spout on about has nothing to do with being homosexual. It is in many ways a cultural affectation. An attempt to create a unique and distinctive subculture. And one that pokes in the eye the mainstream culture which marginalizes them while it’s at it. Really, it’s no different than any other subculture: it strives to stand out and be different or unique while altering, abandoning, and/or mocking that in the mainstream culture which it finds disagreeable. And from what I’ve seen, a lot of what makes up gay culture looks like it comes from a love of camp and kitsch.
Oh and not all gays are the flaming ‘loud-and-proud’ queen types. Many gay men aren’t even remotely feminine and many don’t go for the the whole “We’re loud, we’re proud” in-your-face stuff. Like any other group of people, they are nothing if not varied.
Granted, as a straight man, my knowledge is a little limited and second hand, but at least I’ve made an attempt to understand things rather than make gross generalizations and bigoted dismissals.
I’m an atheist and a conservative, not a half or ¾ conservative like Mr. Price, a real old fashioned social conservative. I’m surprised and appalled at the link between skepticism and political liberalism because liberalism is so conspicuously irrational, illogical, dishonest, authoritarian, and exploitative. Liberalism has hijacked the skeptical movement and is prostituting it – same thing it does to everything it touches.
Mr. Price can rest assured conservative economics is strictly evidence based and rational right down the line. I commend him also for his apparent realism in foreign affairs.
I also agree abortion is murder. The only truly innocent people on earth are butchered because they are powerless and inconvenient. Nothing about human history or behavior and certainly nothing about liberals gives me any confidence I wouldn’t meet the same fate if I became similarly powerless and inconvenient.
Price and liberals are completely wrong about homosexuality. I have the same attitude most of us have toward all the other sexual perversions, you know, the ones that are not as beneficial to the Democratic Party, just as we all did until the day before yesterday when the totally irrational propaganda campaign on their behalf was started.
I’m a reluctant atheist who recognizes the immense benefit Christianity has been to mankind. I practice religious tolerance. But I have done public debates against Creationists and maintain a standing offer against all comers. And I wouldn’t be afraid to debate liberals, but they are too powerful and have nothing to gain by even recognizing any questioning of their dogmas.
Just catching up here. What is your rational opposition to homosexuality? It is between consenting adults, involves the bodies and desires of consenting adults, and has no effect on the lives of others, unless they permit the consensual nature of another independent party to have a bearing on their lives.
I don’t get it. Everything else, I’m with you. (well, I wouldn’t say “immense benefit” exactly). However, you are right about liberalism, and if you read the posts here, you will surely seem some serious irrationality (and double standards, cognitive dissonance, etc).
Come join us free-market, dope-smoking, gay loving, rockn’ roll libertarians man.
I never said homosexual proclivity is voluntary any more than any other perverse sexual proclivity is voluntary. (Behavior, however, is voluntary.) It is immoral because it is loathsome, filthy, degrading, and unhealthy, and elicits instinctive repugnance, just like the other perversions. Society has every right, in fact an obligation, to draw the line between approved and taboo. Whether society’s ostensible rationale comes from religion, manners, or political correctness is secondary. But I will take tradition as justification over liberal conceit or self serving nine times out of ten.
Wow!
Look, when someone (even the great Caesar Geekus) talks of morals I sort of wonder when they actually did any of the soft science. I am sure use the maestro uses it at an understood short hand. Sure its a term of convenience but its not a real world. There are no exhibited morals that new christian supernatural progenitor gives us. In fact, morals are only a short hand for human behaviour good or bad.
Thus for someone to say something is “immoral” they say something is not part of human behaviour.
Thus for somebody to say that something that occurs within human behaviour is “loathsome, filthy, degrading, and unhealthy, and elicits instinctive repugnance, just like the other perversions”; the grammar and sentiment is severely misguided. Clearly jesus doesnt give a dingoes kidney. He/she is not a historical figure. Clearly a grandstand by somebody who doesn’t love his brethren.
Regarding homosexuality, I have read ALL of the highly speculative papers - including those few of recent vintage, and I am not convinced they make an arguable case that homosexual preferences are anything other than the result of a series of personal choices based on experience.
The obvious inconsistencies especially in male homosexual behavior are, for example:
3. They want health insurance to cover the extraordinary costs of AIDS treatment, but want their HIV status hidden from insurance companies and ... even from a prospective ‘spouse’.
Hopefully the need for hiding expensive diseases such as HIV, heart disease, pending future operations, and other pre-existing conditions which might prevent an individual from getting health insurance from an insurer, has been addressed by congress. However, this type of hiding medical conditions is practised by almost everyone, we don’t want to have exclusions or unaffordable rates for heterosexuals, now do we?.
As to hiding a dangerous disease from a loved partner, homosexuals are people not deranged egomaniacs.
4. Their public behavior can be outrageously ‘homosexual’ ... GAY even!! ... yet they are rarely arrested for “lewd and lascivious conduct”, and are supposedly beset with grave depression!
Should we arrest everyone who dresses or behaves outrageously? I see teenagers with their pants so low that aside from the obvious inconvenience, it is not a pretty sight. I see advertisements of 99% nude pictures of sportsmen and women with pasties and the briefest of bikinis in the most provocative positions and obvious message of sensuality. Why do you not complain about that? If your morals compell you to speak of lewd and lascivious behavior, you should be consistent and also condemn such behavior by heterosexuals.
In my life I have had the good great fortune to meet many homosexuals, which offered me help or comfort when I needed it, without expecting anything in return, knowing I am straight. Never have I seen a homosexual present lewd and lascivious conduct to me or in public. What they do in private is none of my concern, nor yours.
They are not representative of the ethics of most Americans, and while they have generated inappropriate pity, the basis of that pity is naivete/ignorance.
Homosexuals are as representative of ethics as heterosexuals. The basis for thinking otherwise is a Freudian fear.
6. The ONLY way they will be considered for special treatment has come down to how many simple-minded people they can convince that they were “born” homosexual who will then grant them what they clearly do not deserve ... until they adhere to Public Health regulation of EVERY OTHER transmissible-disease carriers AND PROVE THEY ARE DESERVING.
Agreed, but this rule applies to everyone. Apparently heterosexuals teens don’t, by the number of unwanted pregnancies and peer acquired TD. I would wager that a significant percentage of sexually active (at risk) heterosexual men and women also do not adhere to the Public Health Regulations. I am afraid, here you are expressing a naive viewpoint.
It takes a rational public, in possession of and UNDERSTANDING of ALL the biomedical research, that there is NOTHING REPRODUCIBLE to support a genetic/biological “cause” of homosexuality. And the BS conclusion that they cannot help their BEHAVIOR!!
Again, homosexuals do not display a greater “uncontrollable impulse” than heterosexuals. Think it through. (rape, incest, physical abuse, sexual serial offenders/killers). 99.99% of these are committed by heterosexuals.
Conclusion,
a) As humans beings, homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals. Their difference lies only in the fact that homosexuals are attracted emotionally and romantically to their own sex, while heterosexuals are attracted, for the same reasons, to the opposite sex. There is nothing evil about this, just different, but then heterosexual partners also practise and publicly display some very different (lewd and lascivious) behaviors.
b) If you stop fighting against granting homosexuals full rights as any other citizen, homosexuals will stop fighting to obtain them.
Trust me, they will not seek you out. All they ask is that you don’t seek them out.
Thus for someone to say something is “immoral” they say something is not part of human behaviour.
Thus for somebody to say that something that occurs within human behaviour is “loathsome, filthy, degrading, and unhealthy, and elicits instinctive repugnance, just like the other perversions”; the grammar and sentiment is severely misguided. Clearly jesus doesnt give a dingoes kidney. He/she is not a historical figure. Clearly a grandstand by somebody who doesn’t love his brethren.
Sadly “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
Hollander or Aussie?
Welcome to CFI, and I hope to hear more of your well reasoned arguments.
Hollander or Aussie?
Welcome to CFI, and I hope to hear more of your well reasoned arguments.
Thank you.
I am a dutch born, of Frisian descent (ie.. folk only count my single line patrilineage) full time Oz since 2. I.e I come from the uncultured ends of society it appears as I compare my thought on homosexuality.
I find it strange that your correspondents denigrate behaviour as filthy and degenerate and I find it all perfectly normal. Its a perfectly good opportunity for me to shine as a beacon to their women that at least one of the gang here is a great time.
I will state here and now, not only am I what appears to a filthy degenerate worthy of sexual denigration”, I am a fantastic cook and stunning conversationalist!
I expect fan mail to light my e-box from the very disappointed ladies bonded to these “morality” fundamentalists.
If its immoral to explore sexual expression, start shooting the majority of mammals.
Hell, in the biota of the world, heterosexuality is by far the exception to the norm.
It would be ignoble of me to cause divorces however…
Lets get to the real tin tacks of the situation. Whilst we dont make choices to minimise and remove harm in this world, all of us are..“immoral”. Ridiculous bigots, the pick up number for Soylent is *### #### ####”. Apparently the new line of “Bigot in a box” biscuits is now available in; green, green or greeny green.
PS It may just be that I am a “filthy degraded and disgusting pervert” that just wouldnt notice “filthy, degraded and disgusting perversity” due to my heterosexual position. My only response to this is can you pass the pepper after you poured that shiraz?
Speak for yourselves fundies, we normal folk come in all stripes, sadly sex is only e mission statement for you.
LOL (I am from Amsterdam, raised in an atheist family)
One small correction, my correspondents are Free Thinkers, not bigots or “moral bible-thumpers”, but I won’t deny them the right to speak. This is what makes CFI so interesting. Every one with a reasoned argument will find supporters or opponents. I’ve been on both sides of the coin.
I have found one even claiming he/she has read “ALL” the papers on an issue. This is astounding because there is no possible way I could have read all the journal articles in my field. This is of course for a number of reasons. A big reason is that I may not be able to understand the content of a lot of papers in my field, I am no mathematician of any note.
A lot of comments here are reverse pyramidal hubris. Confidence that is undeserved for a social luddite.
The term liberals comes into play here. What comprises liberalism and conservatism varies from region to region. If liberalism means free market economies (as it does in many countries) I can hardly see how atheism has any connection. Nor can I see how it would be to any advantage to be an adherent to nudism on a Croatian beach (which also applies to naturalism in some quarters).
To be an atheist you don’t have to be ultra analytical. Its just a position you adopt to all religions.
Given that Judaeo christianity revolves around tenotheism or polytheism at best, they have a lot more issues to sort out than simple acts between humans seeking simple pleasures that can just as easily end up in breakdowns.
If your readership really agrees with buffoon statements such as folk seeking insurance and superannuation for a sexual bias, then they just haven ruminated on the issue at all.
Maybe its time to debate the real issues here. If you are a conservative or liberal of faith, how can you justify the misery of apportioning religious based education and health care to only part of the community?
But, that’s for a nihilist to despise, an atheist to ponder and a “secularist” to discuss.
I hope the Bible Geek has many more years of educating me!
Who cares who sticks what into whom in the privacy of their own house! If you want to be gay then go be gay! Or not! It’s nobodies business –especially the governments on what body parts you want to lick! Moralizing on legal sexual behavior just makes you look like an intolerant dweeb! Even if you have a degree in biology!!!
Most atheists I have met are rationalists. They tend to be reasonably intelligent with a good amount of empathy. Sometimes their intellectual arrogance can get in the way of a good argument and I think that is what I’m seeing a lot of in this discussion.
The definition of Liberal and conservative slides all over the map depending on where you are. A liberal in Canada is damn near a communist in the lower States and a Bible belt conservative is practically a fascist (Godwin’s law?) in Quebec. They tax, they both spend, they both lie and they both do exactly what the other side accuses them of- no matter what it is.
It is likely that a majority of atheists are “liberals” because they can accept the concept that forcing the distribution of a percentage of goods more equitably within a society increases the overall likelihood of survivability of said society.
I certainly care what goes on in the confines of my neighbours houses. Haven’t you noticed that all the people you have ever met that are injured, killed, pulled up for crimes and proselytising strange sectarian behaviour are….people that you have met?
I hear this behind the confines of homes idea quiet a lot. Police wont have a bar of it either.
If they are beating their spouses, children or pets I care. If they are cooking methamphetamines (explosive and toxic) I care. There are plenty of reasons for me to care about (and report) what is going on in my neighbors house. Sex between two consenting adults is not one of them.
