You also believe gays can't control their sexual urges.we should also extend that to other sexual deviants such as pedophiles and rapists,it's not their fault they are the way they are.
Why punish them if they were born that way?
No one is punishing homosexuals except people like you, who have some book backing them up in vague words.
Why punish rapist you mean? Because the other person involved didnt agree to the sex. Homosexual intercourse is not rape. Homosexuals can, just like you and me, resist raping people. Rapist can't or dont want to control their urges. Massive difference.
Yes I agree these brain regions don't correspond on a 1:1 basis, and yes they are "averages." A gay man might have a fairly "normal" appearing size of the sexual dimorphic center, or vice versa. Perhaps these regions have "incomplete penetrance."
There's a guy named Hammer I think who claimed to have found a "gay gene" at one (or many?) points. I didn't include that since to my knowledge none of his work has ever been replicated. So yes, there isn't a "gay gene" or some absolute genetic or phenotypic indicator that scientists can point at and say, "Ah ha! That man is gay, and he has no choice." Rather, scientists (and social scientists) can repeatedly ask gay people whether they believe they had a choice (and universally get the same response) and then combine that survey data with what biologic evidence we have, and together, it's highly suggestive that gay (or heterosexual, or bisexual) people don't have a choice in who they are attracted to. That's an interesting question, by the way, if the "in betweens" identified more often as bisexual. I don't know the answer to that.
I might liken the brain region/finger length/auditory/etc evidence to a disease like diabetes. One guy might have genetics suggesting he will develop diabetes in his lifetime, and even though he eats a perfect diet and exercises every day, he still develops diabetes. The genetics (predisposition) might have only stated that he had a 30% chance of developing diabetes, he did everything he could to avoid the disease, and nevertheless he got it because he was set up for it. He didn't have a choice in avoiding diabetes, even though his genetic predisposition was only 30% (analogy the brain region was only slightly smaller than predicted, yet the guy identifies as gay).
I can agree with this idea. But even assuming it's true that it's a matter of thousands or more many tiny influences and interactions affecting the way the brain forms connections and processes information and so forth, if that leads to someone feeling like they are gay, did they have a choice? Would you expect a young child to be able to meditate on "not being gay" all throughout childhood and adolescence just to prevent it from happening and help modulate the synaptic connections formed throughout life? The techniques you describe might more likely be used by a gay man trying to repress his sexual identify to conform with what he would like it to be (like those closet homosexual lawmakers who try to pass all sorts of anti-gay laws and then later fall to a scandal where they were having sex with some male prostitute).
My understanding of many Christians' beliefs is that this is indeed the way God wanted it to be. Like a test, where you have lust for something you know to be evil, and God wants you to resist that lust. (Obviously others feel like it's just a choice rather than a test. And still others feel like you can still be a good Christian and be gay)
One could also argue that. We small ignorant creatures cannot know God's ways and intentions. Who are we to question why God made a people who would never have a choice in whether they go to Heaven or to Hell.
But, to the point of this topic as a whole, such a world doesn't seem logical to me.
Why punish incest?bestiality?they aren't hurting anyone.
Why would you punish incest? If me and my sister like to have rough morning sex with protection why cant we do it?
What does this have to do with religion?
It doesn't necessarily have to be any individual's personal reason for believing in God or in any religion. It's more of an explanation for why ALL cultures universally created religion for themselves, whether Christian or Norse or Greek or Buddhist or Hindu or Navajo, etc. The evolutionary argument is that we have better reproductive success if we believe there is a purpose to life; whereas, if we believe everything is futile and we'll soon lie in the dirt with the worms for all eternity, that makes for dreary people that probably don't want to have as much sex and don't care so much about raising their babies.
Moonspring is right, protected incest should not be considered immoral / wrong from the atheistic worldview. Yet everybody knows deep inside that there is something wrong with it ...
Fact of the matter is, you can never have objective moral truth without a God. All you can do as an atheist is state your subjective opinion or appeal to what the masses of people say, which again is no objective standard for morality.
I believe if you think about this deeply, you will understand why there has to be a God if there are objective moral truths.
There is nothing you base your fact that Atheists would come to the moral conclusion, that incest is good.
I didnt say atheists come to the conclusion it is good, just that they cannot come to the conclusion that it is wrong.
You went on about violence and killing and basically you claimed that these things are per se immoral. Problem is: how do you judge wether a reason for killing someone is moral or not? The answer is, you do not have any objective ground to stand on when you make any moral judgements. I know it's hard, but thats just how it is for atheists, and any attempt to argue contrary to this is in vain, it is the blatant truth.
"There is no such think as ultimate objective morals." As I said, this would hold true if you assume the nonexistence of a God. However, I will show you why with a God there has to be ultimate objective morality.
First, we need to agree on certain traits and Attributes of a let's say potential God: He is the Creator of everything, the Almighty, Allwise, Allknowing, Eternal, etc.
Based on this, if He possesses all Knowledge possible and He created everything and He set up the laws of nature, then you will understand that He is the ultimate authority. He determines what is wrong and what is right. He created good and bad in the first place, He alone is to decide. That is why the objective standard for morality derived from what He says, not from what mankind says.
As a side note you also basically repeated the stereotypical "religions cause wars" argument. Had you thought about it for a couple of seconds more, maybe you would have realised the biggest killings and crimes against humanity in the history of mankind weren't done for religious reasons or by religious people at all: WW1, WW2, in fact, part of nazi ideology was based on darwinian evolution; i could go on listing stuff like french revolution, 30 yr war, dozens of genocides, korean war, colonialization period, vietnam war - in fact who are the only people who dropped the atomic bomb on civilians - twice?
It is totally normal to come to the conclusion to not have incest when children out of those relationships have a very high risk to suffer for their entire life, why I need religion for that, is a mystery to me.
What you described there sound for me how Northcoreans describe Kim Yong Un.
There is no need to have a god to come to moral conclusions.
Even within religion morality has changed over the last 2000 years, at first marriage was undivorcable, now many christians don't care anymore.
Priests had to be virgins, now half of the christians think this is stupid rule.
Many rules from the old testament are deeply immoral and include the killing of people, a thing western worlds has mainly abolished.
Many religious societies had deeply immoral standards, they allowed sex with children or rape of women, they allowed multi marriages etc.
To your last part:
You can't argue that unreligious people caused violence, because they were atheists, while deeply religous people commited warcrimes for a thousand year in the name of their believes.
Also nazi ideology might have used darwinism to explain their superiority, but they misused it, a sientist would have never come to their concluions as they had zero sientific background.
The hatred towards jews did not come from darwinism it came from a hatred that christians had towards jews for almost 2000 years at that time.
If God provided absolute morality he didnt share it. You'd think the Almighty might have given us instructions for those absolute moralities. He didnt. Or if he did they are awefull. Look at Gerry, he is absolutely right to say gays are sinning if your God provided his morality. God provided his morality many times, with many names, in many forms, with different morallities. You can pick one God and say his morality is right and blow urself up in his name. Or just come to the conclusion that morality is a human construct which we need to fill. I propose we design our own morality, which we all do already.
10 commandments are a joke.'You shall not kill'. Wow, such insight.
Well, I would disagree. Homosexuality is an aspect of health since health is not just disease and the treatment of such, but also physical appearance, mental ability, gender development, and so on. Perhaps a better example than diabetes in this regard is to say that a little boy is born to two short parents. They expect him to be short. His other siblings are short. But he grows to be tall because he has some recessive alleles that made him different than the rest of his family. He doesn't have the "normal" make up of the rest of his family. He doesn't do anything different to be tall (growth hormone, better diet, stretching...). He has no choice but to be tall. Stature is not a disease, but it is still a matter of his health. Homosexuality is not a disease, but it is still a matter of health.I do understand the analogy with diabetes. I do agree with what you are saying about the 30% genetic chance, does everything right but still gets diabetes; can say pretty much conclusively he was getting it no matter what and its for life. I will say I have a health condition that I am told I will have as long as I am around, so I feel what I will say has some weight to it. The difference is though, that's health and gay is behavior related. At least theoretically (and probably proven a few/more times), I don't believe a gay person is bound for life that way, but this can be highly debatable. I would continue this below, as its more appropriate.
My impression of your view is that even if there are genetic/epigenetic influences that make a person gay, they can still control the urge. The analogy would be alcoholism or substance abuse. Studies show that children born from parents who alcohol abusers are more likely to abuse alcohol themselves. Yet twin studies (identical twins separated at birth and raised by different families) show that even the twin NOT raised in a house of alcoholics has increased risk of becoming an alcoholic. These studies show that despite the obvious idea that alcoholism is culture/nurture (it is, in large part), there is also a genetic component (or at least an epigenetic component if this risk of alcoholism is conferred in the fetal environment). Am I correct in that you believe gay people have "increased risk" of being gay, but still can make a choice not to be, the same as a potential alcoholic having increased genetic/epigenetic/nurture/household risk, but still having the choice not to drink?Agreed, they would still be gay thus having no choice, but unlikely every gay person is bound (hope this word doesn't offend; the best word that comes to my mind) that way for life as they would be with diabetes or my health condition. That's what I have been discussing mostly with you, that they shouldn't be bound that way for life unless desired, not so much they had no choice. I think we may have misunderstood where we are both coming from a bit, now thinking about it.
No, I would be against repression of any kind or the likes you described, no matter one's age.
My main idea is something else. Most people repress as they think that's how you control things; throw it in a cage and put a lock on it can be summed up as repression. I was thinking in my mind of, keeping it on a leash per se (if that doesn't come off as offensive to gays, aplogies; feel like I am walking on very thin ice), as that has been my method for controlling past behaviors with utmost success. It means that, you can feel it, know exactly what it is when it happens, and stop it if you will, but it you aren't bound by where you must act on it every single time. Hence is why I call it, keeping it on a leash; best and healthiest form of control as far as I am aware (its not a caged method which is unhealthy; respression). You are not repressing this way, not hiding that you are gay to yourself but rather acknowledging it and saying, "I'd rather not act out on it, I want to be different than this (either for God if that is the reason if one is a Christian or other personal reasons)."
The method is similiar to what you described though. I would also say the approach must be different for each individual. Also, I acknowledge being gay is a completely different thing. And as I am not a gay-turned-straight man, my mentionings are at best questionable having no personal experience with being gay, only other behaviors.
And with this, I believe this is my last post on the topic of being gay. As mentioned, I feel I am walking on very thin ice, so I'd rather not make myself look like a jerk by mistake (which I hope I am not doing).
I don't know. I was trying to understand the argument that God works in mysterious ways and gives some people "awful" diseases, addictions, sexual orientations, disabilities, or whatnot; and that it's not Ours to question Him.God wanted it that way in what sense? Life or are we talking about, 'the way God made me' for who a person is? I presume the latter. However, I think much differently, while acknowledging it as a factor that is tied in somewhere. The pastor in the clip said Christians who use that are immature Christians, trying to excuse things. Sharp comment, but I side with it. Also...
It's possible that the nurture argument for homosexuality has some merit, at least as a partial influence. For example, I mentioned that boys with many older male siblings have a higher "risk" of becoming gay. Is there something about being raised with a bunch of boys that would do that?While every person is different from first few years of age, every person seems to have differing temperament. Some being kind while others being well, not-so-kind. And from what I know in developmental psychology, whatever occurs in a kid's first 4 years of life specifically, goes incredibly far aside from genetic factors. And furthermore, the next 4 years, also matter a lot, until the kid is at least 8. The reason is the way the kid's brain develops; first 4 years being most important as I am aware that a person's brain does not grow as rapidily afterward.
Now, this is where one can feel bound later in life, behavior related. All those 8 years or so, all those events have influenced a kid's behavior a lot surely. Usually at this point, I believe they say a person won't change much; "core" personality has been formed as psychologists would say I wager. But, I don't completely buy into this core personality as alluded to and that you are bound; this is the way God made me (could add exclamation marks [!!]).
My reason is due to neuroplasticity and many experiments where people could change, just extreme effort is required to make a change and then maintain a change. I would say again, extreme effort. And where the limit is on changed behavior, can't say.
I am only mentioning this just due to our whole gay discussion in the sense that I don't believe anyone is bound by some things. Health sure, I have had my condition for almost 20 years and still counting. There was a saying and a counter saying on a billboard I saw around 10 years ago. It was among the lines of:
"You discover who you are in life." The counter was, "You create who you are in life." I side with latter heavily, from personal experience and understandings of neurology and psychology. Many people are just unaware of how they formed who they are. My memory has allowed me a ton of insight to myself and how I was forming myself and being formed from some events out of my hand like others.
Yeah, I suppose one interpretation of the bible is that we're all "sinners" and all we need is to accept Jesus' grace to be saved. Though Influenza and Melkor, earlier in this thread, were discussing the Bible passages that state that belief is not enough and only those who perform good works will also get into heaven. In any case, it's hard for me to imagine that a serial killer who kills and intends to kill again can accept Jesus and go to Heaven, whereas I can imagine a former serial killer seeing the light, accepting Jesus, and going to Heaven.While it is redundant, my whole post replies to this. I don't believe people are born a certain way and thus saying they had no choice and were predestined to go to hell. For this matter the point has been missed as I didn't appropriately address this earlier, I was mostly discussing something else.
This is the strongest comment I have made this far, and not sure if it gets me warned; would make it as best I can without sounding like a preacher. From the Christian perspective, everyone who has not accepted Jesus isn't entering heaven. Being gay for this discussion, is irrelevant. Everyone 'falls short of the grace of God' as it has been heard many times. Everyone has been given the choice to choose, so there is no one who is predestined for hell in this sense. I could imagine as some have said in this topic, "I just can't believe there is a God." Or in other words like Tocaraca, he doesn't believe in the ressurrection because there is no evidence. That's where its always a leap of faith as I previously mentioned.
I would say I enjoyed our brief exchange, but won't talk on the subject of being gay anymore. To be fair though, you can respond to each remark I made and I will read it if you want on said subject. I would respond to everything except where I have to discuss my views with being gay.
Why not? In Buddhism, we don't die. Instead we are reincarnated until we reach Nirvana. Isn't that a comforting thought?Maybe it is one of the primary reasons. When you word it like that, I have a bit of a changed view.
I don't think Buddhism should be listed though.
Incest should be considered wrong from an evolutionary worldview. Products of incest have much higher rates of genetic disorders. Incest should be considered wrong from a moral point of view. You inflect harm upon the child by purposefully burdening them with said genetic disorder.Moonspring is right, protected incest should not be considered immoral / wrong from the atheistic worldview. Yet everybody knows deep inside that there is something wrong with it ...
Fact of the matter is, you can never have objective moral truth without a God. All you can do as an atheist is state your subjective opinion or appeal to what the masses of people say, which again is no objective standard for morality.
I believe if you think about this deeply, you will understand why there has to be a God if there are objective moral truths.
I agree on designing my own morality.I'm going to come to your house,kick your door in and hold you at gunpoint because I don't like the fact you have nicer things than I do.my morality tells me that's unfair so I'll do as I please. My morality tells me that you are weaker than me so therefore are fair game.
My morality says that I make the rules not you.
Ok, and the morality embedded institutionally in the society you live in will probably tell you that you deserve to go to prison.