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.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:can you not

Sandycane wrote:

can you not find the spell check button?)

Can you find some good reasons to back up your assertions?  Can you find a way to properly argue your position?  Can you make thoughtful responses to my posts that addresses the points brought up?  Can you do anything better than picking at spelling???  The awnser to all the above seems to be no!  Also:

 

I'm diong it jsut to piss you off now, are you albe to raed waht I am tpying.  YES!!!  Taht is bcuasee yuor barin can esaliy see the letter pttaern wthiout the ltteers benig in the rihgt odrer, see! 

 

Now quit your annoying spelling picking, and awnser the damb questions I asked.  Or say somethin meaningful, anything, something that demonstrates your assertions.  ANYTHING???

 

Got bunk???


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote: You think

Sandycane wrote:
You think my response was stupid?

Your responses on the topic of sexuality are ignorant, arbitrary, and not logically consistent.

Sandycane wrote:
  I still don't understand why a man would want to submit himself to another man. 

Submissiveness and dominance, and role reversals are key ingredients between sexual partners.

Sandycane wrote:
Why should you prefer a woman over a man? Because it is the natural thing to do... again, IMO. 

There's nothing unnatural about homosexuality, bisexuality, or pansexuality.

Sandycane wrote:
  It's not beneficial to the species to have the same sex attracted to each other.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

Or why recreational sex should between two people, should be one way only?

Sandycane wrote:
Normal is two members of the opposite sex, having sex, for the purpose of procreation.

No.

In fact it's exceedingly rare that members of the opposite sex have intercourse with the objective of procreating.

The objective is usually for pleasure, which categorizes it as 'recreational' sex.

Sandycane wrote:
  I'm not judging you personally for your choices but, I do feel that there is a reason why you feel the way you do and I don't think it's 'normal'.

You just judged it as being 'not beneficial' for the same sex to be attracted to each other, and failed to give any logical reason why a recreational sexual proclivity should require a justification.

Sandycane wrote:
Homosexual behavior is not 'normal'

Actually, it is normal.

We know it's been happening for thousands of years with humans, and we see it in animals, as well.

Sandycane wrote:
This is the intended purpose of sex.... in all species.

The people wouldn't orgasm from oral sex, or anal sex.

Then people wouldn't masturbate.

Then people wouldn't lust.

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

Non sequitur.

There are no logical or scientific reasons needed to justify sexual proclivities.

Nor should there be any obligation for individual to curtail their sexual preferences.

But if you want to be more 'logical' and 'scientific' about sexual orientation, you have volumes and volumes of white papers to study.

Here's a good start.

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html

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...

Bullshit.

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

Bullshit.

Sandycane wrote:
I'm hardly representative of the general  female population.

Then you concede that you are abnormal.

And I see no 'benefit' to your irrational attitudes about sexuality, to the human species, when sex has such strong ties to emotional, or mental wellbeing.

 


 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

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.

Right.

It is indeed a blending, as I already said.

That 52% is the combination of genetic and environmental factors. To a first approximation, you get the genetic comtribution by subtracting the figure for fraternal twins, which for your figures comes to 30-ish percent, in the middle of the range of 20-40% I found.

So you are backing up what I said.

Which puts it significantly lower in genetic dependence that God belief, based on the study Michael Shermer quoted.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

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. 

 

'Average' has a precise mathematical meaning as the sum of all of a set of values, divided by the number of values. It does NOT mean 'preponderance'. Technically that would be what is referred to as the 'mode', that value which is most common.

The average is also called the 'mean', when referring to statistics. It can only be applied where things can be described by a single numerical value. Such as height and weight, but not skin color or belief system or sexual attitude.

To complete the basic statistical terms, there is also the 'median', that value for which half the samples are greater and half are less than it.

EDIT: Average is average, whether there is any variation or not. There is a measure of variation, called 'variance',  which provides a measure of how much the samples are spread out over the possible values. There is a related figure called 'standard deviation', which is how far you can vary either side of the mean value to include most of the samples. Exactly what proportion is included depends on just how the number of values falls off as you get further from the mean. For what is called a 'normal' distribution, a nice smooth curve trailing off symmetrically to each side, the proportion of sample values within plus or minus one standard deviation is about 68%.

Sorry to be a pedant about the technical meanings of words.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandy, get off of this

Sandy, get off of this politically correct bullshit.

This is simply another human with a xenophobia. The psychological science community DOES NOT view homosexuality as wrong or a defect or disease.

This is merely you fearing the unknown. No different than fear of spiders or heights.

This is the way you need to treat people. AS INDIVIDUALS.

I would treat ANYONE the same. I had a straight guy at work, who thought it would be funny to tap my crotch with a ladle. I cussed him out and told him never to do that again.  This is a person I consider a friend. But if he did it again, I would not care how long we have known each other. I would demand he be fired.

I don't give a shit if you are a man or a woman, I don't care what your sexuality is. You simply don't touch someone uninvited.

You are a woman. I am quite sure you know what it is like even just for a man to stare at you. I bet you've been undressed by a man's eyes without knowing it. I am quite sure you've seen straight men grope women, I have.

Just like there are straight guys who hit on women and wont take no for an answer, and then there are guys who are extremely polite to women and guys who are prudes gays are the same type of range. Gays are not a separate species. They just as diverse as atheists and you should treat them like individuals just like you and I are indivuals.

I had a gay couple who owned a real estate agency two houses down from where I live. They were not "flamers". When they talked about each other to me, it was like listening to a married man and woman complaining about each other. They also talked about how much they loved each other. But they were not drag queens. They didn't have wild parties or orgies, and they didn't try to "recruit" me.

Just treat people as individuals, EVEN OUTSIDE THE ISSUE OF SEX. I get to know people FIRST. When you violate my trust, thats when I get pissed.

I have run into more straight male co-workers who have been back stabbing pricks even without physical contact. I have feared more straight guys in my life because of their macho bullshit, than I have ever run into problems with most of the gays I have met.

A guy I no longer work with, who got fired last year, was married with kids. But he constantly bullied me with emotional black mail into giving him money to pay his bills. And he constantly got drunk and drove and I could not get him to stop. That situation was oppressive and unhealthy and had nothing to do with his sexuality. He is finally out of my life.

I had more to fear from him, and have run into far more straight guys who are assholes than I have ever run into gay counterparts like him.

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD. You don't have to understand or even like what gays do, anymore than my mom has to like or understand why I don't believe. But she treats me as an individual, and that is all gays want. They don't want to recruit you or kids. They simply want the same thing straight people want. To be treated as individuals.

Your vagina wont fall off at the sight of a lesbian. My dick wont fall off if I shake hands with a "flamer".

I don't like broccoli but it is not wrong for others to like what I don't like. Once you accept this, you can see them as individuals instead of something to be feared.

YOU need to get over yourself. You are acting no different than Christians who demonize you for not believing.

 

 

 

"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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
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.

My thinking seems unclear on this issue to some simply because I don't agree with some opinions. I like to be more realistic and the reality is a LOT of people have a problem with homosexuality and there are reasons other than the religious. If it's environment, upbringing or simply the idea that someone may have sat around and really given the whole thing a lot of thought. Seems like homphobeaphobia to me (did I just make that word up?).

I pissed a few of them off enough the last time that I kindly asked if they wanted me to leave the forum.

I read something from Bob I think it said something about body weight and he asked "what is the normal weight" ..ask your doctor dude. There is a general healthy weight range for your height and build and I would say that is the "normal" weight range.

It is normal that a brand new car tire might blow out before you get around the block, it has happened but at the same time it is very abnormal btw.

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: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Sandycane

robj101 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.

My thinking seems unclear on this issue to some simply because I don't agree with some opinions. I like to be more realistic and the reality is a LOT of people have a problem with homosexuality and there are reasons other than the religious. If it's environment, upbringing or simply the idea that someone may have sat around and really given the whole thing a lot of thought. Seems like homphobeaphobia to me (did I just make that word up?).

I pissed a few of them off enough the last time that I kindly asked if they wanted me to leave the forum.

I read something from Bob I think it said something about body weight and he asked "what is the normal weight" ..ask your doctor dude. There is a general healthy weight range for your height and build and I would say that is the "normal" weight range.

It is normal that a brand new car tire might blow out before you get around the block, it has happened but at the same time it is very abnormal btw.

'Normal' weight for a US citizen is above the 'healthy' weight, which is what your doctor would recommend. That is a statistical fact.

It would not be 'normal' for a new tire would blow out that soon. It is not impossible, though. A large enough sample would allow you to estimate the probabilty by running some tests. 

Where someone is on the spectrum of sexual inclination and what attracts them, where they are in the range of religious belief/disbelief and how much they actually care either way, and many other aspects of personality and mind-set, are a result of a relatively complex mix of genetic and environmental and life-experience factors.

As are the attitudes of people to other people's position on such things. Some people get 'hung-up' on religious issues, and/or sexual issues, political leanings, etc, etc.

Sexual preference, affected by so many factors, both genetic and mostly non-genetic factors, is far more logically included in that sort of context than things like albinism and Down's syndrome, which are due to very specific mutations, and have well-defined effects.

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
BobSpence1 wrote:robj101

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 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.

My thinking seems unclear on this issue to some simply because I don't agree with some opinions. I like to be more realistic and the reality is a LOT of people have a problem with homosexuality and there are reasons other than the religious. If it's environment, upbringing or simply the idea that someone may have sat around and really given the whole thing a lot of thought. Seems like homphobeaphobia to me (did I just make that word up?).

I pissed a few of them off enough the last time that I kindly asked if they wanted me to leave the forum.

I read something from Bob I think it said something about body weight and he asked "what is the normal weight" ..ask your doctor dude. There is a general healthy weight range for your height and build and I would say that is the "normal" weight range.

It is normal that a brand new car tire might blow out before you get around the block, it has happened but at the same time it is very abnormal btw.

'Normal' weight for a US citizen is above the 'healthy' weight, which is what your doctor would recommend. That is a statistical fact.

It would not be 'normal' for a new tire would blow out that soon. It is not impossible, though. A large enough sample would allow you to estimate the probabilty by running some tests. 

Where someone is on the spectrum of sexual inclination and what attracts them, where they are in the range of religious belief/disbelief and how much they actually care either way, and many other aspects of personality and mind-set, are a result of a relatively complex mix of genetic and environmental and life-experience factors.

As are the attitudes of people to other people's position on such things. Some people get 'hung-up' on religious issues, and/or sexual issues, political leanings, etc, etc.

Sexual preference, affected by so many factors, both genetic and mostly non-genetic factors, is far more logically included in that sort of context than things like albinism and Down's syndrome, which are due to very specific mutations, and have well-defined effects.

That's fine, then you admit to leaning in one direction while I lean the other. What's the problem?

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:robj101

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 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.

My thinking seems unclear on this issue to some simply because I don't agree with some opinions. I like to be more realistic and the reality is a LOT of people have a problem with homosexuality and there are reasons other than the religious. If it's environment, upbringing or simply the idea that someone may have sat around and really given the whole thing a lot of thought. Seems like homphobeaphobia to me (did I just make that word up?).

I pissed a few of them off enough the last time that I kindly asked if they wanted me to leave the forum.

I read something from Bob I think it said something about body weight and he asked "what is the normal weight" ..ask your doctor dude. There is a general healthy weight range for your height and build and I would say that is the "normal" weight range.

It is normal that a brand new car tire might blow out before you get around the block, it has happened but at the same time it is very abnormal btw.

'Normal' weight for a US citizen is above the 'healthy' weight, which is what your doctor would recommend. That is a statistical fact.

It would not be 'normal' for a new tire would blow out that soon. It is not impossible, though. A large enough sample would allow you to estimate the probabilty by running some tests. 

Where someone is on the spectrum of sexual inclination and what attracts them, where they are in the range of religious belief/disbelief and how much they actually care either way, and many other aspects of personality and mind-set, are a result of a relatively complex mix of genetic and environmental and life-experience factors.

As are the attitudes of people to other people's position on such things. Some people get 'hung-up' on religious issues, and/or sexual issues, political leanings, etc, etc.

Sexual preference, affected by so many factors, both genetic and mostly non-genetic factors, is far more logically included in that sort of context than things like albinism and Down's syndrome, which are due to very specific mutations, and have well-defined effects.

I run a tire store, it is "normal" for a new tire to blow out. Some of them are manufactured poorly. We have even had a few with holes in them and a few with seperated ply's that didn't blow out. Human's too are "manufactured" poorly.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure what the

I'm not sure what the disagreement is anymore. If a person just has a subjective feeling about homosexuality, I'm not going to argue. But, claims about reality have to be justified. You guys need to make it clear what you're claiming.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I'm not

butterbattle wrote:

I'm not sure what the disagreement is anymore. If a person just has a subjective feeling about homosexuality, I'm not going to argue. But, claims about reality have to be justified. You guys need to make it clear what you're claiming.

qft

 Second time today, you are on a roll.

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
cj wrote:What is normal?Take

cj wrote:

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? 

 

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.

 

Okay. I'll use your curve for chickens laying eggs for human consumption. But, first, I would reverse the colors red and blue - blue representing normal and the most frequently occurring. A chicken laying an egg with one yoke and a firm shell every 24 hours being at the pinnacle of the center (now) blue area.

Chickens laying less or more often, eggs with no or more than one yoke and shells being too thick or not thick enough would be in the blue, green and red shaded areas, on the downward slop of the curve.

The normal egg-laying chicken is the yardstick all other chickens are measured by.

Now, a chicken that lays a double yoked egg may be desirable to a chef but, the egg is still considered abnormal compared to the single yoked egg. A chick that laid an egg with an extra thick shell may be desirable for the purpose of packing and shipping but, it too is not normal. A chick that laid an egg with no yoke and a watery shell is worthless and would be at the bottom of the curve, along with the chicken who laid no eggs at all.

'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
redneF wrote:Then you

redneF wrote:

Then you concede that you are abnormal.

And I see no 'benefit' to your irrational attitudes about sexuality, to the human species, when sex has such strong ties to emotional, or mental wellbeing.

Uh oh, looks like the honeymoon is over for us.

Yes, I concede that I am abnormal in some ways when compared to others. That's a fact just as homosexual activity is abnormal when compared to straights.

My attitudes about sex contribute to my emotional and mental well-being and so, my attitudes benefit me.

Certain attitudes about sex also have strong ties to emotional and mental illness...

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj,There is no problem, as

robj,

There is no problem, as long as you concede that your personal hang-uo about homosexuality is indeed just that, and has no 'moral' implications to others who don't share it. Any more than a political leaning to Left or Right. Unless and until you can point to evidence that there is some pretty clear evidence of harm being caused to someone. And I mean actual harm, not just offending someone's feelings of 'what is right' or 'how people should behave'.

If your experience is that new tires can indeed blow out that quickly, then you have evidence that the spread in the lifetime of such tires is indeed much wider than might have been assumed. So I would say the manufacturer has a quality control problem. Are you saying that is not unusual, ie that it is in the 'normal' range of expected lifetime? That is not good.

Normal can refer to both the average (mean) time to failure, and the spread (variance or standard deviation) of that lifetime.

Your point is.... ?

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:redneF

Sandycane wrote:

redneF wrote:

Then you concede that you are abnormal.

And I see no 'benefit' to your irrational attitudes about sexuality, to the human species, when sex has such strong ties to emotional, or mental wellbeing.

Uh oh, looks like the honeymoon is over for us.

Yes, I concede that I am abnormal in some ways when compared to others. That's a fact just as homosexual activity is abnormal when compared to straights.

My attitudes about sex contribute to my emotional and mental well-being and so, my attitudes benefit me.

Certain attitudes about sex also have strong ties to emotional and mental illness...

And narrow views on what is 'right' and 'wrong' in sex are far more likely to give rise to feelings of guilt and shame and disgust than a more relaxed and open one.

That is basic psychology.

So your emotional well-being is enhanced by more frequent feelings of disgust at what others do and say?

Interesting.

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:And narrow

BobSpence1 wrote:

And narrow views on what is 'right' and 'wrong' in sex are far more likely to give rise to feelings of guilt and shame and disgust than a more relaxed and open one.

That is basic psychology.

So your emotional well-being is enhanced by more frequent feelings of disgust at what others do and say?

Interesting.

Men who can't get hard unless they are humiliated in the act are far from normal and suffer from severe mental and emotional issues.

 'Frequent feelings of disgust'? If I were constantly surrounded by gays, that may be true but, I'm not.

The same feeling would apply if I were surrounded by people who constantly picked their nose.

'Guilt and shame'? Those feeling apply to the man who was forced to wear dresses as a child and has sexual hangups as a man, not me.

 

Besides, 'feelings' have nothing to do with the fact of whether or not a thing is normal. I don't have feelings for an abnormal egg.

'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
BobSpence1 wrote:robj,There

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj,

There is no problem, as long as you concede that your personal hang-uo about homosexuality is indeed just that, and has no 'moral' implications to others who don't share it. Any more than a political leaning to Left or Right. Unless and until you can point to evidence that there is some pretty clear evidence of harm being caused to someone. And I mean actual harm, not just offending someone's feelings of 'what is right' or 'how people should behave'.

If your experience is that new tires can indeed blow out that quickly, then you have evidence that the spread in the lifetime of such tires is indeed much wider than might have been assumed. So I would say the manufacturer has a quality control problem. Are you saying that is not unusual, ie that it is in the 'normal' range of expected lifetime? That is not good.

Normal can refer to both the average (mean) time to failure, and the spread (variance or standard deviation) of that lifetime.

Your point is.... ?

 

It's all in perspective Bob, I don't feel like I actually have a "hang up" about homosexuality and I deal with homosexuals just fine. You apparently don't have a "hang up" with homosexuals indeed you seem to feel quite compassionate towards them. I'm glad you realize my thoughts and yours have no "moral implications" towards others but we can't pretend others do not have the same thoughts.

I have already stated I support gay rights because they are people and they do not seem to really impact the animal we call society in a truly negative way other than the dissension it has caused between people like yourself and I who may see things in a different light.

As far as the tire analogy goes yes it happens, it doesn't happen with huge frequency but it does happen occasionally which makes it a "normal" thing in a sense. This seems to be the "normal" you actually prefer when speaking of how gays are "normal". In the broader sense overall "heterosexual" is actually normal.

Another analogy that has been brought up, siamese twins, yes it happens, we all know it happens and it is normal because it does happen. Maybe there is even a percentage. Overall we know it is still "abnormal". It is a natural fuck up that does occur. If nature were personified into a small person he would say "oops fucked up another one, sorry I'm not perfect" But I support siamese twins (lol) it's not their fault it is just the way it is.

Does this help in understanding my position just a bit even if you don't agree with it?

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
(rob, check your inbox. You

(rob, check your inbox. You have a private message)


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
(rob, check your inbox. You

duplicate deleted.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:(rob, check

Sandycane wrote:

(rob, check your inbox. You have a private message)

I'm not currently subscribed, I can't look in the inbox.

I was subscribed at one time but the site never recognized it and I have had a mail in my box since the first day I posted on here.

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:redneF

Sandycane wrote:

redneF wrote:

Then you concede that you are abnormal.

And I see no 'benefit' to your irrational attitudes about sexuality, to the human species, when sex has such strong ties to emotional, or mental wellbeing.

Uh oh, looks like the honeymoon is over for us.

Not necessarily.

I quite like some aspects of you.

Sandycane wrote:
Yes, I concede that I am abnormal in some ways when compared to others.

My middle name is Atypical.

Sandycane wrote:
That's a fact just as homosexual activity is abnormal when compared to straights.

It's not prevalent. But, that, in and of itself, does not make it dysfunctional.

It's quite common for people to have a strong negative reflex towards male homosexuality. I was very typical in that regard when I was in my teens, right up I went to college, where I studied psychology, and read tons of sexology.

It changed my perspective on human sexuality from an emotional one, to an academic one.

 

Sandycane wrote:
My attitudes about sex contribute to my emotional and mental well-being and so, my attitudes benefit me.

I know that since I became less inhibited, and broadened my knowledge and experience, both physically and vicariously, it's transformed my entire perspective on relationships, both intimate, and casual.

Sandycane wrote:
Certain attitudes about sex also have strong ties to emotional and mental illness...

Or with any number of topics...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


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

robj101 wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

(rob, check your inbox. You have a private message)

I'm not currently subscribed, I can't look in the inbox.

I was subscribed at one time but the site never recognized it and I have had a mail in my box since the first day I posted on here.

That's odd/abnormal

I was able to send a PM and you have an atheist badge so, you should be able to send and receive them.

Anyway, I copied it to an email and sent it through the 'contact' tab to you. You can email me directly when you get it... let me know if you don't get it.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:BobSpence1

Sandycane wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

And narrow views on what is 'right' and 'wrong' in sex are far more likely to give rise to feelings of guilt and shame and disgust than a more relaxed and open one.

That is basic psychology.

So your emotional well-being is enhanced by more frequent feelings of disgust at what others do and say?

Interesting.

Men who can't get hard unless they are humiliated in the act are far from normal and suffer from severe mental and emotional issues.

And where the hell did that comment come from??

Quote:

 'Frequent feelings of disgust'? If I were constantly surrounded by gays, that may be true but, I'm not.

The same feeling would apply if I were surrounded by people who constantly picked their nose.

'Guilt and shame'? Those feeling apply to the man who was forced to wear dresses as a child and has sexual hangups as a man, not me.

 

Besides, 'feelings' have nothing to do with the fact of whether or not a thing is normal. I don't have feelings for an abnormal egg.

Sure, I realize that the 'guilt and shame' bit would not likely apply to you personally, but it does happen with people who are uptight about sex but are still susceptible to 'moments of passion', followed by the guilt and shame thing. That has been very much characteristic of people who are indoctrinated into Christian doctrine of the more puritanical kind, but are still unable to curb their sexual drive. Young people in the peak of their hormone levels are particularly susceptible.

Feelings can have everything to do with where you set the threshhold of what you consider abnormal, especially when you set it within the normal range of what practices and acts perfectly healthy and mentally stable people, who are not inhibited by traditional social taboos, are comfortable with indulging in.

As you go further from the more commonly accepted 'normal' range of behaviour, there will naturally be more people who will agree that it deserves to be called abnormal. But it is more honest and objective to call it 'unusual', and eventually 'extreme', both understood within the context of more 'typical' behaviour. It still doesn't deserve actual condemnation, IMO, unless there is significant risk of someone being harmed in some serious way. Deliberate self-harm is pretty much a reasonable point for anyone to say 'enough is enough', even to the point of 'that is sick'.

Remember, this thread is really about what deserves being regarded as 'abnormal' behaviour, not 'abnormal' births or related anomalies, so your comment about how you regard an abnormal 'egg' is beside the point.

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
BobSpence1 wrote: Remember,

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Remember, this thread is really about what deserves being regarded as 'abnormal' behaviour, not 'abnormal' births or related anomalies, so your comment about how you regard an abnormal 'egg' is beside the point.

Bob you are probably a good dance partner.

Now being homosexual is just behavior? is it now a purely personal choice? They were not born or made this way by environment or upbringing etc?

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:BobSpence1

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Remember, this thread is really about what deserves being regarded as 'abnormal' behaviour, not 'abnormal' births or related anomalies, so your comment about how you regard an abnormal 'egg' is beside the point.

Bob you are probably a good dance partner.

Now being homosexual is just behavior? is it now a purely personal choice? They were not born or made this way by environment or upbringing etc?

Rob, you are treating homosexuality like a religious magical super villain. It is nothing more than a range reflection in a ratio of our evolution.

You cant even treat heterosexuals as all the same. Some masturbate and some don't. Some like oral sex, some dont. Some like anal sex, some don't. Some guys like big butts and big tits, some dont. Some women like muscle bound guys, some don't.

All these actions OCCUR in our species as a RANGE not an absolute right or wrong. The only two things that need to be taken into consideration with sexual activity WITH ANYONE gay or straight, is safety and consent. And if it isn't involving you as a third party, you have no business telling them they are wrong.

Seriously Rob, grow up. You have the same stupid phobia of them as some whites still do of blacks.

"I'm not afraid of them, I just don't want it in my face".

I also am not afraid of a fat woman in spandex but so what if it is "in my face". That would be MY  problem, not hers.

People are different than you, welcome to reality.

"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


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

Quote:
redneF wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

redneF wrote:

Then you concede that you are abnormal.

And I see no 'benefit' to your irrational attitudes about sexuality, to the human species, when sex has such strong ties to emotional, or mental wellbeing.

Uh oh, looks like the honeymoon is over for us.

Not necessarily.

I quite like some aspects of you.

Ditto

Quote:
Sandycane wrote:
Yes, I concede that I am abnormal in some ways when compared to others.

My middle name is Atypical.

That's one thing I like about you.

Quote:
Sandycane wrote:
That's a fact just as homosexual activity is abnormal when compared to straights.

It's not prevalent. But, that, in and of itself, does not make it dysfunctional.

It's quite common for people to have a strong negative reflex towards male homosexuality. I was very typical in that regard when I was in my teens, right up I went to college, where I studied psychology, and read tons of sexology.

It changed my perspective on human sexuality from an emotional one, to an academic one.

Hmmm. If it is 'quite common' then it would also be considered quite 'normal'.

 

Quote:
Sandycane wrote:
My attitudes about sex contribute to my emotional and mental well-being and so, my attitudes benefit me.

I know that since I became less inhibited, and broadened my knowledge and experience, both physically and vicariously, it's transformed my entire perspective on relationships, both intimate, and casual.

and you think that is a good thing - for you. I am quite happy, mentally and emotionally, with where I stand on the subject. I'm not seeking transformation.

Quote:
Sandycane wrote:
Certain attitudes about sex also have strong ties to emotional and mental illness...

Or with any number of topics...

Agreed.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:BobSpence1

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Remember, this thread is really about what deserves being regarded as 'abnormal' behaviour, not 'abnormal' births or related anomalies, so your comment about how you regard an abnormal 'egg' is beside the point.

Bob you are probably a good dance partner.

Now being homosexual is just behavior? is it now a purely personal choice? They were not born or made this way by environment or upbringing etc?

It is a behaviour, perhaps more accurately described as a behaviour pattern, as distinct from being a physical attribute.

That has nothing to do it with being a personal choice or not. There will be an element of choice in who to engage with, and how, but the individuals who the person is most attracted to, and the kind of acts which they find most pleasurable, will be strongly influenced by their psychological 'profile' which is not a matter of conscious choice. It is a matter of genetic inheritance, upbringing and personal life experience, as I previously said.

This is entirely consistent with my previous arguments.

When you look at women, do you run some calculations and decide who best fits your current criteria, then crank up the lust and desire mechanism and point it at the one that comes out of the calculations? Or you just find yourself drawn more to some more than others? Don't some just get the juices flowing when you look at them, and some don't? It ain't a conscious choice. It's what works with your particular 'chemistry'. 

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
Quote:BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

And where the hell did that comment come from??

I was referring to the person I mentioned earlier whose mother made him wear dresses. The point is, I guess, not all sexual behavior springs from mental and emotional well being. If someone is abstinent because of some kind of mental trauma, that's not healthy just as having bizarre sex isn't healthy if it is rooted in some kind of emotional or mental disorder. That is not normal.

 

Quote:
Sure, I realize that the 'guilt and shame' bit would not likely apply to you personally, but it does happen with people who are uptight about sex but are still susceptible to 'moments of passion', followed by the guilt and shame thing. That has been very much characteristic of people who are indoctrinated into Christian doctrine of the more puritanical kind, but are still unable to curb their sexual drive. Young people in the peak of their hormone levels are particularly susceptible.

Feelings can have everything to do with where you set the threshhold of what you consider abnormal, especially when you set it within the normal range of what practices and acts perfectly healthy and mentally stable people, who are not inhibited by traditional social taboos, are comfortable with indulging in.

As you go further from the more commonly accepted 'normal' range of behaviour, there will naturally be more people who will agree that it deserves to be called abnormal. But it is more honest and objective to call it 'unusual', and eventually 'extreme', both understood within the context of more 'typical' behaviour. It still doesn't deserve actual condemnation, IMO, unless there is significant risk of someone being harmed in some serious way. Deliberate self-harm is pretty much a reasonable point for anyone to say 'enough is enough', even to the point of 'that is sick'.

Remember, this thread is really about what deserves being regarded as 'abnormal' behaviour, not 'abnormal' births or related anomalies, so your comment about how you regard an abnormal 'egg' is beside the point.

I think I can agree with most of this except, that now, you want to change the word 'abnormal' to 'unusual' or, 'extreme'. Personally, I see more of a negative connotation with your choice than with mine. Maybe it's just a geographical language misunderstanding?

I thought my 'egg' description expressed my views on normal and abnormal exactly as I see them. I have no feelings for an abnormal egg just as I have no feelings towards gays. Sorry you didn't see it that way.

(sorry for the 'quote' confusion)

'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:It is a

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is a behaviour, perhaps more accurately described as a behaviour pattern, as distinct from being a physical attribute.

That has nothing to do it with being a personal choice or not. There will be an element of choice in who to engage with, and how, but the individuals who the person is most attracted to, and the kind of acts which they find most pleasurable, will be strongly influenced by their psychological 'profile' which is not a matter of conscious choice. It is a matter of genetic inheritance, upbringing and personal life experience, as I previously said.

This is entirely consistent with my previous arguments.

When you look at women, do you run some calculations and decide who best fits your current criteria, then crank up the lust and desire mechanism and point it at the one that comes out of the calculations? Or you just find yourself drawn more to some more than others? Don't some just get the juices flowing when you look at them, and some don't? It ain't a conscious choice. It's what works with your particular 'chemistry'. 

Oh, I have to strongly disagree with you here Bob... and I'm afraid this thread may soon take another turn... but, unless I am misunderstanding you, you are saying that our choices are not consciously made but, are instead based on our chemistry?

As far as our choices go, I feel that the mind/brain DOES do intricate calculations, most of the time without our being aware of the process but, they are none the less, choices we make. Granted, they are based on an infinite amount of knowledge stored in the brain including what has felt good or, 'worked' in the past under similar circumstances but, 'chemistry'? What do you mean by that? You make it sound like Woo.

It is a fact that people make decisions all the time that seem to go against their 'chemistry', genetic makeup or, psychological profile.

People who were once stung by a bee, overcoming their unnatural fear of bees.

People who come from abusive families, creating a nurturing family for themselves.

Alcoholics controlling their problem with alcohol.

What do you mean, exactly, by: 'It ain't a conscious choice. It's what works with your particular 'chemistry'.

'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
redneF wrote:Not

redneF wrote:

Not necessarily.

I quite like some aspects of you.

I just watched 'Without Love' with my mom and there was a line by Tracy to Hepburn that, for some reason, made me think of our conversation:

'Your like the Tower of Pizza, you may have certain leanings but, you always remain upright'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIJGseTKqP8

 

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


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I'm not

butterbattle wrote:

I'm not sure what the disagreement is anymore. If a person just has a subjective feeling about homosexuality, I'm not going to argue. But, claims about reality have to be justified. You guys need to make it clear what you're claiming.

Freals. I've been watching this thread blow up all weekend, and while I think some valid points have been made, and I'd love to jump in with some of my own thoughts, I'm not sure what exactly we're arguing about anymore. So lost...


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:BobSpence1

Sandycane wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is a behaviour, perhaps more accurately described as a behaviour pattern, as distinct from being a physical attribute.

That has nothing to do it with being a personal choice or not. There will be an element of choice in who to engage with, and how, but the individuals who the person is most attracted to, and the kind of acts which they find most pleasurable, will be strongly influenced by their psychological 'profile' which is not a matter of conscious choice. It is a matter of genetic inheritance, upbringing and personal life experience, as I previously said.

This is entirely consistent with my previous arguments.

When you look at women, do you run some calculations and decide who best fits your current criteria, then crank up the lust and desire mechanism and point it at the one that comes out of the calculations? Or you just find yourself drawn more to some more than others? Don't some just get the juices flowing when you look at them, and some don't? It ain't a conscious choice. It's what works with your particular 'chemistry'. 

Oh, I have to strongly disagree with you here Bob... and I'm afraid this thread may soon take another turn... but, unless I am misunderstanding you, you are saying that our choices are not consciously made but, are instead based on our chemistry?

As far as our choices go, I feel that the mind/brain DOES do intricate calculations, most of the time without our being aware of the process but, they are none the less, choices we make. Granted, they are based on an infinite amount of knowledge stored in the brain including what has felt good or, 'worked' in the past under similar circumstances but, 'chemistry'? What do you mean by that? You make it sound like Woo.

It is a fact that people make decisions all the time that seem to go against their 'chemistry', genetic makeup or, psychological profile.

People who were once stung by a bee, overcoming their unnatural fear of bees.

People who come from abusive families, creating a nurturing family for themselves.

Alcoholics controlling their problem with alcohol.

What do you mean, exactly, by: 'It ain't a conscious choice. It's what works with your particular 'chemistry'.

No. Its a mix. Our choices are conscious decisions, but the options we seriously consider are determined and constrained by our general preferences, our likes and dislikes. Just as I would presume you would not consider as an option to choose from, to associate with a 'gay'.

They are based on our very finite memories and so on, which do interact in complex and sometimes subtle ways. I did put chemistry in quotes, as a shorthand reference to the complex processes involving both actual chemistry - the many chemicals which do directly affect overall mood and the tone of our thoughts in many ways, such as seratonin and dopamine, although not the specific content, as well as all the other low-level processes which underlie our consciousness.

Of course people can make conscious decisions to resist their lower-level urges, and people have varying degrees of success in that. Our ability to overcome our instincts and basic drives where it may be beneficial is a fundamental aspect of our success as a species. IOW, we are not so much at the 'mercy' of our instincts, but we are by no means totally free of them either.

But the nature of those basic attractions and urges is not a matter of conscious choice. If someone sees no reason to resist them in particular circumstances, that is a also a choice, to that extent. Just as when confronted with a range of food options, we can decide to not always go with our favorite, but something we maybe like not quite so much, just for the variety, which we know can be pleasant as a change, from time to time.

You can always go back and forth as to how much conscious assessment and judgement is involved in things like your attitude to 'gays', and how much is due to your background and upbringing.

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:No. Its a

BobSpence1 wrote:

No. Its a mix. Our choices are conscious decisions, but the options we seriously consider are determined and constrained by our general preferences, our likes and dislikes. Just as I would presume you would not consider as an option to choose from, to associate with a 'gay'.

  and you would be wrong to presume that.

'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
greek goddess

greek goddess wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

I'm not sure what the disagreement is anymore. If a person just has a subjective feeling about homosexuality, I'm not going to argue. But, claims about reality have to be justified. You guys need to make it clear what you're claiming.

Freals. I've been watching this thread blow up all weekend, and while I think some valid points have been made, and I'd love to jump in with some of my own thoughts, I'm not sure what exactly we're arguing about anymore. So lost...

Hi

Just jump in anywhere.

In a nutshell, rob, me and pdw are being demonized for acknowledging the fact that gays and lesbians... and I suppose bi's-, are not 'normal'. As I explained by using the bell curve cj posted, heterosexuals would be at the pinnacle of the 'normal' curve and everyone else would be somewhere down the slope.

The others are adding negative connotations to the use of the words 'normal' and 'abnormal' when the three of us have no such intentions.

As to WHY certain people are not heterosexual and whether or not this is good or bad behavior, imo, is off the topic of whether or not they are normal.... and another, highly complicated, topic altogether.

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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3472
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess

greek goddess wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

I'm not sure what the disagreement is anymore. If a person just has a subjective feeling about homosexuality, I'm not going to argue. But, claims about reality have to be justified. You guys need to make it clear what you're claiming.

Freals. I've been watching this thread blow up all weekend, and while I think some valid points have been made, and I'd love to jump in with some of my own thoughts, I'm not sure what exactly we're arguing about anymore. So lost...

hey, i tried my best to get it back on track.  i'll give it another go...

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:hey, i tried my

iwbiek wrote:

hey, i tried my best to get it back on track.  i'll give it another go...

Ooooh, nice mix! I especially like Bonnie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z04r_tlWdRs

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:BobSpence1

Sandycane wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

No. Its a mix. Our choices are conscious decisions, but the options we seriously consider are determined and constrained by our general preferences, our likes and dislikes. Just as I would presume you would not consider as an option to choose from, to associate with a 'gay'.

  and you would be wrong to presume that.

Ok, but I assume there are some options you simply wouldn't consider in any particular situation where you had to make a choice.

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:Ok, but I

BobSpence1 wrote:

Ok, but I assume there are some options you simply wouldn't consider in any particular situation where you had to make a choice.

No, I don't think so... I would consider all options available. Option choices change when the situation changes.

'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
Sandycane wrote:greek

Sandycane wrote:

greek goddess wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

I'm not sure what the disagreement is anymore. If a person just has a subjective feeling about homosexuality, I'm not going to argue. But, claims about reality have to be justified. You guys need to make it clear what you're claiming.

Freals. I've been watching this thread blow up all weekend, and while I think some valid points have been made, and I'd love to jump in with some of my own thoughts, I'm not sure what exactly we're arguing about anymore. So lost...

Hi

Just jump in anywhere.

In a nutshell, rob, me and pdw are being demonized for acknowledging the fact that gays and lesbians... and I suppose bi's-, are not 'normal'. As I explained by using the bell curve cj posted, heterosexuals would be at the pinnacle of the 'normal' curve and everyone else would be somewhere down the slope.

The others are adding negative connotations to the use of the words 'normal' and 'abnormal' when the three of us have no such intentions.

As to WHY certain people are not heterosexual and whether or not this is good or bad behavior, imo, is off the topic of whether or not they are normal.... and another, highly complicated, topic altogether.

Oh, I wanted to ad that the 'normal' bell curve applies to our society, in the US. If you did a similar bell curve in a country that had gays and lesbians as the majority, then they would be considerd normal compared to the hetero minority.

'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
BobSpence1 wrote:robj101

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Remember, this thread is really about what deserves being regarded as 'abnormal' behaviour, not 'abnormal' births or related anomalies, so your comment about how you regard an abnormal 'egg' is beside the point.

Bob you are probably a good dance partner.

Now being homosexual is just behavior? is it now a purely personal choice? They were not born or made this way by environment or upbringing etc?

It is a behaviour, perhaps more accurately described as a behaviour pattern, as distinct from being a physical attribute.

That has nothing to do it with being a personal choice or not. There will be an element of choice in who to engage with, and how, but the individuals who the person is most attracted to, and the kind of acts which they find most pleasurable, will be strongly influenced by their psychological 'profile' which is not a matter of conscious choice. It is a matter of genetic inheritance, upbringing and personal life experience, as I previously said.

This is entirely consistent with my previous arguments.

When you look at women, do you run some calculations and decide who best fits your current criteria, then crank up the lust and desire mechanism and point it at the one that comes out of the calculations? Or you just find yourself drawn more to some more than others? Don't some just get the juices flowing when you look at them, and some don't? It ain't a conscious choice. It's what works with your particular 'chemistry'. 

There are more attractive and less attractive people, I assume bone structure plays into this as well as a narrow waist and nice hips etc (where women are concerned for me and most guys  probably), ergo subconciously when I look at a woman I am looking for good breeding material. I don't uncociously see good breeding material in other men I suppose, nor do I conciously if I actually think about it.

You can pretend everything we like about people is a concious thought if you like but there is a reason some people are physically attracted to others and it's not all like "hmm I like so n so about that person". It's like an instinctual thing, especially at first glance, the thinking part comes afterwards.

You were saying?

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:There are more

robj101 wrote:

There are more attractive and less attractive people, I assume bone structure plays into this as well as a narrow waist and nice hips etc (where women are concerned for me and most guys  probably), ergo subconciously when I look at a woman I am looking for good breeding material. I don't uncociously see good breeding material in other men I suppose, nor do I conciously if I actually think about it.

You can pretend everything we like about people is a concious thought if you like but there is a reason some people are physically attracted to others and it's not all like "hmm I like so n so about that person". It's like an instinctual thing, especially at first glance, the thinking part comes afterwards.

You were saying?

'Breeding material'? 'Instinctual'?

You're such an animal!

I kind of like that. Grrrr.  

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
If all they're saying is

If all they're saying is that heterosexuality is more common than homosexuality, then there is absolutely nothing to discuss. This is such an obvious and banal point that I find it ridiculous that this accurately summarizes what has happened here.

I'm not sure about rob and prozac, but Sandy at least contributed to much of the confusion. She now claims that all she meant is that homosexuality is not the "norm," and she never intended any negative connotations, but if you look back in the thread, this isn't consistent with some of what she wrote at all.

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

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


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

Sandycane wrote:

robj101 wrote:

There are more attractive and less attractive people, I assume bone structure plays into this as well as a narrow waist and nice hips etc (where women are concerned for me and most guys  probably), ergo subconciously when I look at a woman I am looking for good breeding material. I don't uncociously see good breeding material in other men I suppose, nor do I conciously if I actually think about it.

You can pretend everything we like about people is a concious thought if you like but there is a reason some people are physically attracted to others and it's not all like "hmm I like so n so about that person". It's like an instinctual thing, especially at first glance, the thinking part comes afterwards.

You were saying?

'Breeding material'? 'Instinctual'?

You're such an animal!

I kind of like that. Grrrr.  

lol it's just the basics. Societal pressure changes some of the basics.

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
butterbattle wrote:If all

butterbattle wrote:

If all they're saying is that heterosexuality is more common than homosexuality, then there is absolutely nothing to discuss. This is such an obvious and banal point that I find it ridiculous that this accurately summarizes what has happened here.

I'm not sure about rob and prozac, but Sandy at least contributed to much of the confusion. She now claims that all she meant is that homosexuality is not the "norm," and she never intended any negative connotations, but if you look back in the thread, this isn't consistent with some of what she wrote at all.

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

 

I think things were going relatively well until I said...

Quote:
Why not you being dominated by another man? Because two men together is not 'natural'... just as two women together isn't. Sorry but, that's just the way I see it. Mind you, I'm not saying 'right' or 'wrong'... it's just not the way Nature intended it to be, imo.

...and then there was Bob who wanted to redefine and nit pick.

'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
Sandycane wrote:butterbattle

Sandycane wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

If all they're saying is that heterosexuality is more common than homosexuality, then there is absolutely nothing to discuss. This is such an obvious and banal point that I find it ridiculous that this accurately summarizes what has happened here.

I'm not sure about rob and prozac, but Sandy at least contributed to much of the confusion. She now claims that all she meant is that homosexuality is not the "norm," and she never intended any negative connotations, but if you look back in the thread, this isn't consistent with some of what she wrote at all.

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

 

I think things were going relatively well until I said...

Quote:
Why not you being dominated by another man? Because two men together is not 'natural'... just as two women together isn't. Sorry but, that's just the way I see it. Mind you, I'm not saying 'right' or 'wrong'... it's just not the way Nature intended it to be, imo.

...and then there was Bob who wanted to redefine and nit pick.

It's quite obvious how the human reproductive system works, there are books and many many studies done on it. I'm fairly certain we understand how it works and how "nature" has set us up for it. No one has actually demonstrated the "benefits" of homosexuality. I think Bob almost tried to relate it to population control with his fertility rate comment but I don't see a direct correlation with it and he pointedly steered away from it.

If homosexuality were an intentional product of nature there would be some sort of a benefit because it was intended or no benefit because it was just a "burp" or a "hiccup" or a "monkey wrench" in the system. This seems reasonable to me considering nature is far from "perfect".

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: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:BobSpence1

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Remember, this thread is really about what deserves being regarded as 'abnormal' behaviour, not 'abnormal' births or related anomalies, so your comment about how you regard an abnormal 'egg' is beside the point.

Bob you are probably a good dance partner.

Now being homosexual is just behavior? is it now a purely personal choice? They were not born or made this way by environment or upbringing etc?

It is a behaviour, perhaps more accurately described as a behaviour pattern, as distinct from being a physical attribute.

That has nothing to do it with being a personal choice or not. There will be an element of choice in who to engage with, and how, but the individuals who the person is most attracted to, and the kind of acts which they find most pleasurable, will be strongly influenced by their psychological 'profile' which is not a matter of conscious choice. It is a matter of genetic inheritance, upbringing and personal life experience, as I previously said.

This is entirely consistent with my previous arguments.

When you look at women, do you run some calculations and decide who best fits your current criteria, then crank up the lust and desire mechanism and point it at the one that comes out of the calculations? Or you just find yourself drawn more to some more than others? Don't some just get the juices flowing when you look at them, and some don't? It ain't a conscious choice. It's what works with your particular 'chemistry'. 

There are more attractive and less attractive people, I assume bone structure plays into this as well as a narrow waist and nice hips etc (where women are concerned for me and most guys  probably), ergo subconciously when I look at a woman I am looking for good breeding material. I don't uncociously see good breeding material in other men I suppose, nor do I conciously if I actually think about it.

You can pretend everything we like about people is a concious thought if you like but there is a reason some people are physically attracted to others and it's not all like "hmm I like so n so about that person". It's like an instinctual thing, especially at first glance, the thinking part comes afterwards.

You were saying?

I was saying "which is not a matter of conscious choice." and "It ain't a conscious choice." How do either of those statements suggest I am "pretend(ing) everything we like about people is a concious thought". WTF???

Did make the same mistake robj did, assuming that when I said  it was a 'behaviour pattern', that that implied a conscious choice?

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
BobSpence1 wrote:robj101

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Remember, this thread is really about what deserves being regarded as 'abnormal' behaviour, not 'abnormal' births or related anomalies, so your comment about how you regard an abnormal 'egg' is beside the point.

Bob you are probably a good dance partner.

Now being homosexual is just behavior? is it now a purely personal choice? They were not born or made this way by environment or upbringing etc?

It is a behaviour, perhaps more accurately described as a behaviour pattern, as distinct from being a physical attribute.

That has nothing to do it with being a personal choice or not. There will be an element of choice in who to engage with, and how, but the individuals who the person is most attracted to, and the kind of acts which they find most pleasurable, will be strongly influenced by their psychological 'profile' which is not a matter of conscious choice. It is a matter of genetic inheritance, upbringing and personal life experience, as I previously said.

This is entirely consistent with my previous arguments.

When you look at women, do you run some calculations and decide who best fits your current criteria, then crank up the lust and desire mechanism and point it at the one that comes out of the calculations? Or you just find yourself drawn more to some more than others? Don't some just get the juices flowing when you look at them, and some don't? It ain't a conscious choice. It's what works with your particular 'chemistry'. 

There are more attractive and less attractive people, I assume bone structure plays into this as well as a narrow waist and nice hips etc (where women are concerned for me and most guys  probably), ergo subconciously when I look at a woman I am looking for good breeding material. I don't uncociously see good breeding material in other men I suppose, nor do I conciously if I actually think about it.

You can pretend everything we like about people is a concious thought if you like but there is a reason some people are physically attracted to others and it's not all like "hmm I like so n so about that person". It's like an instinctual thing, especially at first glance, the thinking part comes afterwards.

You were saying?

I was saying "which is not a matter of conscious choice." and "It ain't a conscious choice." How do either of those statements suggest I am "pretend(ing) everything we like about people is a concious thought". WTF???

Did make the same mistake robj did, assuming that when I said  it was a 'behaviour pattern', that that implied a conscious choice?

It seems to imply it since you extrapolated that homosexuality could simply be a personal choice and if so it would be going against (as Sandycane suggested) nature.

If however nature does have a hand in it it may not be a concious decison because they were gay at birth or gay from environemental issues and upbringing therefore they might be programmed for homosexuality nulling the "concious" inference I instigated.

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


wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:It's quite

robj101 wrote:

It's quite obvious how the human reproductive system works, there are books and many many studies done on it. I'm fairly certain we understand how it works and how "nature" has set us up for it. No one has actually demonstrated the "benefits" of homosexuality. I think Bob almost tried to relate it to population control with his fertility rate comment but I don't see a direct correlation with it and he pointedly steered away from it.

 

This is why there is no consensus. Your two bolded points have been refuted over and over in this topic. The fact you ignore that seems to me that there is something extracurricular at work here. The biggest failure you're making is understanding how evolution works. Evolution is not simply about the male or female which produces the most offspring. Evolution is about the genes which produce the most offspring, enabling not necessarily the organism itself, but other carriers of the genes (relatives, etc) to pass those genes on to future generations.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

 

1) You presume the only purpose of sex is to bear children. As someone who has studied at university with their major in Biotechnology, not a single scientist will say that the only purpose of human sex is insemination of a man by a woman. The purpose of sex is the survival of the species as a whole (the correct meaning of reproduction on a species-level), and having children is just one aspect of that. Emotional connections which form family units and hierarchy (which homosexuality plays into) have been extremely important to the survival of the great apes, of which humans are part of.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse#Bonding_and_affection

 

2) You presume that homosexuality has no benefit. Biologists tend to reject this, because it is severely unlikely that a trait that is not beneficial would survive in the human population at a relatively high percentage (10-20%). Explanations include the "gay uncle" theory where relatives of homosexuals have more children than others, that carriers of the gene not inflicted by it (heterosexual male or heterosexual females) are given an advantage, and so on and so forth.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Sexual_orientation_and_evolution

 

If you're going to say anything going forward, either agree to those points or acknowledge you depart from mainstream scientific consensus.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3472
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:hell yeah! 

Sandycane wrote:

hell yeah!  one of the sexiest women who ever lived!  not to mention a criminally under-recognized guitar player. 

i play blues guitar myself and i often play open G with a slide, but i wear it on my little finger.  some of the old blues players wore it on their third finger, but she's the only one i've ever seen wear it on her second finger, and i think she even barre chords with it, which is a style i've never tried to imitate.  i'd like to know which player she learned it from.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:BobSpence1

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Remember, this thread is really about what deserves being regarded as 'abnormal' behaviour, not 'abnormal' births or related anomalies, so your comment about how you regard an abnormal 'egg' is beside the point.

Bob you are probably a good dance partner.

Now being homosexual is just behavior? is it now a purely personal choice? They were not born or made this way by environment or upbringing etc?

It is a behaviour, perhaps more accurately described as a behaviour pattern, as distinct from being a physical attribute.

That has nothing to do it with being a personal choice or not. There will be an element of choice in who to engage with, and how, but the individuals who the person is most attracted to, and the kind of acts which they find most pleasurable, will be strongly influenced by their psychological 'profile' which is not a matter of conscious choice. It is a matter of genetic inheritance, upbringing and personal life experience, as I previously said.

This is entirely consistent with my previous arguments.

When you look at women, do you run some calculations and decide who best fits your current criteria, then crank up the lust and desire mechanism and point it at the one that comes out of the calculations? Or you just find yourself drawn more to some more than others? Don't some just get the juices flowing when you look at them, and some don't? It ain't a conscious choice. It's what works with your particular 'chemistry'. 

There are more attractive and less attractive people, I assume bone structure plays into this as well as a narrow waist and nice hips etc (where women are concerned for me and most guys  probably), ergo subconciously when I look at a woman I am looking for good breeding material. I don't uncociously see good breeding material in other men I suppose, nor do I conciously if I actually think about it.

You can pretend everything we like about people is a concious thought if you like but there is a reason some people are physically attracted to others and it's not all like "hmm I like so n so about that person". It's like an instinctual thing, especially at first glance, the thinking part comes afterwards.

You were saying?

I was saying "which is not a matter of conscious choice." and "It ain't a conscious choice." How do either of those statements suggest I am "pretend(ing) everything we like about people is a concious thought". WTF???

Did make the same mistake robj did, assuming that when I said  it was a 'behaviour pattern', that that implied a conscious choice?

It seems to imply it since you extrapolated that homosexuality could simply be a personal choice and if so it would be going against (as Sandycane suggested) nature.

If however nature does have a hand in it it may not be a concious decison because they were gay at birth or gay from environemental issues and upbringing therefore they might be programmed for homosexuality nulling the "concious" inference I instigated.

Show me where I ever implied that homosexuality "could simply be a personal choice". If I seemed to say anything like that, it was either a typo or me getting my sentence construction stuffed up. In any case, how do you square that with me explicitly stating it wasn't a choice, twice in the one post, right there?

And even a 'personal choice' would not necessarily mean "going against nature", since the evidence is that our 'nature' allows for a range of sexual expression, including homosexuality, within which any 'choice' would not be 'against nature". 

Of course 'nature' is involved, since something like 30-40% seems to be genetic.

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