Queer people of faith

wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Queer people of faith

As a total faggot, I sometimes wish I was born earlier, before the AIDS epidemic began. Why? Because, at that point in history, being queer also meant you were a skeptic and freethinker, if not a downright atheist. The guy you were fucking wouldn't have to take a condom out of his ass and go to church the next morning.

 

After the AIDS epidemic, we saw lots of gay men running back to faith. This is when the gay-friendly churches were founded, later to be follow by the gay Jewish and gay Muslim help groups.

 

As someone who was president of my university's queer organization, and someone who has been relatively active in the community (ie, sleeps around a a shitload), I will certainly say that queer people of faith outnumber those who are freethinkers. We even have queers who are "waiting for marriage." The only thing I'd say is notable is the high amounts of New Age faiths, such as Wicca.

 

Now, there was a good two years where my religion and my queerness overlapped, and that was because I couldn't think of a rational way to reject my religious beliefs, and my understanding of Islam had always been rather liberal anyway. But, when I did find a way out, oh boy did I jump off that boat.

 

So, honestly, for other queers here, or others with at least some vague familiarity with the community, does the high amount of religious folk these days bother you? Unlike me, not all of them want a way out of faith. Certainly they're not as dogmatic as the straight ones, but still, why do they resign themselves to religious groups, where 90% of the believers find their lifestyle and feelings an abomination, as opposed to a philosophical position that almost anyone who holds it affirms their rights? It's just moronic.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:BobSpence1

Sandycane wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Homosexuality practiced by a proportion of a population, as long as there is adequate overall fertility, is not a problem for survival of the species.

Your opinion? Personally, I think homosexuality is a symptom of an overall larger problem with our society. While fertility may at the present time be 'adequate', it is a fact that infertility rates are soaring and the population growth rates in civilized countries is in decline. If this combination continues, survival of the human species is threatened to extinction.

Quote:
There is also evidence that those individuals inclined toward homosexuality contribute significantly to the success of the group in other ways, so are a net positive, especially when we are actually tending to over-population.
I never said they don't contribute 'in other ways'. You are assuming they are a net positive. That remains to be seen.

Quote:
At least one genetic predisposition to homosexuality appears to be the expression in males of a gene that is very positive and functional in females. So the overall effect of that gene is definitely positive.
I'm not disputing the positive effects of this particular gene you mention (that I know nothing about). I will question whether or not it is normal for a man to possess this gene. Can you be more specific or, site sources of this information for me?

It has also been documented that male infertility is linked to synthetic estrogen used in the linings of canned products. Would you call this a net positive, too?

Quote:
Would you condemn infertile couples because they are not able to breed?
What?

No, and I'm not 'condemning' gays either... but both gays and non-fertile couples are abnormal.

 

(ps: I just found out that if you are editing a reply and someone replies to it, your edited version will disappear into cyberspace.)

Here is what I was adding to my previous reply:

Speaking of insects, as I was earlier:

Though animals may not possess moral behavior, all social animals have had to modify or restrain their behaviors for group living to be worthwhile. Typical examples of behavioral modification can be found in the societies ants, bees and termites. Ant colonies may possess millions of individuals. E. O. Wilson argues that the single most important factor that leads to the success of ant colonies is the existence of a sterile worker caste. This caste of females are subservient to the needs of their mother, the queen, and in so doing, have given up their own reproduction in order to raise brothers and sisters. The existence of sterile castes among these social insects, significantly restricts the competition for mating and in the process fosters cooperation within a colony. Cooperation among ants is vital, because a solitary ant has an improbable chance of long term survival and reproduction. However as part of a group, colonies can thrive for decades. As a consequence, ants are one of the most successful species on the planet, accounting for a biomass that rivals humans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

 

So, is it possible that because of the over-population of the planet, human genetics is (d)evolving to utilize a similar system as that of ants?

I would like to know what they think the "default" position is as far as sexuality goes for this species, I would consider that to be the "normal" position.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The dynamics of populations

The dynamics of populations seem to be that when infant mortality is low, and conditions of life are open and not oppressive, such as in the more open and nad prosperous Western-style countries, fertility rates fall. As we are seeing now.

In the harsh conditions of the 'third world', fertility rates are high.

What is interesting is that fertility rates in many countries seem to be slightly below replacement rates. Is there some state of society which is comfortable but encourages a little higher fertility level, so as to maintain a reasonably stable population level?

Maybe it will be just a matter of blind evolution, those cultures which are around such a figure will in the long run be the dominant ones, assuming the rabid religiously driven groups eventually run out of steam and give the species a chance at a sane future.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:cj wrote:As

Sandycane wrote:

cj wrote:

As another perspective, there are many documented cases of creatures other than humans in same sex relationships - including having regular sex, including raising offspring. 

I'm sure there are also documented cases of people who poke their eyes with pencils or drool constantly but, that doesn't make them 'normal'.

Quote:
 The infamous book on the two male penguins is only one example.  Another is a rather lengthy tome,

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302891...

Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

You don't have to buy it, I found it at my library, so you can ask for an interlibrary loan and look at it for free if you want.

Ask my librarian for it?  I don't think so.

 

You can't go online?  I make all of my book requests online, including interlibrary loans.  I can have them snail mailed directly to my house for free in a book bag that includes return postage so I need not face a librarian at any time.  I never thought about or cared what a librarian may think about my book choices - but that is one of the reasons I moved to the big city.  I hate small towns where everyone knows everyone's business.

 

Sandycane wrote:

The difference between me and the rest of you politically correct persons is that I am not trying to change your minds about how you feel on the subject of homosexuality... as you are trying to change mine. I view homosexuality as not normal. Simple as that.

 

I honestly don't care what you feel and I am not trying to change your mind.  What I would like is for you to do something about your deliberate ignorance -----

Feel what you like, but get your facts straight.  "I think homosexuality is weird and I don't like to associate with people who have those tendencies but I realize that it is not abnormal nor confined to humans because I have educated myself."

And then I will leave you alone.

I can't vouch for the rest of the yahoos around here.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
The world will stop rotating

The world will stop rotating if people are different than you CJ. You cant have that now can you?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I honestly don't

cj wrote:
I honestly don't care what you feel and I am not trying to change your mind.  What I would like is for you to do something about your deliberate ignorance -----

Feel what you like, but get your facts straight.

I already told her that. Your response is moderately redundant.

She simply ignored it and moved on... but on the other hand, her tone has changed from 'homosexuals are morally bad -nature said so!' to 'homosexuals are immoral' to 'homosexuals and infertile couples are abnormal'... maybe she's backpedaling, or maybe she's stuffing it down to avoid.

 

As a sidenote, it's all too amusing how people act out something as discrediting as the Asch Paradigm, without even allocating a single conscious thought to it. Another artifact of social evolution, eh?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The world will

Brian37 wrote:

The world will stop rotating if people are different than you CJ. You cant have that now can you?

I'll add a point to your scoreboard.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The

BobSpence1 wrote:

The dynamics of populations seem to be that when infant mortality is low, and conditions of life are open and not oppressive, such as in the more open and nad prosperous Western-style countries, fertility rates fall. As we are seeing now.

In the harsh conditions of the 'third world', fertility rates are high.

What is interesting is that fertility rates in many countries seem to be slightly below replacement rates. Is there some state of society which is comfortable but encourages a little higher fertility level, so as to maintain a reasonably stable population level?

Maybe it will be just a matter of blind evolution, those cultures which are around such a figure will in the long run be the dominant ones, assuming the rabid religiously driven groups eventually run out of steam and give the species a chance at a sane future.

 Explain how homosexuality and fertility rates actually correlate.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
They don't, AFAIK, at least

They don't, AFAIK, at least not in any strong, unambiguous and simple way.

SandyCane seemed to make some association with homosexuality being an evolutionary disadvantage because homosexual couples can't reproduce.

I suggested it was unlikely to have much effect, and could even be an overall advantage, since they may well contribute in other ways.

I was mainly responding to her quote

Quote:

So, is it possible that because of the over-population of the planet, human genetics is (d)evolving to utilize a similar system as that of ants?

Which I think was alluding to the reference she quoted which discussed non-reproducing groups in ant colonies.

Fertility rates are dominated by female attitudes and sexual activities, so I don't think male homosexuality is a significant factor, unless exclusively homosexual males become far more prevalent than they are now.

Here is a study with interesting implications, showing how simplistic assumptions about negative connections between male homosexuality and lower overall fertility rates may be quite mistaken:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

Wikipedia wrote:

In 2004, Italian researchers conducted a study of about 4,600 people who were the relatives of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than those of the heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother's side tended to have more offspring than those on the father's side. The researchers concluded that there was genetic material being passed down on the X chromosome which both promotes fertility in the mother and homosexuality in her male offspring. The connections discovered, would explain about 20% of the cases studied, indicating that this is a highly significant but not the sole genetic factor determining sexual orientation.[23]

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:   But to find

Ktulu wrote:
 

  But to find someone not normal because they were born a certain way...  People that think that way actually disgust me.  

 

     

                  

                   Conjoined twins are that way from birth.  Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

                   People with Down's Syndrome are that way from birth.  Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

                   Albinos are that way from birth.   Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

 

                   I'm pretty sure that , medically and clinically speaking, those conditions are considered  abnormalities. 

 

        Deviations from the established norm ( ie, abnormalities ) frequently occur from birth.  It doesn't follow that simply acknowledging, by way of academic study or otherwise, that actual abnormal status constitutes prejudiced thinking.  It's an observation, not a value judgment.    I don't believe possessing inherited traits that puts one in the statistical minority should make one worthy of ridicule or persecution.  Nothing about the use of  classification involves denying them their rights as human beings.  

  Why should that "disgust" you ?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Ktulu

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Ktulu wrote:
 

  But to find someone not normal because they were born a certain way...  People that think that way actually disgust me.  

     

                  

                   Conjoined twins are that way from birth.  Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

                   People with Down's Syndrome are that way from birth.  Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

                   Albinos are that way from birth.   Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

 

                   I'm pretty sure that , medically and clinically speaking, those conditions are considered  abnormalities. 

 

        Deviations from the established norm ( ie, abnormalities ) frequently occur from birth.  It doesn't follow that simply acknowledging ( by way of academic study or otherwise ) that abnormal status constitutes prejudiced thinking.  It's an observation, not a value judgment.    I don't believe possessing inherited traits that puts one in the statistical minority should make one worthy of ridicule or persecution. 

What is 'normal' skin or hair color, or height, or body shape?

Or what is 'normal' taste preference in food and drink?

There are many aspects of human physical characteristics and personal preferences which cover a wide range. 

Sexual inclinations appear to be also a continuum, from exclusively hetero to exclusively homo, and dominated by environment and upbringing, with direct genetic factors being in the range of 30-40%.

How do you define 'normal' in such cases?

Extreme mental or physical ability is also outside the 'norm'.

The real question is whether the particular characteristic is significantly impacting on the individual's life in a negative way.

The negative impacts on a homosexual individual are essentially a function of the reactions of (some) other people, and varies significantly from culture to culture. It in no way implies any impairment of their ability to contribute to society, or enjoy the same range of things that are considered 'normal' in society, outside the 'bedroom'. There is evidence they may be more creative, on average, for example.

Comparison to the situation of declared atheists in societies like the US is far more relevant and useful, while not exactly equivalent, of course.

To include conjoined twins, a very explicit birth defect with major problems, in a discussion of sexual preference is insane.

Same with Down's syndrome.

Albinism is a less severe mutation, but still a clear abnormality, and with no positive aspects, AFAIAK.

None of those problems is analogous to differences in sexual preference in any useful way.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:
   

 

                  

    What is 'normal' skin or hair color, or height, or body shape?

     You're kidding me right ?

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
    How do you define 'normal' in such cases?

  By observation and study.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
  The real question is whether the particular characteristic is significantly impacting on the individual's life in a negative way.
 

   Being abnormal does not always involve a detrimental effect.   What is that condition where a genetic mutation exists that actually causes those afflicted with it to develop a level of muscularity that confers a pronounced physical advantage over other "normal"  humans.   A young boy from Germany was one of the most recent cases examined.  Also another young child named Liam Hoekstra was recently profiled on TV.     That condition of extreme muscular hypertrophy did not affect his heart muscle so their is no known downside.   His abnormality clearly gives him an edge that normal persons do not possess. 

  edit;  myostatin related muscular hypertrophy. 

BobSpence1 wrote:
   The negative impacts on a homosexual individual are essentially a function of the reactions of (some) other people, and varies significantly from culture to culture. It in no way implies any impairment of their ability to contribute to society, or enjoy the same range of things that are considered 'normal' in society, outside the 'bedroom'. There is evidence they may be more creative, on average, for example.
 

  Again, nowhere do I imply that being abnormal always equates with a diminished capacity.   Is it normal for most humans to be born with the IQ of a genius ?  If so, why do we consider it a statistically remarkable and therefore unlikely trait ?  Again, is it "normal" for most humans to possess a truly prodigious intellect ?

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
  To include conjoined twins, a very explicit birth defect with major problems, in a discussion of sexual preference is insane.

Same with Down's syndrome.

Albinism is a less severe mutation, but still a clear abnormality, and with no positive aspects, AFAIAK.

  

   If one believes that  homosexuals are born with these sexual tendencies then my references to other genetically inherited conditions are quite appropriate. 

( Also the use of "preferences" implies that you at least partially agree with religious fundamentalists in that sexuality is simply chosen.  The continued failure of reparative therapy indicates the opposite is true.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDn7cEgxvtg )

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
    None of those problems is analogous to differences in sexual preferences in any useful way.

 

   None of the conditions that I listed are contingent upon one's preferences.  I doubt many conjoined twins exist in that state based upon their preferences. 

  As well, the same could be said of most gay and lesbians. I have oft heard it stated by many members of that community "why would we choose to belong to a sexual category that will most likely make our lives more difficult ?

  Why you continually use the word "preferences" in regard to this topic baffles me.

 

 


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Ktulu

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Ktulu wrote:
 

  But to find someone not normal because they were born a certain way...  People that think that way actually disgust me.  

 

     

                  

                   Conjoined twins are that way from birth.  Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

                   People with Down's Syndrome are that way from birth.  Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

                   Albinos are that way from birth.   Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

 

                   I'm pretty sure that , medically and clinically speaking, those conditions are considered  abnormalities. 

 

        Deviations from the established norm ( ie, abnormalities ) frequently occur from birth.  It doesn't follow that simply acknowledging, by way of academic study or otherwise, that actual abnormal status constitutes prejudiced thinking.  It's an observation, not a value judgment.    I don't believe possessing inherited traits that puts one in the statistical minority should make one worthy of ridicule or persecution.  Nothing about the use of  classification involves denying them their rights as human beings.  

  Why should that "disgust" you ?

Yes! Finally, someone gets what I am (obviously poorly) trying to say.

Thank you.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
   

 

                  

    What is 'normal' skin or hair color, or height, or body shape?

     You're kidding me right ?

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
    How do you define 'normal' in such cases?

  By observation and study.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
  The real question is whether the particular characteristic is significantly impacting on the individual's life in a negative way.
 

   Being abnormal does not always involve a detrimental effect.   What is that condition where a genetic mutation exists that actually causes those afflicted with it to develop a level of muscularity that confers a pronounced physical advantage over other "normal"  humans.   A young boy from Germany was one of the most recent cases examined.  Also another young child named Liam Hoekstra was recently profiled on TV.     That condition of extreme muscular hypertrophy did not affect his heart muscle so their is no known downside.   His abnormality clearly gives him an edge that normal persons do not possess. 

  edit;  myostatin related muscular hypertrophy. 

BobSpence1 wrote:
   The negative impacts on a homosexual individual are essentially a function of the reactions of (some) other people, and varies significantly from culture to culture. It in no way implies any impairment of their ability to contribute to society, or enjoy the same range of things that are considered 'normal' in society, outside the 'bedroom'. There is evidence they may be more creative, on average, for example.
 

  Again, nowhere do I imply that being abnormal always equates with a diminished capacity.   Is it normal for most humans to be born with the IQ of a genius ?  If so, why do we consider it a statistically remarkable and therefore unlikely trait ?  Again, is it "normal" for most humans to possess a truly prodigious intellect ?

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
  To include conjoined twins, a very explicit birth defect with major problems, in a discussion of sexual preference is insane.

Same with Down's syndrome.

Albinism is a less severe mutation, but still a clear abnormality, and with no positive aspects, AFAIAK.

  

   If one believes that  homosexuals are born with these sexual tendencies then my references to other genetically inherited conditions are quite appropriate. 

( Also the use of "preferences" implies that you at least partially agree with religious fundamentalists in that sexuality is simply chosen.  The continued failure of reparative therapy indicates the opposite is true.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDn7cEgxvtg )

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
    None of those problems is analogous to differences in sexual preferences in any useful way.

 

   None of the conditions that I listed are contingent upon one's preferences.  I doubt many conjoined twins exist in that state based upon their preferences. 

  As well, the same could be said of most gay and lesbians. I have oft heard it stated by many members of that community "why would we choose to belong to a sexual category that will most likely make our lives more difficult ?

  Why you continually use the word "preferences" in regard to this topic baffles me.

Yes, again!

Thank you, thank you.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: You can't go

cj wrote:

 

You can't go online?  I make all of my book requests online, including interlibrary loans.  I can have them snail mailed directly to my house for free in a book bag that includes return postage so I need not face a librarian at any time.  I never thought about or cared what a librarian may think about my book choices - but that is one of the reasons I moved to the big city.  I hate small towns where everyone knows everyone's business.

What was funny was the expression on the librarians face and the idea of finding that book at my library - ain't gonna happen. I'm in bible-thumping country, remember?

 

Quote:
I honestly don't care what you feel and I am not trying to change your mind.  What I would like is for you to do something about your deliberate ignorance -----

Feel what you like, but get your facts straight.  "I think homosexuality is weird and I don't like to associate with people who have those tendencies but I realize that it is not abnormal nor confined to humans because I have educated myself."

And then I will leave you alone.

I can't vouch for the rest of the yahoos around here.

 

Is this how you feel about the topic? "I think homosexuality is weird and I don't like to associate with people who have those tendencies but I realize that it is not abnormal nor confined to humans because I have educated myself." ... because that's not something I would say.

What I would say is this: 'I think homosexual behavior is abnormal but, as long as the person is honest, decent and respectable, I have no problem associating with them.'

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The world will

Brian37 wrote:

The world will stop rotating if people are different than you CJ. You cant have that now can you?

 

Maybe the world won't stop rotating, but at least we can argue from facts.  I am not asking for the same feelings, but for educating yourself.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote: Is this how

Sandycane wrote:

Is this how you feel about the topic? "I think homosexuality is weird and I don't like to associate with people who have those tendencies but I realize that it is not abnormal nor confined to humans because I have educated myself." ... because that's not something I would say.

What I would say is this: 'I think homosexual behavior is abnormal but, as long as the person is honest, decent and respectable, I have no problem associating with them.'

 

Nah, that is not my personal opinion, I was deliberately exaggerating a possible opinion for effect.  My opinion is - TMI.  I promise not to tell you about my sex life and you can keep yours to yourself.  Not to say I never talk about my sex life, but it isn't in my casual conversation. 

My real opinion goes something like this:  "Homosexuality is within the range of normal human sexual experiences.  There is a continuum from homosexuality to heterosexuality with all in between attitudes and practices present in the population."

I guess I lost any affection for the word "normal" years ago when I took a psych 101 class.  After a long semester of going over various classifications in the DSM (official diagnosis manual, now at version IV), our professor told us - "If you ever ran into someone who was totally normal, you would think they were very abnormal."  I still agree with him.

"Honest, decent and respectable" is a fuzzy concept, subject to individual interpretation.  But, yeah, I think of my friends and acquaintances that way.  Maybe they aren't by standards held by other people, but why should I care about what other people think about my friends?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:   

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   None of the conditions that I listed are contingent upon one's preferences.  I doubt many conjoined twins exist in that state based upon their preferences. 

  As well, the same could be said of most gay and lesbians. I have oft heard it stated by many members of that community "why would we choose to belong to a sexual category that will most likely make our lives more difficult ?

  Why you continually use the word "preferences" in regard to this topic baffles me.

 

I am not sure I get your bafflement.

Conjoined twins may or may not have a choice in how they live depending on the nature of the conjoinment.  (The spell check doesn't think that is a real word, and I'm not sure either.  But I hope you get the drift.)  It may be possible to surgically separate them, it may not.  It depends on the particular structures that are joined.  It is a continuum from shared skin on a little toe, to shared hearts or brains or spinal cords.  The patients have to be evaluated for the exact configuration and possible surgical solutions.  And sometimes, it is possible to separate them if one of them is killed.  Not easy choices, not fun choices, but often a choice the parents (or twins if they live to adulthood) have to make.

Hmm, maybe there are similarities in various physical "abnormalities" and various mental "abnormalities".  In that we have choices as to how we respond to and mitigate those genetic "abnormalities" forced on us.  We all have visceral responses to people who do not act or look like we do.  And we all need to stomp on those responses as hard as we can.  "Snap" judgments are often wrong. 

Back to homosexuality and "preferences".  We have preferences as to how we live our lives - promiscuously or monogamously.  "Strutting our stuff" or living anonymously.  Letting it all hang out or covering it up discretely.  From what I have been told, living a straight life style is often possible for many homosexual people.  But it isn't easy.  Sort of like living as Ms. Corporate Executive when you really want to be a biker chick.  You may enjoy the perks from living with the kind of money Ms. CE earns, but you will never be comfortable in yourself or find satisfaction in your life.  And then there are all the company parties and such you have to attend and the people you are expected to hang with and so on.  Your entire life becomes one big lie.  That is one way choosing a life that is not your own may be more difficult than choosing to follow your heart.

So pretend wingless decides that he is going to marry a woman even if he is not particularly turned onto her just so he can be more "normal".  How is this not more difficult for him?  How is living a lie easier than being true to yourself? 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Nah, that is not

cj wrote:

 

Nah, that is not my personal opinion, I was deliberately exaggerating a possible opinion for effect.  My opinion is - TMI.  I promise not to tell you about my sex life and you can keep yours to yourself.  Not to say I never talk about my sex life, but it isn't in my casual conversation. 

TMI, true... which is why I said that once a person makes that information public, they shouldn't be surprised when their behavior is scrutinized.

Quote:
My real opinion goes something like this:  "Homosexuality is within the range of normal human sexual experiences.  There is a continuum from homosexuality to heterosexuality with all in between attitudes and practices present in the population."
and this is where we disagree, and that shouldn't be a problem.

Quote:
I guess I lost any affection for the word "normal" years ago when I took a psych 101 class.  After a long semester of going over various classifications in the DSM (official diagnosis manual, now at version IV), our professor told us - "If you ever ran into someone who was totally normal, you would think they were very abnormal."  I still agree with him.
There is a clear definition of 'normal' but, what is considered normal depends on what you are comparing it to. A community of gays could be considered normal if there is only one hetero among them. In our society we have the reverse and so, gays are considered to be not the norm. A two-headed gay in a group of gays would be considered abnormal by the single-headed gays. In a group of single white hetero females, I could be considered abnormal if I am celebate and the rest of the group screws around.

Defining what is normal and what is not is not an evil thing to do. What would be evil is to use this information to discriminate against those who are not normal. I am not advocating that at all.

Quote:
"Honest, decent and respectable" is a fuzzy concept, subject to individual interpretation.  But, yeah, I think of my friends and acquaintances that way.  Maybe they aren't by standards held by other people, but why should I care about what other people think about my friends?

 

And here we go again..."Honest, decent and respectable" , imo are not at all fuzzy qualities to determine.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:ProzacDeathWish

cj wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   None of the conditions that I listed are contingent upon one's preferences.  I doubt many conjoined twins exist in that state based upon their preferences. 

  As well, the same could be said of most gay and lesbians. I have oft heard it stated by many members of that community "why would we choose to belong to a sexual category that will most likely make our lives more difficult ?

  Why you continually use the word "preferences" in regard to this topic baffles me.

 

I am not sure I get your bafflement.

Conjoined twins may or may not have a choice in how they live depending on the nature of the conjoinment.  (The spell check doesn't think that is a real word, and I'm not sure either.  But I hope you get the drift.)  It may be possible to surgically separate them, it may not.  It depends on the particular structures that are joined.  It is a continuum from shared skin on a little toe, to shared hearts or brains or spinal cords.  The patients have to be evaluated for the exact configuration and possible surgical solutions.  And sometimes, it is possible to separate them if one of them is killed.  Not easy choices, not fun choices, but often a choice the parents (or twins if they live to adulthood) have to make.

Hmm, maybe there are similarities in various physical "abnormalities" and various mental "abnormalities".  In that we have choices as to how we respond to and mitigate those genetic "abnormalities" forced on us.  We all have visceral responses to people who do not act or look like we do.  And we all need to stomp on those responses as hard as we can.  "Snap" judgments are often wrong. 

Back to homosexuality and "preferences".  We have preferences as to how we live our lives - promiscuously or monogamously.  "Strutting our stuff" or living anonymously.  Letting it all hang out or covering it up discretely.  From what I have been told, living a straight life style is often possible for many homosexual people.  But it isn't easy.  Sort of like living as Ms. Corporate Executive when you really want to be a biker chick.  You may enjoy the perks from living with the kind of money Ms. CE earns, but you will never be comfortable in yourself or find satisfaction in your life.  And then there are all the company parties and such you have to attend and the people you are expected to hang with and so on.  Your entire life becomes one big lie.  That is one way choosing a life that is not your own may be more difficult than choosing to follow your heart.

So pretend wingless decides that he is going to marry a woman even if he is not particularly turned onto her just so he can be more "normal".  How is this not more difficult for him?  How is living a lie easier than being true to yourself? 

 

Oh boo hoo, some people are confused about their sexuality and are troubled by having to make choices. Welcome to the real world, for cripes sake. WE ALL have tough choices to make.

Do you think every Walmart associate made the choice to work there because it makes them happy??

Do you think a biker chick can simply take off her chaps and put on stilettos and go to work for Donald Trump just because she thinks she would be happier doing that??

Or, do you think every married woman has sex every night with her husband because she wants to???

Frickin bleeding hearts. Yes, lets all of us abandon out responsibilities and follow our hearts - wouldn't that be wonderful!

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Sorry for the hostile tone

Sorry for the hostile tone previously but, I'm pissed.

My mower has been in the shop for 3 weeks, was brought back once and died. I paid $25 to stop payment on a $184 check and they took the mower back to the shop. He just dropped it of - $56 more - and after using it for 10 minutes, it's dead in the yard - again.

Didn't mean to take it out on you cj.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:  I am not sure I

cj wrote:

 

I am not sure I get your bafflement.

 

  That's okay with me.

cj wrote:
  Conjoined twins may or may not have a choice in how they live depending on the nature of the conjoinment.  (The spell check doesn't think that is a real word, and I'm not sure either.  But I hope you get the drift.)  It may be possible to surgically separate them, it may not.  It depends on the particular structures that are joined.  It is a continuum from shared skin on a little toe, to shared hearts or brains or spinal cords.  The patients have to be evaluated for the exact configuration and possible surgical solutions.  And sometimes, it is possible to separate them if one of them is killed.  Not easy choices, not fun choices, but often a choice the parents (or twins if they live to adulthood) have to make.

   How one deals with such conditions after the fact does not address my original point.  I simply stated that such congenital anomalies do in fact exist and are usually characterized as being a deviation from the norm.  That's all. 

  Yes, people have to endure the hand they're dealt when it comes to their genetic inheritance. 

cj wrote:
Hmm, maybe there are similarities in various physical "abnormalities" and various mental "abnormalities".  In that we have choices as to how we respond to and mitigate those genetic "abnormalities" forced on us. 

   I can speak directly the topic of mental "abnormalities" as I have a lifelong affliction which falls into that particular category.  It still doesn't serve me well to pretend that it is anything but an abnormality.  Lying to myself about myself isn't the way I choose to face up to it.

cj wrote:
We all have visceral responses to people who do not act or look like we do.  And we all need to stomp on those responses as hard as we can.  "Snap" judgments are often wrong.

   Snap judgements ?   You mean like when persons on this forum automatically assume that I am irrational and prejudiced simply for pointing out that abnormalities are by definition abnormal ?  How does this equate with any expression of animosity on my part and why am I even having to defend it ?

cj wrote:
Back to homosexuality and "preferences".  We have preferences as to how we live our lives - promiscuously or monogamously.  "Strutting our stuff" or living anonymously.  Letting it all hang out or covering it up discretely.  From what I have been told, living a straight life style is often possible for many homosexual people.  But it isn't easy.
  

  Maybe it isn't easy because they aren't really heterosexual !  

 

 

cj wrote:
  Your entire life becomes one big lie.  That is one way choosing a life that is not your own may be more difficult than choosing to follow your heart.

     My life already is one big lie.  How do you think the average joe blow would respond to me if were to come out and honestly identify myself as being mentally ill.  Try applying for a job and casually bring up that you spent six weeks in a psychiatric hospital and see if they call you back.

 

cj wrote:
So pretend wingless decides that he is going to marry a woman even if he is not particularly turned onto her just so he can be more "normal".  How is this not more difficult for him?  How is living a lie easier than being true to yourself? 

 

   That is undeniably a question that is best answered by wingless himself.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
What is 'normal' skin or hair color, or height, or body shape?
You're kidding me right ?
Absolutely not. Boy, do you not 'get it'. I am pointing out that there are many characteristics we are born with, which cover a wide range. 'Normal' covers a range of possibilities. There is not just one 'normative' color of skin or hair.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
How do you define 'normal' in such cases?
By observation and study.
But the point is there is not just one answer for those things. Black, white, brown, yellow, red are all normal skin colors. Some colors are more common than others. Just as with sexual inclinations, although the genetic influence is less, they are still largely not a matter of choice. In case you read 'preferences' as implying choice, I mean the pre-existing leanings to the kinds of sexual activity and partners which seem to most work for a person. 'Normal' means "usual, average, or typical state or condition". 'Average' doesn't make sense for color or sexual inclination. Typical' or 'usual' could work, but only to identify if one color was much more common that the others. 'Normal' does not really apply in that sense to any of those things. All that observation and study will tell you is the relative frequency of various things. You can't justify any value judgements from it.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
The real question is whether the particular characteristic is significantly impacting on the individual's life in a negative way.
Being abnormal does not always involve a detrimental effect. What is that condition where a genetic mutation exists that actually causes those afflicted with it to develop a level of muscularity that confers a pronounced physical advantage over other "normal" humans. A young boy from Germany was one of the most recent cases examined. Also another young child named Liam Hoekstra was recently profiled on TV. That condition of extreme muscular hypertrophy did not affect his heart muscle so their is no known downside. His abnormality clearly gives him an edge that normal persons do not possess. edit; myostatin related muscular hypertrophy.
So? You are talking about a relatively rare condition, related to a specific gene mutation. It is unusual or rare, but not strictly "abnormal", which means, according to my dictionary "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying". It is that negative connotation that comes with the word 'abnormal' that is the point I have issue with. Homosexuality is not the result of a specific genetic mutation, is much more common, and is only 'undesirable' or 'worrying' in the eyes of certain third parties, not in any clinical sense. It is not really comparable.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
The negative impacts on a homosexual individual are essentially a function of the reactions of (some) other people, and varies significantly from culture to culture. It in no way implies any impairment of their ability to contribute to society, or enjoy the same range of things that are considered 'normal' in society, outside the 'bedroom'. There is evidence they may be more creative, on average, for example.
Again, nowhere do I imply that being abnormal always equates with a diminished capacity. Is it normal for most humans to be born with the IQ of a genius ? If so, why do we consider it a statistically remarkable and therefore unlikely trait ? Again, is it "normal" for most humans to possess a truly prodigious intellect ?
So why did you bring up conjoined twins? A very specific, and uncommon, unambigous genetic mutation causing major physical problems? Your choice of examples DiD imply you were equating it with a defect. Why did not mention any positive 'abnormalities' initially? Can you not understand why I see this kind of response, as with Clarin and robj101, as showing this strong negative reactions to homosexuality? I already referred to positive variations such as unusually high intelligence. Again 'unusual' is the more appropriate term, not 'abnormal'. 'Abnormal' seems to have acquired this negative association, again according to my dictionary:
Quote:
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: alteration (by association with Latin abnormis monstrosity ) of 16th-cent. anormal, from French, variant of anomal, via Latin from Greek anmalos (see anomalous ).
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
To include conjoined twins, a very explicit birth defect with major problems, in a discussion of sexual preference is insane. Same with Down's syndrome. Albinism is a less severe mutation, but still a clear abnormality, and with no positive aspects, AFAIAK.
If one believes that homosexuals are born with these sexual tendencies then my references to other genetically inherited conditions are quite appropriate. ( Also the use of "preferences" implies that you at least partially agree with religious fundamentalists in that sexuality is simply chosen. The continued failure of reparative therapy indicates the opposite is true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDn7cEgxvtg )
First, homosexuality is not largely a genetic condition, and neither is it a 'choice'. I see you have read 'preferences' the way I was beginning to realize you might have. I meant in the sense of what pre-disposes you to choose certain things, and I can see how it could be read that way. Sorry. But, especially with conjoined twins and Down's syndrome, which are unambigous disabilities arising from acknowledged genetic defects, they are not good examples. I could go even more 'over the top' and compare someone I didn't like to a skunk. I could say they are both mammals I don't like who stink, so what's their problem? That is a more extreme example of my problem with your choice of comparisons.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
None of those problems is analogous to differences in sexual preferences in any useful way.
None of the conditions that I listed are contingent upon one's preferences. I doubt many conjoined twins exist in that state based upon their preferences. As well, the same could be said of most gay and lesbians. I have oft heard it stated by many members of that community "why would we choose to belong to a sexual category that will most likely make our lives more difficult ? Why you continually use the word "preferences" in regard to this topic baffles me.
I use 'preferences' in the sense of, again from my dictionary, "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others". You don't 'choose' to 'like' chocolate ice-cream, if that is your thing. You choose it because you have a strong preference for it, because it tickles your taste-buds in a particularly pleasant way. You didn't choose to have your taste sensing 'circuitry' react that way. Apologies for that usage, if it confused you. That and the connotations of 'abnormal' seem to have made our misunderstanding worse, but I hope you see why my readings of those words are justifiable.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Homosexual

Sandycane wrote:

Homosexual behavior is not 'normal'.

Normal is two members of the opposite sex, having sex, for the purpose of procreation. This is the intended purpose of sex.... in all species.

How can a person with a logical mind and respect for scientific facts justify homosexuality?

Oh boy!  You've really dug yourself a hole with this one.

I see the responses have been extensive so I won't get into it too much I just want to put in my 2 cents.  What really bothers me with this and your further posts is that you seem to connect complicated brain chemistry (who you are, how you feel) with your genitals.  This has always drove me nuts about anti gay folk, as if the way you feel (what humans you feel are attractive and which you don't etc...) has much if anything to do with the physical genitals you posses.  The issue of sexuality is so grey it is completely absurd to say "she has a vagina so shes a female so she shouold be attracted to men."  This is such a bunk way to look at it, anyone who thinks about it can see their are no such simple lines when it comes to sexuality.  You have absolutely no clue how that women feels about who she is, and who she is attrtacted to, and how dare you claim that you do.  My sister was straight for 29 years, has 2 children, now she is in a lesbian relationship, so what is she?  Bi/gay?  No, she's none of the above, and all of the above, she is herself!!!  She is a completely unique person with a completely unique blend of sexual interests, she finds some women attractive, and some men, she can see herself in relationships with both however leans towards one side.  So what is she?  What if she left the women she is with for a man for the rest of her life, would you call it a "phase", haha, cccccommon...  My girlfriend is straight, yet she finds women attractive and has gotten silly with her friends and kissed and such things.  She probably wouldn't go to far with girls and doesn't see herslef in relationships with them, but she is certainly curious, so what is she? What are the other 9 out of 10 females that admit various levels of attraction to other females.   What about hermaphrodites born with both female and male genitals, what are they?  The parents usually decide the sex so what does the kid get to say about who he/she is and who they are attracted to.  Well they usually grow up and have to make a decision based on what sex they feel they are.  

Ther are women who identify as women and are attracted to women (lesbians), women who identify as men and are attracted to women (man trapped in womens body, straight?), women who idenbtify as men and are attracted to men (???gay man trapped in a womens body???), women who identify as both sexes and are attracted to... and so on....Men who identify as men and are attracted to men (gay), men who identify as women as are attracted to men (straight???), men who...AND ON AND ON AND ON.  I find even the above definitions of sexuality to broad, people are ALL over the spectrum in betweene, it is umbelievable to me that some think it is just men/women, straight/gay, normal/unnormal, stupid really.  Defining sexuality in these blacks and whites is for no lack of a better term fucking retarded. 

  This really gets to me this black and white thinking, it is bunk.  You don't have to be an expert to understand that genitals do not decide your sexuality, anyone who thinks they do is plain ignorant.  Just ask a gay guy "are you attracted to men?"  "Yes!"  Well, theres your awnser sandy, he's a man whos attracted to a man, WTF are you going to say to him "No your not, you have a penis and so this is impossible, or unnatural, you are just lost, or whatever...maybe you should surpress your urges and only have sex with women for reproduction because that is normal..."  I just don't understand your position at all, it seems completely backwards and ignorant to me, enlighten me if you can.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Ktulu wrote:
 

  But to find someone not normal because they were born a certain way...  People that think that way actually disgust me.  

     

                  

                   Conjoined twins are that way from birth.  Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

                   People with Down's Syndrome are that way from birth.  Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

                   Albinos are that way from birth.   Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

 

                   I'm pretty sure that , medically and clinically speaking, those conditions are considered  abnormalities. 

 

        Deviations from the established norm ( ie, abnormalities ) frequently occur from birth.  It doesn't follow that simply acknowledging ( by way of academic study or otherwise ) that abnormal status constitutes prejudiced thinking.  It's an observation, not a value judgment.    I don't believe possessing inherited traits that puts one in the statistical minority should make one worthy of ridicule or persecution. 

What is 'normal' skin or hair color, or height, or body shape?

Or what is 'normal' taste preference in food and drink?

There are many aspects of human physical characteristics and personal preferences which cover a wide range. 

Sexual inclinations appear to be also a continuum, from exclusively hetero to exclusively homo, and dominated by environment and upbringing, with direct genetic factors being in the range of 30-40%.

How do you define 'normal' in such cases?

Extreme mental or physical ability is also outside the 'norm'.

The real question is whether the particular characteristic is significantly impacting on the individual's life in a negative way.

The negative impacts on a homosexual individual are essentially a function of the reactions of (some) other people, and varies significantly from culture to culture. It in no way implies any impairment of their ability to contribute to society, or enjoy the same range of things that are considered 'normal' in society, outside the 'bedroom'. There is evidence they may be more creative, on average, for example.

Comparison to the situation of declared atheists in societies like the US is far more relevant and useful, while not exactly equivalent, of course.

To include conjoined twins, a very explicit birth defect with major problems, in a discussion of sexual preference is insane.

Same with Down's syndrome.

Albinism is a less severe mutation, but still a clear abnormality, and with no positive aspects, AFAIAK.

None of those problems is analogous to differences in sexual preference in any useful way.

 

Explain the "positive aspects" of homosexuality.

As an aside I would like for you to explain the "negative aspects" of homosexuality if you will.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:BobSpence1

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Ktulu wrote:
 

  But to find someone not normal because they were born a certain way...  People that think that way actually disgust me.  

     

                 

                   Conjoined twins are that way from birth.  Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

                   People with Down's Syndrome are that way from birth.  Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

                   Albinos are that way from birth.   Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

 

                   I'm pretty sure that , medically and clinically speaking, those conditions are considered  abnormalities. 

 

        Deviations from the established norm ( ie, abnormalities ) frequently occur from birth.  It doesn't follow that simply acknowledging ( by way of academic study or otherwise ) that abnormal status constitutes prejudiced thinking.  It's an observation, not a value judgment.    I don't believe possessing inherited traits that puts one in the statistical minority should make one worthy of ridicule or persecution. 

What is 'normal' skin or hair color, or height, or body shape?

Or what is 'normal' taste preference in food and drink?

There are many aspects of human physical characteristics and personal preferences which cover a wide range. 

Sexual inclinations appear to be also a continuum, from exclusively hetero to exclusively homo, and dominated by environment and upbringing, with direct genetic factors being in the range of 30-40%.

How do you define 'normal' in such cases?

Extreme mental or physical ability is also outside the 'norm'.

The real question is whether the particular characteristic is significantly impacting on the individual's life in a negative way.

The negative impacts on a homosexual individual are essentially a function of the reactions of (some) other people, and varies significantly from culture to culture. It in no way implies any impairment of their ability to contribute to society, or enjoy the same range of things that are considered 'normal' in society, outside the 'bedroom'. There is evidence they may be more creative, on average, for example.

Comparison to the situation of declared atheists in societies like the US is far more relevant and useful, while not exactly equivalent, of course.

To include conjoined twins, a very explicit birth defect with major problems, in a discussion of sexual preference is insane.

Same with Down's syndrome.

Albinism is a less severe mutation, but still a clear abnormality, and with no positive aspects, AFAIAK.

None of those problems is analogous to differences in sexual preference in any useful way.

 

Explain the "positive aspects" of homosexuality.

As an aside I would like for you to explain the "negative aspects" of homosexuality if you will.

I never referred to "positive aspects" of anything.

If that is the way someone is inclined, at any particular time, and they get to have enjoyable sex, it is just as 'positive' as good hetero sex, AFAIK.

What's to explain?

I referred to negative 'impacts' on a individual of various conditions arising from birth defects such as Down's syndrome, and distinguished that kind of inherent problem from the impact of negative views of homosexuality which other people might express or even occasionally act upon.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
What is 'normal' skin or hair color, or height, or body shape?
You're kidding me right ?
Absolutely not. Boy, do you not 'get it'. I am pointing out that there are many characteristics we are born with, which cover a wide range. 'Normal' covers a range of possibilities. There is not just one 'normative' color of skin or hair.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
How do you define 'normal' in such cases?
By observation and study.
But the point is there is not just one answer for those things. Black, white, brown, yellow, red are all normal skin colors. Some colors are more common than others. Just as with sexual inclinations, although the genetic influence is less, they are still largely not a matter of choice. In case you read 'preferences' as implying choice, I mean the pre-existing leanings to the kinds of sexual activity and partners which seem to most work for a person. 'Normal' means "usual, average, or typical state or condition". 'Average' doesn't make sense for color or sexual inclination. Typical' or 'usual' could work, but only to identify if one color was much more common that the others. 'Normal' does not really apply in that sense to any of those things. All that observation and study will tell you is the relative frequency of various things. You can't justify any value judgements from it.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
The real question is whether the particular characteristic is significantly impacting on the individual's life in a negative way.
Being abnormal does not always involve a detrimental effect. What is that condition where a genetic mutation exists that actually causes those afflicted with it to develop a level of muscularity that confers a pronounced physical advantage over other "normal" humans. A young boy from Germany was one of the most recent cases examined. Also another young child named Liam Hoekstra was recently profiled on TV. That condition of extreme muscular hypertrophy did not affect his heart muscle so their is no known downside. His abnormality clearly gives him an edge that normal persons do not possess. edit; myostatin related muscular hypertrophy.
So? You are talking about a relatively rare condition, related to a specific gene mutation. It is unusual or rare, but not strictly "abnormal", which means, according to my dictionary "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying". It is that negative connotation that comes with the word 'abnormal' that is the point I have issue with. Homosexuality is not the result of a specific genetic mutation, is much more common, and is only 'undesirable' or 'worrying' in the eyes of certain third parties, not in any clinical sense. It is not really comparable.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
The negative impacts on a homosexual individual are essentially a function of the reactions of (some) other people, and varies significantly from culture to culture. It in no way implies any impairment of their ability to contribute to society, or enjoy the same range of things that are considered 'normal' in society, outside the 'bedroom'. There is evidence they may be more creative, on average, for example.
Again, nowhere do I imply that being abnormal always equates with a diminished capacity. Is it normal for most humans to be born with the IQ of a genius ? If so, why do we consider it a statistically remarkable and therefore unlikely trait ? Again, is it "normal" for most humans to possess a truly prodigious intellect ?
So why did you bring up conjoined twins? A very specific, and uncommon, unambigous genetic mutation causing major physical problems? Your choice of examples DiD imply you were equating it with a defect. Why did not mention any positive 'abnormalities' initially? Can you not understand why I see this kind of response, as with Clarin and robj101, as showing this strong negative reactions to homosexuality? I already referred to positive variations such as unusually high intelligence. Again 'unusual' is the more appropriate term, not 'abnormal'. 'Abnormal' seems to have acquired this negative association, again according to my dictionary:
Quote:
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: alteration (by association with Latin abnormis monstrosity ) of 16th-cent. anormal, from French, variant of anomal, via Latin from Greek anmalos (see anomalous ).
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
To include conjoined twins, a very explicit birth defect with major problems, in a discussion of sexual preference is insane. Same with Down's syndrome. Albinism is a less severe mutation, but still a clear abnormality, and with no positive aspects, AFAIAK.
If one believes that homosexuals are born with these sexual tendencies then my references to other genetically inherited conditions are quite appropriate. ( Also the use of "preferences" implies that you at least partially agree with religious fundamentalists in that sexuality is simply chosen. The continued failure of reparative therapy indicates the opposite is true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDn7cEgxvtg )
First, homosexuality is not largely a genetic condition, and neither is it a 'choice'. I see you have read 'preferences' the way I was beginning to realize you might have. I meant in the sense of what pre-disposes you to choose certain things, and I can see how it could be read that way. Sorry. But, especially with conjoined twins and Down's syndrome, which are unambigous disabilities arising from acknowledged genetic defects, they are not good examples. I could go even more 'over the top' and compare someone I didn't like to a skunk. I could say they are both mammals I don't like who stink, so what's their problem? That is a more extreme example of my problem with your choice of comparisons.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
None of those problems is analogous to differences in sexual preferences in any useful way.
None of the conditions that I listed are contingent upon one's preferences. I doubt many conjoined twins exist in that state based upon their preferences. As well, the same could be said of most gay and lesbians. I have oft heard it stated by many members of that community "why would we choose to belong to a sexual category that will most likely make our lives more difficult ? Why you continually use the word "preferences" in regard to this topic baffles me.
I use 'preferences' in the sense of, again from my dictionary, "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others". You don't 'choose' to 'like' chocolate ice-cream, if that is your thing. You choose it because you have a strong preference for it, because it tickles your taste-buds in a particularly pleasant way. You didn't choose to have your taste sensing 'circuitry' react that way. Apologies for that usage, if it confused you. That and the connotations of 'abnormal' seem to have made our misunderstanding worse, but I hope you see why my readings of those words are justifiable.

WTF kind of dictionary are you using, Bob.. a christian one? Try this one on for size: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abnormal

NO Where on the page does it say abnormal is  '...typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying'.

It does say strange (as in unfamiliar) and deviant (deviating from the norm).

Sheesh, no wonder you're confused.

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
What is 'normal' skin or hair color, or height, or body shape?
You're kidding me right ?
Absolutely not. Boy, do you not 'get it'. I am pointing out that there are many characteristics we are born with, which cover a wide range. 'Normal' covers a range of possibilities. There is not just one 'normative' color of skin or hair.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
How do you define 'normal' in such cases?
By observation and study.
But the point is there is not just one answer for those things. Black, white, brown, yellow, red are all normal skin colors. Some colors are more common than others. Just as with sexual inclinations, although the genetic influence is less, they are still largely not a matter of choice. In case you read 'preferences' as implying choice, I mean the pre-existing leanings to the kinds of sexual activity and partners which seem to most work for a person. 'Normal' means "usual, average, or typical state or condition". 'Average' doesn't make sense for color or sexual inclination. Typical' or 'usual' could work, but only to identify if one color was much more common that the others. 'Normal' does not really apply in that sense to any of those things. All that observation and study will tell you is the relative frequency of various things. You can't justify any value judgements from it.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
The real question is whether the particular characteristic is significantly impacting on the individual's life in a negative way.
Being abnormal does not always involve a detrimental effect. What is that condition where a genetic mutation exists that actually causes those afflicted with it to develop a level of muscularity that confers a pronounced physical advantage over other "normal" humans. A young boy from Germany was one of the most recent cases examined. Also another young child named Liam Hoekstra was recently profiled on TV. That condition of extreme muscular hypertrophy did not affect his heart muscle so their is no known downside. His abnormality clearly gives him an edge that normal persons do not possess. edit; myostatin related muscular hypertrophy.
So? You are talking about a relatively rare condition, related to a specific gene mutation. It is unusual or rare, but not strictly "abnormal", which means, according to my dictionary "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying". It is that negative connotation that comes with the word 'abnormal' that is the point I have issue with. Homosexuality is not the result of a specific genetic mutation, is much more common, and is only 'undesirable' or 'worrying' in the eyes of certain third parties, not in any clinical sense. It is not really comparable.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
The negative impacts on a homosexual individual are essentially a function of the reactions of (some) other people, and varies significantly from culture to culture. It in no way implies any impairment of their ability to contribute to society, or enjoy the same range of things that are considered 'normal' in society, outside the 'bedroom'. There is evidence they may be more creative, on average, for example.
Again, nowhere do I imply that being abnormal always equates with a diminished capacity. Is it normal for most humans to be born with the IQ of a genius ? If so, why do we consider it a statistically remarkable and therefore unlikely trait ? Again, is it "normal" for most humans to possess a truly prodigious intellect ?
So why did you bring up conjoined twins? A very specific, and uncommon, unambigous genetic mutation causing major physical problems? Your choice of examples DiD imply you were equating it with a defect. Why did not mention any positive 'abnormalities' initially? Can you not understand why I see this kind of response, as with Clarin and robj101, as showing this strong negative reactions to homosexuality? I already referred to positive variations such as unusually high intelligence. Again 'unusual' is the more appropriate term, not 'abnormal'. 'Abnormal' seems to have acquired this negative association, again according to my dictionary:
Quote:
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: alteration (by association with Latin abnormis monstrosity ) of 16th-cent. anormal, from French, variant of anomal, via Latin from Greek anmalos (see anomalous ).
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
To include conjoined twins, a very explicit birth defect with major problems, in a discussion of sexual preference is insane. Same with Down's syndrome. Albinism is a less severe mutation, but still a clear abnormality, and with no positive aspects, AFAIAK.
If one believes that homosexuals are born with these sexual tendencies then my references to other genetically inherited conditions are quite appropriate. ( Also the use of "preferences" implies that you at least partially agree with religious fundamentalists in that sexuality is simply chosen. The continued failure of reparative therapy indicates the opposite is true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDn7cEgxvtg )
First, homosexuality is not largely a genetic condition, and neither is it a 'choice'. I see you have read 'preferences' the way I was beginning to realize you might have. I meant in the sense of what pre-disposes you to choose certain things, and I can see how it could be read that way. Sorry. But, especially with conjoined twins and Down's syndrome, which are unambigous disabilities arising from acknowledged genetic defects, they are not good examples. I could go even more 'over the top' and compare someone I didn't like to a skunk. I could say they are both mammals I don't like who stink, so what's their problem? That is a more extreme example of my problem with your choice of comparisons.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
None of those problems is analogous to differences in sexual preferences in any useful way.
None of the conditions that I listed are contingent upon one's preferences. I doubt many conjoined twins exist in that state based upon their preferences. As well, the same could be said of most gay and lesbians. I have oft heard it stated by many members of that community "why would we choose to belong to a sexual category that will most likely make our lives more difficult ? Why you continually use the word "preferences" in regard to this topic baffles me.
I use 'preferences' in the sense of, again from my dictionary, "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others". You don't 'choose' to 'like' chocolate ice-cream, if that is your thing. You choose it because you have a strong preference for it, because it tickles your taste-buds in a particularly pleasant way. You didn't choose to have your taste sensing 'circuitry' react that way. Apologies for that usage, if it confused you. That and the connotations of 'abnormal' seem to have made our misunderstanding worse, but I hope you see why my readings of those words are justifiable.

   I was going to answer your post point by point in order to further clarify but when I hit "quote" the text appears as a continuous wall of words with out any spacing and I don't feel like sorting through it. Sorry.

  My intention was to insinuate that sexual preferences of whatever variety most likely contain a strong genetic component.  I had a Christian friend who came out to me as a cross dresser.  He maintained that he had always felt that inclination.  It was not learned.   it was innate. 

  You say one doesn't choose to like *chocolate ice cream ( your metaphor, not mine ), one simply has a strong preference for it.   My argument is that the preference itself may be genetic in origin.

Apparently my use of the term "abnormal" is offensive to you even though I repeatedly attempted to point out that any conditions that qualified as such were not grounds for prejudicial treatment.  Based upon my own mental health status I consider myself to be abnormal.   Obviously, in my lexicon that particular term is much more benign.   Henceforth I will substitute "anomaly" so as not to further confuse my intentions.

I don't possess  hostile attitudes toward gays and lesbians nor do I have hostile attitudes towards persons who are afflicted with truly disabling conditions.  If that is the conclusion that my critics have drawn then I suggest that they focus on the entire body of my argument and not simply a single term.

 I will do my part to avoid further confusion.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:robj101

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Ktulu wrote:
 

  But to find someone not normal because they were born a certain way...  People that think that way actually disgust me.  

     

                 

                   Conjoined twins are that way from birth.  Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

                   People with Down's Syndrome are that way from birth.  Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

                   Albinos are that way from birth.   Do you consider that condition to be normal ?

 

                   I'm pretty sure that , medically and clinically speaking, those conditions are considered  abnormalities. 

 

        Deviations from the established norm ( ie, abnormalities ) frequently occur from birth.  It doesn't follow that simply acknowledging ( by way of academic study or otherwise ) that abnormal status constitutes prejudiced thinking.  It's an observation, not a value judgment.    I don't believe possessing inherited traits that puts one in the statistical minority should make one worthy of ridicule or persecution. 

What is 'normal' skin or hair color, or height, or body shape?

Or what is 'normal' taste preference in food and drink?

There are many aspects of human physical characteristics and personal preferences which cover a wide range. 

Sexual inclinations appear to be also a continuum, from exclusively hetero to exclusively homo, and dominated by environment and upbringing, with direct genetic factors being in the range of 30-40%.

How do you define 'normal' in such cases?

Extreme mental or physical ability is also outside the 'norm'.

The real question is whether the particular characteristic is significantly impacting on the individual's life in a negative way.

The negative impacts on a homosexual individual are essentially a function of the reactions of (some) other people, and varies significantly from culture to culture. It in no way implies any impairment of their ability to contribute to society, or enjoy the same range of things that are considered 'normal' in society, outside the 'bedroom'. There is evidence they may be more creative, on average, for example.

Comparison to the situation of declared atheists in societies like the US is far more relevant and useful, while not exactly equivalent, of course.

To include conjoined twins, a very explicit birth defect with major problems, in a discussion of sexual preference is insane.

Same with Down's syndrome.

Albinism is a less severe mutation, but still a clear abnormality, and with no positive aspects, AFAIAK.

None of those problems is analogous to differences in sexual preference in any useful way.

 

Explain the "positive aspects" of homosexuality.

As an aside I would like for you to explain the "negative aspects" of homosexuality if you will.

I never referred to "positive aspects" of anything.

If that is the way someone is inclined, at any particular time, and they get to have enjoyable sex, it is just as 'positive' as good hetero sex, AFAIK.

What's to explain?

I referred to negative 'impacts' on a individual of various conditions arising from birth defects such as Down's syndrome, and distinguished that kind of inherent problem from the impact of negative views of homosexuality which other people might express or even occasionally act upon.

Here it seemed you were using positive aspects to some purpose: "Albinism is a less severe mutation, but still a clear abnormality, and with no positive aspects, AFAIAK."

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:Oh

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Oh boy!  You've really dug yourself a hole with this one.

I see the responses have been extensive so I won't get into it too much I just want to put in my 2 cents.  What really bothers me with this and your further posts is that you seem to connect complicated brain chemistry (who you are, how you feel) with your genitals.  This has always drove me nuts about anti gay folk, as if the way you feel (what humans you feel are attractive and which you don't etc...) has much if anything to do with the physical genitals you posses.  The issue of sexuality is so grey it is completely absurd to say "she has a vagina so shes a female so she shouold be attracted to men."  This is such a bunk way to look at it, anyone who thinks about it can see their are no such simple lines when it comes to sexuality.  You have absolutely no clue how that women feels about who she is, and who she is attrtacted to, and how dare you claim that you do.  My sister was straight for 29 years, has 2 children, now she is in a lesbian relationship, so what is she?  Bi/gay?  No, she's none of the above, and all of the above, she is herself!!!  She is a completely unique person with a completely unique blend of sexual interests, she finds some women attractive, and some men, she can see herself in relationships with both however leans towards one side.  So what is she?  What if she left the women she is with for a man for the rest of her life, would you call it a "phase", haha, cccccommon...  My girlfriend is straight, yet she finds women attractive and has gotten silly with her friends and kissed and such things.  She probably wouldn't go to far with girls and doesn't see herslef in relationships with them, but she is certainly curious, so what is she? What are the other 9 out of 10 females that admit various levels of attraction to other females.   What about hermaphrodites born with both female and male genitals, what are they?  The parents usually decide the sex so what does the kid get to say about who he/she is and who they are attracted to.  Well they usually grow up and have to make a decision based on what sex they feel they are.  

Ther are women who identify as women and are attracted to women (lesbians), women who identify as men and are attracted to women (man trapped in womens body, straight?), women who idenbtify as men and are attracted to men (???gay man trapped in a womens body???), women who identify as both sexes and are attracted to... and so on....Men who identify as men and are attracted to men (gay), men who identify as women as are attracted to men (straight???), men who...AND ON AND ON AND ON.  I find even the above definitions of sexuality to broad, people are ALL over the spectrum in betweene, it is umbelievable to me that some think it is just men/women, straight/gay, normal/unnormal, stupid really.  Defining sexuality in these blacks and whites is for no lack of a better term fucking retarded. 

  This really gets to me this black and white thinking, it is bunk.  You don't have to be an expert to understand that genitals do not decide your sexuality, anyone who thinks they do is plain ignorant.  Just ask a gay guy "are you attracted to men?"  "Yes!"  Well, theres your awnser sandy, he's a man whos attracted to a man, WTF are you going to say to him "No your not, you have a penis and so this is impossible, or unnatural, you are just lost, or whatever...maybe you should surpress your urges and only have sex with women for reproduction because that is normal..."  I just don't understand your position at all, it seems completely backwards and ignorant to me, enlighten me if you can.

Dug myself a hole? I don't think so.

No disrespect to you sister, and I wish you hadn't used her as an example but, imo, people who behave that way are terribly confused.

And, since I'm in a foul mood anyway, I don't mind telling you your a fricking hypocrite and your moral standards appear to be sub standard. It's okay and praiseworthy to be a queer or, lesbian and hop from one bed to another whenever you get an itch but, you have no tolerance for a straight person who practices abstinence, modesty and has more self respect than to hump anything that is warm and breathing. Maybe warm and breathing aren't a requirement for you to get off either?

You're not any more 'free thinking' than the radical religious. The only free thinking you support is that which conforms to yours... and that seems to be 'do whatever the hell you feel like doing' but, that doesn't apply to those who don't do what you do. According to most of you, it's healthy and normal to be a queer and a slut but if I am straight and virtuous, there is something wrong with me. HAH! What a joke.

I'm sorry but, there is no way I am going to cave to your wishy-washy philosophy of life.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
What is 'normal' skin or hair color, or height, or body shape?
You're kidding me right ?
Absolutely not. Boy, do you not 'get it'. I am pointing out that there are many characteristics we are born with, which cover a wide range. 'Normal' covers a range of possibilities. There is not just one 'normative' color of skin or hair.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
How do you define 'normal' in such cases?
By observation and study.
But the point is there is not just one answer for those things. Black, white, brown, yellow, red are all normal skin colors. Some colors are more common than others. Just as with sexual inclinations, although the genetic influence is less, they are still largely not a matter of choice. In case you read 'preferences' as implying choice, I mean the pre-existing leanings to the kinds of sexual activity and partners which seem to most work for a person. 'Normal' means "usual, average, or typical state or condition". 'Average' doesn't make sense for color or sexual inclination. Typical' or 'usual' could work, but only to identify if one color was much more common that the others. 'Normal' does not really apply in that sense to any of those things. All that observation and study will tell you is the relative frequency of various things. You can't justify any value judgements from it.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
The real question is whether the particular characteristic is significantly impacting on the individual's life in a negative way.
Being abnormal does not always involve a detrimental effect. What is that condition where a genetic mutation exists that actually causes those afflicted with it to develop a level of muscularity that confers a pronounced physical advantage over other "normal" humans. A young boy from Germany was one of the most recent cases examined. Also another young child named Liam Hoekstra was recently profiled on TV. That condition of extreme muscular hypertrophy did not affect his heart muscle so their is no known downside. His abnormality clearly gives him an edge that normal persons do not possess. edit; myostatin related muscular hypertrophy.
So? You are talking about a relatively rare condition, related to a specific gene mutation. It is unusual or rare, but not strictly "abnormal", which means, according to my dictionary "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying". It is that negative connotation that comes with the word 'abnormal' that is the point I have issue with. Homosexuality is not the result of a specific genetic mutation, is much more common, and is only 'undesirable' or 'worrying' in the eyes of certain third parties, not in any clinical sense. It is not really comparable.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
The negative impacts on a homosexual individual are essentially a function of the reactions of (some) other people, and varies significantly from culture to culture. It in no way implies any impairment of their ability to contribute to society, or enjoy the same range of things that are considered 'normal' in society, outside the 'bedroom'. There is evidence they may be more creative, on average, for example.
Again, nowhere do I imply that being abnormal always equates with a diminished capacity. Is it normal for most humans to be born with the IQ of a genius ? If so, why do we consider it a statistically remarkable and therefore unlikely trait ? Again, is it "normal" for most humans to possess a truly prodigious intellect ?
So why did you bring up conjoined twins? A very specific, and uncommon, unambigous genetic mutation causing major physical problems? Your choice of examples DiD imply you were equating it with a defect. Why did not mention any positive 'abnormalities' initially? Can you not understand why I see this kind of response, as with Clarin and robj101, as showing this strong negative reactions to homosexuality? I already referred to positive variations such as unusually high intelligence. Again 'unusual' is the more appropriate term, not 'abnormal'. 'Abnormal' seems to have acquired this negative association, again according to my dictionary:
Quote:
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: alteration (by association with Latin abnormis monstrosity ) of 16th-cent. anormal, from French, variant of anomal, via Latin from Greek anmalos (see anomalous ).
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
To include conjoined twins, a very explicit birth defect with major problems, in a discussion of sexual preference is insane. Same with Down's syndrome. Albinism is a less severe mutation, but still a clear abnormality, and with no positive aspects, AFAIAK.
If one believes that homosexuals are born with these sexual tendencies then my references to other genetically inherited conditions are quite appropriate. ( Also the use of "preferences" implies that you at least partially agree with religious fundamentalists in that sexuality is simply chosen. The continued failure of reparative therapy indicates the opposite is true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDn7cEgxvtg )
First, homosexuality is not largely a genetic condition, and neither is it a 'choice'. I see you have read 'preferences' the way I was beginning to realize you might have. I meant in the sense of what pre-disposes you to choose certain things, and I can see how it could be read that way. Sorry. But, especially with conjoined twins and Down's syndrome, which are unambigous disabilities arising from acknowledged genetic defects, they are not good examples. I could go even more 'over the top' and compare someone I didn't like to a skunk. I could say they are both mammals I don't like who stink, so what's their problem? That is a more extreme example of my problem with your choice of comparisons.
Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
None of those problems is analogous to differences in sexual preferences in any useful way.
None of the conditions that I listed are contingent upon one's preferences. I doubt many conjoined twins exist in that state based upon their preferences. As well, the same could be said of most gay and lesbians. I have oft heard it stated by many members of that community "why would we choose to belong to a sexual category that will most likely make our lives more difficult ? Why you continually use the word "preferences" in regard to this topic baffles me.
I use 'preferences' in the sense of, again from my dictionary, "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others". You don't 'choose' to 'like' chocolate ice-cream, if that is your thing. You choose it because you have a strong preference for it, because it tickles your taste-buds in a particularly pleasant way. You didn't choose to have your taste sensing 'circuitry' react that way. Apologies for that usage, if it confused you. That and the connotations of 'abnormal' seem to have made our misunderstanding worse, but I hope you see why my readings of those words are justifiable.

   I was going to answer your post point by point in order to further clarify but when I hit "quote" the text appears as a continuous wall of words with out any spacing and I don't feel like sorting through it. Sorry.

  My intention was to insinuate that sexual preferences of whatever variety most likely contain a strong genetic component.  I had a Christian friend who came out to me as a cross dresser.  He maintained that he had always felt that inclination.  It was not learned.   it was innate. 

  You say one doesn't choose to like *chocolate ice cream ( your metaphor, not mine ), one simply has a strong preference for it.   My argument is that the preference itself may be genetic in origin.

Apparently my use of the term "abnormal" is offensive to you even though I repeatedly attempted to point out that any conditions that qualified as such were not grounds for prejudicial treatment.  Based upon my own mental health status I consider myself to be abnormal.   Obviously, in my lexicon that particular term is much more benign.   Henceforth I will substitute "anomaly" so as not to further confuse my intentions.

I don't possess  hostile attitudes toward gays and lesbians nor do I have hostile attitudes towards persons who are afflicted with truly disabling conditions.  If that is the conclusion that my critics have drawn then I suggest that they focus on the entire body of my argument and not simply a single term.

 I will do my part to avoid further confusion.

I went over the whole "normal" and "abnormal" thing with them a long time ago. They wish to use the terms as they see fit and got quite agitated when I said something like "people being born homosexual is as ""normal"" as people being born with mental retardation" They prefer to assume I meant that homosexuals are retarded rather than understanding another view on what is "normal" and then they go on to try to convince me that being gay is freakin awesome.

Sorry if I'm interrupting, it just seems you are approaching the same shore.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote: Sorry if I'm

robj101 wrote:


 


Sorry if I'm interrupting, it just seems you are approaching the same shore.

 

   Be my guest,   misery loves company. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandy, FYI, "The New Oxford

Sandy, FYI, "The New Oxford American Dictionary".

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/

"different from what is usual or average, especially in a way that is bad"

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=abnormal

"unusual or unexpected, especially in a way that causes alarm or anxiety"

Ok, the extra connotation is more commonly mentioned in British dictionaries, maybe, but MSN is US.

No I'm not confused, just better informed...

But seriously, at least an element of this disagreement is due to different shades of meaning read into some words, like this one and 'normal'.

As i pointed out to Prozac, 'average' is not that meaningful when applied to the range of human characteristics, physical or socio-cultural, especially if you want to make some kind of judgement based on it.

If everyone one was either exclusively homo or hetero, then nobody would be 'average'.

If everyone was either fat or skinny, in equal proportions, what would you mean by 'normal' weight?

I thought you based your attitude to things on your own personal judgement, not what happens to be a majority view, either broadly or among those you are interacting with? Or do you only appeal to majority view when its consistent with your own tastes?

Why do you not believe in God? Atheism is 'abnormal'...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote: The only

Sandycane wrote:

 The only free thinking you support is that which conforms to yours... and that seems to be 'do whatever the hell you feel like doing' but, that doesn't apply to those who don't do what you do. According to most of you, it's healthy and normal to be a queer and a slut but if I am straight and virtuous, there is something wrong with me. HAH! What a joke.

I'm sorry but, there is no way I am going to cave to your wishy-washy philosophy of life.

I don't know why you would be sorry though heh.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Sandycane

robj101 wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

 The only free thinking you support is that which conforms to yours... and that seems to be 'do whatever the hell you feel like doing' but, that doesn't apply to those who don't do what you do. According to most of you, it's healthy and normal to be a queer and a slut but if I am straight and virtuous, there is something wrong with me. HAH! What a joke.

I'm sorry but, there is no way I am going to cave to your wishy-washy philosophy of life.

I don't know why you would be sorry though heh.

Etiquette, I guess.

Well, seeing that the forum door hasn't been slammed shut in my face....

I wanted to add that I find it strange (odd, abnormal) that the thrashings I've received here have been over 1) my dislike for porn 2) the refusal to use the 'n' word and now, 3) stating that I view homosexuals as being abnormal.

If this is the worst I can be accused of, I'll consider myself a pretty decent person.

 

It's so absurd that some here see nothing wrong with porn, using the 'n' word or being gay but, have a hissy fit over the use of the words 'normal' and 'abnormal'. Very strange (odd, abnormal), indeed.

There has been some good to come out of this altercation though, now I know I am not the only one who doesn't conform to the atheist clone mentality.

 

... and Bob, I'm sure there are many who would call me abnormal for various reasons. Being an atheist is just one of them.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:" As i

BobSpence1 wrote:
"

 

 

As i pointed out to Prozac, 'average' is not that meaningful when applied to the range of human characteristics, physical or socio-cultural, especially if you want to make some kind of judgement based on it.

.

 

   You define words based upon what is expedient to your argument.   Your assertion that a range of variations render the term almost meaningless is just simply stupid.  Without variations how could there even be an average ?

  

Whatever quality or characteristic that is in preponderance would qualify as the average.   What is the average height of males in North America ?  

                                    Stop playing word games.  That's a tactic that I expect from theists. 

 


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Dug myself a

Sandycane wrote:

Dug myself a hole? I don't think so.

That's nice that you think that

Sandycane wrote:

 

No disrespect to you sister, and I wish you hadn't used her as an example but, imo, people who behave that way are terribly confused.

Can you please demonstrate this?  What exactly is she confused about, she was with men for most of her life although she was always attracted to women, one day she decided to try it out, and she is very happy with her girlfriend.  So please demonstrate that your assertion is true. 

Sandycane wrote:

And, since I'm in a foul mood anyway, I don't mind telling you your a fricking hypocrite and your moral standards appear to be sub standard.

What???  How so?  What are you even talking about?

 

Sandycane wrote:

It's okay and praiseworthy to be a queer or, lesbian and hop from one bed to another whenever you get an itch but,

What?  Who said anything about jumping from one bed to the next, and WTF does that have to do with being gay?  You are really showing yourself to be more and more ignorant by the minute, I don't even think you know what point you are trying to make.

 

Sandycane wrote:

you have no tolerance for a straight person who practices abstinence,

EXCUSE ME???  WTF are you talking about?  I said very specifically to you that there is no problem with such things so don't you dare put words in my mouth.  All I said was that most people don't practice abstinence, and most don't so I am correct.  WTF are you arguing???

Sandycane wrote:

and has more self respect than to hump anything that is warm and breathing. Maybe warm and breathing aren't a requirement for you to get off either?

Honestly sandy for an older person who should have some sense your coming off pretty rediculous, your replying to my post with a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with what I said. 

Sandycane wrote:

You're not any more 'free thinking' than the radical religious. The only free thinking you support is that which conforms to yours... and that seems to be 'do whatever the hell you feel like doing' but, that doesn't apply to those who don't do what you do.

I don't even know what to say to you, your hurling vacious crap.  You have everyright to feel however you want about gay people, you can also think blacks are less evolved than whites, you can hold any opigion you want, however I have everyright to question your opigion, and use reason to argue against it.  You have shown no good support of your claims that homosexuality is "abnormal" or that gays are "confused" infact in your defense you have shown that you are the one who is confused.

 

Sandycane wrote:

According to most of you, it's healthy and normal to be a queer and a slut but if I am straight and virtuous, there is something wrong with me. HAH! What a joke.

I certainly didn't say their was enything wrong with being straight, or strict with your sexuality, I said the exact opposite, what is wrong with you???  Get your shit straight before you start typing.

Sandycane wrote:

I'm sorry but, there is no way I am going to cave to your wishy-washy philosophy of life.

I don't care if you cave or not, that is not the my objective.  Again I don't care what you think as long as you aren't out there hindering peoples freedoms, untill then I will just point the holes in your poistion, which are blatant and a plenty.

 

Now:

  Your response to my post is so stupid I'm entertaining the thought it was your 13 year old niece or something that wrote it. You litterally responded to NONE of the points I made.  So get your damb shit together and DEMONSTRATE that gay/bi/whatever people are "confused", and awnser my question about how to define people who identify as a different sex than their own ie: hermaphrodites, women who feel like men, men who feel like women.  I now this will be hard sandy, but try addressing the issue, actually demonstrate your assertions, and make some sense, good luck...

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Sorry for

Sandycane wrote:

Sorry for the hostile tone previously but, I'm pissed.

My mower has been in the shop for 3 weeks, was brought back once and died. I paid $25 to stop payment on a $184 check and they took the mower back to the shop. He just dropped it of - $56 more - and after using it for 10 minutes, it's dead in the yard - again.

Didn't mean to take it out on you cj.

 

eh -- I'll live.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Dug myself a hole? I don't think so.

That's nice that you think that

Sandycane wrote:

 

No disrespect to you sister, and I wish you hadn't used her as an example but, imo, people who behave that way are terribly confused.

Can you please demonstrate this?  What exactly is she confused about, she was with men for most of her life although she was always attracted to women, one day she decided to try it out, and she is very happy with her girlfriend.  So please demonstrate that your assertion is true. 

Sandycane wrote:

And, since I'm in a foul mood anyway, I don't mind telling you your a fricking hypocrite and your moral standards appear to be sub standard.

What???  How so?  What are you even talking about?

 

Sandycane wrote:

It's okay and praiseworthy to be a queer or, lesbian and hop from one bed to another whenever you get an itch but,

What?  Who said anything about jumping from one bed to the next, and WTF does that have to do with being gay?  You are really showing yourself to be more and more ignorant by the minute, I don't even think you know what point you are trying to make.

 

Sandycane wrote:

you have no tolerance for a straight person who practices abstinence,

EXCUSE ME???  WTF are you talking about?  I said very specifically to you that there is no problem with such things so don't you dare put words in my mouth.  All I said was that most people don't practice abstinence, and most don't so I am correct.  WTF are you arguing???

Sandycane wrote:

and has more self respect than to hump anything that is warm and breathing. Maybe warm and breathing aren't a requirement for you to get off either?

Honestly sandy for an older person who should have some sense your coming off pretty rediculous, your replying to my post with a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with what I said. 

Sandycane wrote:

You're not any more 'free thinking' than the radical religious. The only free thinking you support is that which conforms to yours... and that seems to be 'do whatever the hell you feel like doing' but, that doesn't apply to those who don't do what you do.

I don't even know what to say to you, your hurling vacious crap.  You have everyright to feel however you want about gay people, you can also think blacks are less evolved than whites, you can hold any opigion you want, however I have everyright to question your opigion, and use reason to argue against it.  You have shown no good support of your claims that homosexuality is "abnormal" or that gays are "confused" infact in your defense you have shown that you are the one who is confused.

 

Sandycane wrote:

According to most of you, it's healthy and normal to be a queer and a slut but if I am straight and virtuous, there is something wrong with me. HAH! What a joke.

I certainly didn't say their was enything wrong with being straight, or strict with your sexuality, I said the exact opposite, what is wrong with you???  Get your shit straight before you start typing.

Sandycane wrote:

I'm sorry but, there is no way I am going to cave to your wishy-washy philosophy of life.

I don't care if you cave or not, that is not the my objective.  Again I don't care what you think as long as you aren't out there hindering peoples freedoms, untill then I will just point the holes in your poistion, which are blatant and a plenty.

 

Now:

  Your response to my post is so stupid I'm entertaining the thought it was your 13 year old niece or something that wrote it. You litterally responded to NONE of the points I made.  So get your damb shit together and DEMONSTRATE that gay/bi/whatever people are "confused", and awnser my question about how to define people who identify as a different sex than their own ie: hermaphrodites, women who feel like men, men who feel like women.  I now this will be hard sandy, but try addressing the issue, actually demonstrate your assertions, and make some sense, good luck...

 

You think my response was stupid? At least I know how to use the spell check button. 'opigion'? Twice in the same sentence? And yes, I am picking on your spelling because I would rather do that than beat a dead horse to death, again.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj,Ok, I missed the bit

robj,

Ok, I missed the bit where I referred to 'no positive aspects' of albinism. But it is a clear physical condition, corresponding to a genetic failure to produce melanin.

Homosexuality does not involve something as clear-cut as that.

There is no identified 'gay gene', but one or two genes have been explicitly shown to have some correlation with sexual preference, but it seems more like many other aspects of our character, the net result of a whole lot of different genes interacting with our environment and upbringing. The current scientific consensus is that it somewhere in the range of 20-40% genetic.

So it is not in the same category as the genetic defects you listed, it is more like just another aspect of personality, which can be anywhere in a spectrum, and can actually change over the course of a life. 

You can name just about any aspect of personality, and one part of the range well be much more common than others.

People have also claimed occasionally to have identified a "God' gene, predisposing a person to belief in a God, and there is some evidence that an inclination to identify certain experiences as 'communicating with an outside presence' is maybe around 50% genetic. Michael Shermer mentioned this in his book, "Why People Believe Weird Things".

Steven Pinker, in "The Blank Slate" argues that most of our thinking and reasoning abilites, our language skills, etc, have significant genetic components, IOW we are not a "Blank Slate".

So once you are discussing character traits that are not clearly the result of simple genetic 'faults' or mutations, like albinism and Down's syndrome, then you are talking about things that are just part of the range of 'normal' human behaviour. It is possible that sexual taste and orientation may have a bit more genetic content than other aspects of our personality, but nothing to justify putting in a similar category to most of your examples.

That's what I object to here, as I did in the other time this business came up with you.

It bugs me because you seem fine and pretty clear thinking away from this topic.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:robj,That's

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj,

That's what I object to here, as I did in the other time this business came up with you.

It bugs me because you seem fine and pretty clear thinking away from this topic.

Hmmm. If this is true, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that he is also thinking clearly on this subject too? That makes more sense than the likelihood that his mind goes berserk when homosexuality is mentioned.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane

Sandycane wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Dug myself a hole? I don't think so.

That's nice that you think that

Sandycane wrote:

 

No disrespect to you sister, and I wish you hadn't used her as an example but, imo, people who behave that way are terribly confused.

Can you please demonstrate this?  What exactly is she confused about, she was with men for most of her life although she was always attracted to women, one day she decided to try it out, and she is very happy with her girlfriend.  So please demonstrate that your assertion is true. 

Sandycane wrote:

And, since I'm in a foul mood anyway, I don't mind telling you your a fricking hypocrite and your moral standards appear to be sub standard.

What???  How so?  What are you even talking about?

 

Sandycane wrote:

It's okay and praiseworthy to be a queer or, lesbian and hop from one bed to another whenever you get an itch but,

What?  Who said anything about jumping from one bed to the next, and WTF does that have to do with being gay?  You are really showing yourself to be more and more ignorant by the minute, I don't even think you know what point you are trying to make.

 

Sandycane wrote:

you have no tolerance for a straight person who practices abstinence,

EXCUSE ME???  WTF are you talking about?  I said very specifically to you that there is no problem with such things so don't you dare put words in my mouth.  All I said was that most people don't practice abstinence, and most don't so I am correct.  WTF are you arguing???

Sandycane wrote:

and has more self respect than to hump anything that is warm and breathing. Maybe warm and breathing aren't a requirement for you to get off either?

Honestly sandy for an older person who should have some sense your coming off pretty rediculous, your replying to my post with a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with what I said. 

Sandycane wrote:

You're not any more 'free thinking' than the radical religious. The only free thinking you support is that which conforms to yours... and that seems to be 'do whatever the hell you feel like doing' but, that doesn't apply to those who don't do what you do.

I don't even know what to say to you, your hurling vacious crap.  You have everyright to feel however you want about gay people, you can also think blacks are less evolved than whites, you can hold any opigion you want, however I have everyright to question your opigion, and use reason to argue against it.  You have shown no good support of your claims that homosexuality is "abnormal" or that gays are "confused" infact in your defense you have shown that you are the one who is confused.

 

Sandycane wrote:

According to most of you, it's healthy and normal to be a queer and a slut but if I am straight and virtuous, there is something wrong with me. HAH! What a joke.

I certainly didn't say their was enything wrong with being straight, or strict with your sexuality, I said the exact opposite, what is wrong with you???  Get your shit straight before you start typing.

Sandycane wrote:

I'm sorry but, there is no way I am going to cave to your wishy-washy philosophy of life.

I don't care if you cave or not, that is not the my objective.  Again I don't care what you think as long as you aren't out there hindering peoples freedoms, untill then I will just point the holes in your poistion, which are blatant and a plenty.

 

Now:

  Your response to my post is so stupid I'm entertaining the thought it was your 13 year old niece or something that wrote it. You litterally responded to NONE of the points I made.  So get your damb shit together and DEMONSTRATE that gay/bi/whatever people are "confused", and awnser my question about how to define people who identify as a different sex than their own ie: hermaphrodites, women who feel like men, men who feel like women.  I now this will be hard sandy, but try addressing the issue, actually demonstrate your assertions, and make some sense, good luck...

 

You think my response was stupid?

 

It is demonstrably stupid, it lacks any good points, it responds to NONE of my points.  It is bunk!   

Sandycane wrote:

At least I know how to use the spell check button. 'opigion'? Twice in the same sentence? And yes, I am picking on your spelling because I would rather do that than beat a dead horse to death, again.

LOL! And because your position is bunk you attack my spelling.  So you read my post, respond with a bunch of crap that had nothing to do with what I said (go back and look, NOTHING!!!), and then when I reponded to your bunk reply in detail and pose you 2 questions (blantanly you know so you would AWNSER THEM!), you respond with an attack on my spelling.   Sandy that is completely pathetic.  The hole deal, pathetic.  


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
pdw,You know I love cats

pdw,

You know I love cats but, I'm afraid if I look at your new avatar one more time, I'll have an seizure.  

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Prozac,studies seem to show

Prozac,

studies seem to show that sexual preference is dominated by environment, upbringing, and life experience, but not in the form of conscious choice. Genetic contribution is possibly in the range of 20-40%, as I just responded to robj101.

Which puts them more in the category of all our other personaility traits and predispositions, rather than as something like a specific genetic mutation.

You can read that post if you want any expansion on my thoughts .

I reckon 'preferences' of any kind are similar in the sense of having significant, but not necessarily dominant, dependence on genetic factors. So I basically agree with you there. Of course you don't 'choose' to like something, you choose something because you like it.

Three dictionaries I checked, two British and one US, mentioned the negative connotations of the word 'abnormal', so it isn't just my quirky interpretation, but it may be not so strong in the US in general, so apologies to that extent. 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:It

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

It is demonstrably stupid, it lacks any good points, it responds to NONE of my points.  It is bunk!   

Sandycane wrote:

At least I know how to use the spell check button. 'opigion'? Twice in the same sentence? And yes, I am picking on your spelling because I would rather do that than beat a dead horse to death, again.

LOL! And because your position is bunk you attack my spelling.  So you read my post, respond with a bunch of crap that had nothing to do with what I said (go back and look, NOTHING!!!), and then when I reponded to your bunk reply in detail and pose you 2 questions (blantanly you know so you would AWNSER THEM!), you respond with an attack on my spelling.   Sandy that is completely pathetic.  The hole deal, pathetic.  

Well, at least I made you 'LOL!'

Sorry but, I've reached my limit on topic induced agita for one day. Maybe I'll be in the mood for more tomorrow.

(can you not find the spell check button?)

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Three

BobSpence1 wrote:

Three dictionaries I checked, two British and one US, mentioned the negative connotations of the word 'abnormal', so it isn't just my quirky interpretation, but it may be not so strong in the US in general, so apologies to that extent. 

 

Apology appreciated but, now that we know we had different definitions, not necessary.

Just to make it clear, I attached no negative connotations to those words when I used them.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

     My life already is one big lie.  How do you think the average joe blow would respond to me if were to come out and honestly identify myself as being mentally ill.  Try applying for a job and casually bring up that you spent six weeks in a psychiatric hospital and see if they call you back.

 

At least you can select the truth you tell them.  Some of us are too obviously not the physical norm and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

It was not my intent to step all over your or anyone else' toes.  I am a little surprised by the discussion myself.

What is normal?

Take a trait, any trait.  Plot points on a bell curve.  Is normal the red area on this graph?  Red + green area?  Dead square on the middle and no where else? 

 

My attempt at making a point is that you are on that bell curve somewhere - I don't care if it is two points short of zero or infinity - and I think you probably fall within the group closest to the mean on some other bell curve for some other trait. 

And if the graph were for bonobos - we would all have problems figuring out what is the "normal" behavior since bonobos have sex in any configuration you can think of usually in pairs, but not always.  If you really want to know more about bonobos, here is an article by Frans de Waal, a respected primatologist and ethologist (he studies primates and primate behavior):

http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

My point was that abnormal means different things to different people at different times.  Those of us who have had a lot of science courses have been trained to minimize our fondness for the words "normal" and "abnormal".  Those words color your conclusions drawn from research and can lead to erroneous conclusions.  Because one of the other things you are taught is that common sense isn't. 

So some of you seem to want only the red part of the above curve to be "normal".  The green and blue portions are "abnormal"?  Is that a correct characterization?

 

PS: I am not going anywhere with this.  I am not trying to lead anyone to any conclusions.  I'm just asking for clarification so I can figure out if we have some sort of common understanding.  This is not about "politically correct", it is about being able to communicate.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:BobSpence1

Sandycane wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj,

That's what I object to here, as I did in the other time this business came up with you.

It bugs me because you seem fine and pretty clear thinking away from this topic.

Hmmm. If this is true, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that he is also thinking clearly on this subject too? That makes more sense than the likelihood that his mind goes berserk when homosexuality is mentioned.

No, specific hangups on subjects like this are very common. Yours is not a logical conclusion, it is reasoning by association, assuming that people's thought patterns are much simpler and more consistent than they are.

It also is blatantly illogical on the simple observation, that he and I agree on many things, and disagree on this. So you have no argument. Two people agree on some things and disagree on another. How can you use that to conclude which one is more likely to be thinking clearly than the other? You need some separate evidence.

Why do you ridiculously characterise my view as that "his mind goes berserk" when this mentioned? He lets his repugnance at this behaviour influence hi thinking more than I think it should, and doesn't want to acknowledge that. A common thing, that I have caught myself doing on occasion, but I try to recognise such reactions and adjust my thoughts, as far as I can.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Sandycane

BobSpence1 wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj,

That's what I object to here, as I did in the other time this business came up with you.

It bugs me because you seem fine and pretty clear thinking away from this topic.

Hmmm. If this is true, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that he is also thinking clearly on this subject too? That makes more sense than the likelihood that his mind goes berserk when homosexuality is mentioned.

No, specific hangups on subjects like this are very common. Yours is not a logical conclusion, it is reasoning by association, assuming that people's thought patterns are much simpler and more consistent than they are.

It also is blatantly illogical on the simple observation, that he and I agree on many things, and disagree on this. So you have no argument. Two people agree on some things and disagree on another. How can you use that to conclude which one is more likely to be thinking clearly than the other? You need some separate evidence.

Why do you ridiculously characterise my view as that "his mind goes berserk" when this mentioned? He lets his repugnance at this behaviour influence hi thinking more than I think it should, and doesn't want to acknowledge that. A common thing, that I have caught myself doing on occasion, but I try to recognise such reactions and adjust my thoughts, as far as I can.

 

I didn't notice you saying anything about "berserk".  And, I agree that we must watch out for the tendency to let our repugnance (or admiration) for a particular behavior influence our thinking.

No, it isn't about being "politically correct."  It is about being factually correct. 

 

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Prozac,

studies seem to show that sexual preference is dominated by environment, upbringing, and life experience, but not in the form of conscious choice. Genetic contribution is possibly in the range of 20-40%, as I just responded to robj101.

Which puts them more in the category of all our other personaility traits and predispositions, rather than as something like a specific genetic mutation.

 


 

    I just finished scanning a few articles about identical twins and the incidence of homosexuality occurring among both twins.  I believe the probability was around 52%  that both twins would exhibit as homosexuals.     For fraternal twins it was about 20'ish.    The overall impression as I perceived it is that it is a blending of genetic traits combined with environmental factors,  the genetic factor being more prevalent for the identical twins, though. 

   There were of course exceptions that were discovered among these studies.  That's the extent of my investigation so far.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:ProzacDeathWish

cj wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

     My life already is one big lie.  How do you think the average joe blow would respond to me if were to come out and honestly identify myself as being mentally ill.  Try applying for a job and casually bring up that you spent six weeks in a psychiatric hospital and see if they call you back.

 

At least you can select the truth you tell them.  Some of us are too obviously not the physical norm and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

It was not my intent to step all over your or anyone else' toes.  I am a little surprised by the discussion myself.

What is normal?

Take a trait, any trait.  Plot points on a bell curve.  Is normal the red area on this graph?  Red + green area?  Dead square on the middle and no where else? 

 

My attempt at making a point is that you are on that bell curve somewhere - I don't care if it is two points short of zero or infinity - and I think you probably fall within the group closest to the mean on some other bell curve for some other trait. 

And if the graph were for bonobos - we would all have problems figuring out what is the "normal" behavior since bonobos have sex in any configuration you can think of usually in pairs, but not always.  If you really want to know more about bonobos, here is an article by Frans de Waal, a respected primatologist and ethologist (he studies primates and primate behavior):

http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

My point was that abnormal means different things to different people at different times.  Those of us who have had a lot of science courses have been trained to minimize our fondness for the words "normal" and "abnormal".  Those words color your conclusions drawn from research and can lead to erroneous conclusions.  Because one of the other things you are taught is that common sense isn't. 

So some of you seem to want only the red part of the above curve to be "normal".  The green and blue portions are "abnormal"?  Is that a correct characterization?

 

PS: I am not going anywhere with this.  I am not trying to lead anyone to any conclusions.  I'm just asking for clarification so I can figure out if we have some sort of common understanding.  This is not about "politically correct", it is about being able to communicate.

 

 I will reply to you tomorrow cj.   It's late and I'm really tired.  Have a good night.