JW's Anti-Gay position puts them in the axis of ignorance

by scotoma 64 Replies latest jw friends

  • DJS
    DJS

    Scotoma,

    Not a good or accurate point at all. Do I have to do all of your all's out of the box visionary thinking? Once being gay is completly accepted (and it will be all you haters), gays and lesbians (who I noticed refer to themselves as gay), will almost assuredly want to have children in much the same percentages as heteros. Societally imposed barriers have kept this somewhat limited in the past (please don't freaking ask me to explain), but once those are gone it will change. Simply look at the numbers of gays wanting children now. And having them. It is entirely possible, if not likely, that gays will pass on MORE of their DNA, not less, once these barriers are removed and gays are allowed to meld into society as everyone else. Geesh. Think people.

    And even if what you think about the genetic code is true, the DNA is likely in everyone's DNA soup to some degree. Geeessh people, think a bit. As to those who think it a defect, please leave this site and planet. And universe. Please. Quickly. Your'e morons. Sorry Simon, but he/she/they are.

    And Student, sociologists indicate that ANY behavior that is very common has an evolutionary causal reason for being common. Act like a student and think for geeesh sake. And quit asking stupid questions that sound intelligent. I can go get the research if you wish, but I would prefer that you do it.

  • jam
    jam

    Mirror News, Feb. 14,2014

    Some experts have dismissed the idea of a genetic component

    to homosexuality because of so-called "Darwinian paradox".

    This theory states that if homosexuality was genetic, the genes

    responsible for homosexuality would be extinguished by

    natural selection overtime as those with "gay gene" are those

    least likely to reproduce.

  • DJS
    DJS

    Jam,

    It is likely in all of our DNA to some extent, which makes sense. And this discussion is so simplistic. Too many ex-JWs can only view things in a linear rashion. Up/down, right/wrong, black/white, yes/no. That doesn't reflect real life with all of its wonderful complexities. I find it truly sad that too many ex-Jdubs can't seem to shake the confining mindset that attracted them to the Borg in the first place. We were right (and pious and righteous) and EVERYONE else was wrong. Even more sad is that too many only seek the 'research' which supports their jaundiced, simplistic, narrow view of the world.

    Sad, really. The only reason I came on this site 10 months ago, after knowing about it for a decade and being out of the Borg for 2 decades, is to try to help my former bros and sis-es to think rationally and to get rid of the narrow minded krink kronk contaminating our souls, brains and hearts from our Borg days. That's the only reason I'm here. All of you who can do this will be so much happier. And science suggests richer. Look it up.

    A continuum: Feel (great it makes you at best a one celled amoeba); Believe (many believers do so out of emotion, an event (it's a MIRACLE) or their FEELINGS; Think (Ok, you are showing sings of being scentient); Know (based on knowledge. Experiential (it has its limitations as YOUR experience can be limited or the root case of things you see or experience, for a minority for example, may have nothing to do with their skin and everythign to do with society) or based on study or research (does that study have the length, depth and breadth to constitute real knowledge or learning? Our JW days were consumed with a lot of one way narrow minded study - it WAS NOT knowlege); Prove (ok, prove has to be qualified because even the best science is always seeking to know and understand better).

    Where do you see yourselives on this continuum? Studies suggest the closer you are to Prove, being rational, the more money you will make and the more successful you will be. Feeler/perceivers are the bottom dwellers. You all can do better.

    Prove. Based on the best science available. Leave behind what you Feel. What you believe. (cavemen). What you think. What you know

  • valkyrie
    valkyrie

    jam: yours was a snippet of an already foreshortened excerpt [in the Mirror] :

    Mirror News, Feb. 14,2014

    Some experts have dismissed the idea of a genetic component

    to homosexuality because of so-called "Darwinian paradox".

    This theory states that if homosexuality was genetic, the genes

    responsible for homosexuality would be extinguished by

    natural selection overtime as those with "gay gene" are those

    least likely to reproduce.

    Mirror excerpt ("Being gay IS in your genes, scientists discover after DNA study"):

    Homosexuality is determined by a man's DNA - according to new findings by scientists.

    Dr Michael Bailey, from Northwestern University in Chicago, who co-led the study said: "Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice.

    "Our findings suggest there may be genes at play - we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.

    "But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved."

    Genetic factors account for between 30% and 40% of what decides whether a man is gay or straight say the boffins.

    The US researchers stress that environmental forces, such as hormones in the womb, play a more important role.

    But this did not imply that upbringing or other social factors, or individual choice, had a bearing on sexual orientation.

    The research involved testing the DNA in blood samples taken from more than 409 gay brothers and their heterosexual relatives.

    It confirmed that a region previously linked to male sexuality on the X chromosome , known as Xq28, is more likely to be shared by gay pairs of brothers than siblings who do not have homosexuality in common.

    A second genetic region, on Chromosome 8, also appeared to increase the chances of a man being gay.

    Previouslysome experts have dismissed the idea of a genetic component to homosexuality because of the so-called "Darwinian paradox".

    This theory states that if homosexuality was genetic, the genes responsible for homosexuality would be extinguished by natural selection over time as those with the "gay gene" are those least likely to reproduce.

    Fuller text [in the Irish Examiner]: http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2014/0215/world/genes-help-determine-sexual-orientation-in-men-researchers-claim-258916.html

    Genes help determine sexual orientation in men, researchers claim

    By John von Radowitz

    Saturday, February 15, 2014

    Genes play a large part in determining the sexual orientation of men, scientists have shown.

    Genetic factors account for between 30% and 40% of what decides whether a man is gay or straight, according to the largest investigation yet conducted into the subject.

    The US researchers stress that environmental forces, such as hormones in the womb, play a more important role.

    But this did not imply that upbringing or other social factors, or individual choice, had a bearing on sexual orientation.

    "Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice," said Dr Michael Bailey, from Northwestern University in Chicago, who co-led the study. "Our findings suggest there may be genes at play — we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved."

    The research involved testing the DNA in blood samples taken from more than 409 gay brothers and their heterosexual relatives. It confirmed that a region previously linked to male sexuality on the X chromosome, known as Xq28, is more likely to be shared by gay pairs of brothers than siblings who do not have homosexuality in common.

    A second genetic region, on Chromosome 8, also appeared to increase the chances of a man being gay. Dr Bailey did not rule out the possibility of a genetic "gayness" test before birth, but thought it would only provide a vague indicator of a baby’s future sexual orientation.

    "It would not be very accurate, as there are other factors that can influence the outcome," he said.

    The issue of gay genes is almost as controversial as talk of links between inherited DNA and intelligence.

    Previously some experts have dismissed the idea of a genetic component to homosexuality because of the so-called "Darwinian paradox".

    This supposes that if gayness was genetic, the genes responsible for homosexuality would be extinguished by natural selection over time.

    Gay men would be less likely than heterosexual men to reproduce and pass on their sexual orientation genes. The same would apply to their offspring, so that over a number of generations, the gay genes would be expected to die out altogether.

    However, one study by Italian scientists has suggested that genes linked to male homosexuality may increase fertility in women, thereby helping to preserve them.

    The new findings were presented at a Science of Sex and Attraction event attended by experts in Chicago.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    The whole discussion of whether gayness is genetic is interesting, but moot in the context of the OP. Since it's pretty clear that gay people don't choose to be gay, they deserve consideration and tolerance. Whether it's "natural" or not, whether it's caused by genes or environment, the main point is they didn't choose to be that way, and they're not doing anyone any harm, so they deserve to be treated equally. Scientific arguments coming from those who feel negatively towards gays are just so much smokescreen for that person's bigotry.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    jam - "Some experts have dismissed the idea of a genetic component to homosexuality because of so-called 'Darwinian paradox'. This theory states that if homosexuality was genetic, the genes responsible for homosexuality would be extinguished by natural selection overtime as those with 'gay gene' are those least likely to reproduce."

    * sigh *

    Once again, for the people in the back...

    Vidiot - "Unless, of course, the occasional instances of homosexuality reduce competition over females in a population with a higher-than-optimal-volume of males.

    The reduction in sexual competition would arguably reduce antagonism within the group, which would, in turn, foster more amity and cooperation, which, in turn, increases the population's chances of passing on its genes to another generation.

    There's more to survival than just the ability to breed."

  • fulltimestudent
    fulltimestudent

    A previous post: (Poster not named simply because this discussion ought not to be about personalities)

    How is not supporting same sex relationships ignorant? You learn in high biology that the human body evovled to accomadate male-female relationships only. If anything the people who support same sex relationships are ignorant for being anti-science.

    Well, (again) lets look at the natural world:

    Lizards also require male-female relationships also, don't they?

    Yes! generally, but there are exceptions. Like this particular lizard that doesn't need male/female sex to reproduce.

    (Another mistake by the Yahweh/Jesus Combo god).

    I've lost my best description, which was in a Yale publication, but we can move on from my selection if someone isn't satisfied.

    This extract is from a naturalist's blog.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Leapin’ Lesbian Lizards!

    By quantumbiologist

    Today’s weird animal is a local: The New Mexico Whiptail Lizard. I see them often when I go for walks on the sunny side of the Sandias, or around the volcanoes. All in all, they’re actually pretty normal lizards. They enjoy eating insects, and sunning themselves on rocks. Only the females have something rather odd about them. The one pictured below is a female.

    How do I know it’s a female? Because they’re all female. All of them. All their lives. Male New Mexico Whiptail Lizards no longer exist. So how do they reproduce? It’s called parthenogenesis, and it’s responsible for all those virgin births you occasionally hear about. It’s not quite cloning; the female’s DNA simply recombines with itself during meiosis, so each daughter is slightly (but only slightly) different from her mother. Oh, and I should point out that while it’s not absolutely necessary that two female whiptails simulate the act of copulation in order to conceive, studies have shown that it sure helps.

    The day won’t be long before people can no longer use the argument that homosexuality is “unnatural.” In 2009, a review of zoological studies was made which concluded that there is no animal species in which homosexuality has not been shown to exist.

    Reference: http://quantumbiologist.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/157/

  • fulltimestudent
    fulltimestudent

    Posted:

    You're basing your arguments on emotion instead of fact. How can they have a family if the father isn't in his child's life.

    Should families in which the male dies, then cease to exist, something like the (claimed hindu) practise of suttee, but updated to include the fatherless children?

    Its a nonsense argument.

    And sadly, in some families, the children may be better off without the biological father, as in a recent example in Melbourne where the biological father bashed his 11 year old son to death in front of horrified onlookers. Many children have suffered the depredations of their unsiutable biological fathers.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    fulltimestudent - "How do I know it’s a female? Because they’re all female. All of them. All their lives. Male New Mexico Whiptail Lizards no longer exist. So how do they reproduce? It’s called parthenogenesis, and it’s responsible for all those virgin births you occasionally hear about. It’s not quite cloning; the female’s DNA simply recombines with itself during meiosis, so each daughter is slightly (but only slightly) different from her mother."

    I read about this.

    It's Roland Emmerich's Godzilla in microcosm.

  • fulltimestudent
    fulltimestudent

    Posted:

    Are you telling me that the idea of procreation being the only reason for sex is just a hypothesis?

    No, the question is this: Is recreational sex subordinate to procreational sex? Or, is it the other way round?

    What do you think sperm is being released for if not for procreation?

    Isn't that the reason the Catholic church bans masturbation. (Everyone know the Bible story - which on closer examination turns out to be about a different cultural practise among the Jews.) The argument was that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is wrong, because its not for procreation. Is masturbation about procreation?

    Our bodies are wired to start procreating when reach our early teens. Because we live in a society where we need money and maturity to raise children,it is not adivsed for use to procreate that early.

    haha! Wouldn't early procreation be (in this view) an evolutionary advantage?

    We have the desire to have sex because we are able to procreate,when people get old and can no longer procreate the desire goes away.

    ROFL - One of the big problems in church run old age homes in Aust ( can't speak for other nations), is nocturnal bed-hopping - sometimes unwanted.

    My aged mother (in her nineties) was in a government run hospital for a few weeks. She told me that everynight there wewre old men wandering around wanting to get into bed with women patients.

    The evidence is that even though the ability may go away, the desire does not. (And viagra may be the answer for the disadvantaged).

    ----------------------------------

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit