Print

[Dannyboy]

EB,

"The Fall is historically, scientifically and narratively implausible.  That's why so many Christians now regard it as an allegory.  It would take several whole other threads to properly address the problems of treating Genesis literally, so i'll just say that i consider the Fall an extremely poor explanation for anything."

According to question begging evolutionists. And assertions from an atheist don't move me particularly. It was simply to show that such things are indeed within the literal Biblical explanatory which many more Christians accept.

i'm sorry, i should have asked you to give me an intellectually respectable mechanism by which human "sin" might influence (wild) animal behaviour.  Any explanation dependent on the premise that all living things which have ever existed were created along with the universe sometime after the mesopotamians invented the wheel definitely loses points for credibility in all except the most ignorant and/or ideologically blinkered.

"You could say that, but it would simply show that you dont know what you're talking about.  Animals in the wild form same-sex pairings, engage in anal sex, and raise offspring together.  If that isn't homosexuality then nothing is."

Not really, as I have indeed heard arguments that such acts have little to do with 'sex' itself, and can be attributed heavily to conditions of captivity than in the more 'natural' environments.

Wow.  So you've heard arguments that the small percentage of examples in the link i presented which occured in captivity should be excluded.  Obviously your lazy hearsay refutation of a tiny subsection of the evidence i gave you undermines my whole argument.  Congratulations.[/sarcasm]

But regardless animals also masturbate, run around naked, take care of their 'buisness' anywhere they please, and kill/eat each other (and their young sometimes). So I think it's more than fair to point out that the equivalent behaviour of a mongrel dog is not something Mankind should emulate.

You'll need to point out where i have ever suggested that it is.  Counsel of desperation on your part, i think - continuing to attack an argument which i have not made.

"i am not making that argument or anything like it.  i am saying that if animals do it then 1) it is difficult to attribute that to human sin"

Not so difficult in fact.

Right.  The Fall - the original post hoc argument.  Accept no immitations.

"and 2) it is even more difficult to substantiate arguments that homosexuality is a choice and "not natural"."

And there we have it. You deny, yet we can see right here you do indeed point to animal behaviour as being some kind of measuring tool to say 'it's ok', or in this case 'it's just natural'. With the only logical conclusion to 'it's natural' being 'it's ok' (your comment of being natural not being ok addressed below).

In fact it is the anti-gay side of the debate which relentlessly equivocates "natural" with "good" in their continued efforts to demonise the way that homosexuals seek love and companionship.  In demolishing the "It's not natural!" argument i do not necessarily sign up to the moronic assumptions of that position.  "Natural" is so broad and vague a category as to be almost meaningless.  Religious homophobes tend to invoke concepts of design, but i think a generally agreed definition would be something along the lines of doing what we were intended/evolved to do, and nothing else.  Does that mean that what is "natural" for a swan is also "natural" for me?  Of course not, because we evolved/were designed with different purposes/evolutionary niches to fill.  If a certain behaviour is found throughout the animal kingdom, then perhaps we can conclude that it is "natural" in the broad sense that you appear to want to use it, but there still may be exceptions for creatures which live in very specific conditions.  For example, we could say that sex is "natural" for most species, but there are also a significant number of species which reproduce asexually.  Spending most of its time in water is "natural" for a duck, but not for a Koala.  See the distinction?  So there is nothing inconsistent in my saying that, despite the simplistic arguments of the anti-gay fringe, homosexuality is "natural", since it is found widely dispersed throughout the animal kingdom (in the wild), but that not everything that animals do is necessarily "natural" or "good" for humans.

Incidentally, since you are a veritable fountain of misleading talking points on this subject, i suppose i should distinguish between homsexuality and homosexual behaviour just to be entirely clear (although no doubt you will find a way to misrepresent me nevertheless).  Homosexuality is a state of tending to be romantically/sexually attracted to people of the same gender, which is distinct from, but correlates with homosexual behaviour in humans.  The behaviour is a choice, often directed by the innate tendency of homosexuality.  In animals, depending on your views about the relative amounts of free will possessed by different species, we can say that the behaviour correlates more tightly with the state, which is why observed homosexual behaviour in wild animals can be taken as evidence for the existence of the state in those animals.  Since it seems strange to say that these animals just "chose" to behave in that way.

Sadly for you I've yet to know of anyone has been dragged kicking and screaming by their sexual organs, so for human beings, who have the ability to reason and ignore baser impulses, it's more a matter of choice than you'd like to believe.

See above.  Human behaviour is a choice.  The state of homosexuality or heterosexuality is not.  Twin studies show an unarguable genetic component to sexual orientation.

"Not all things that are natural are good, incidentally, something which anti-homosexual writers often appear to forget, but homosexuality is natural in every meaningful sense of the word, and does not appear to be a matter of choice."

Heh. I'd like to see how you justify something that's "natural" according to your guideless evolutionary belief not being "good" at the same time. As if there was some transcendant standard of what constitutes 'good'.

Well, as i have explained, you are using a massively simplified concept of "natural", so you can expect to be confused by the subtleties of reality.  What is "natural" (i might say "evolutionarily selective" in my paradigm) for a sparrow is not necessarily "natural"/"selective" for me or you.  There is definitely some overlap between what is evolutionarily selective (natural) for humans and what is considered morally "good" by humans, because our morality has been subjected to evolutionary pressures in the same way as the rest of us has.  The mistake that you make is to assume that an evolved morality is necessarily a nihilistic one.  Going out and raping every woman i meet might be evolutionarily selective if we were solitary animals with low maintenance babies, but we aren't.  We're communal animals, and the likelihood is that if i did such a thing i would be either imprisoned, exiled or killed (depending on my society) for such behaviour, leading to my genes being less likely to be passed on.  Our morality has evolved in a communal society.

So, to a great extent, what is "natural" for humans is also what is considered "good" by humans, but you are unlikely to grasp that if you stick to the broad-brush cartoon version of what is evolutionarily selective/"natural" for humans.

Incidently this is just more proof by assertion, but it seems you cut your own argument off at the feet DB. If you're going to hold that homosexuality is "natural" and not all natural things being 'good' at the same time, I don't see what leg you have to stand on to support homosexuality as you've made the issue of choice or not being moot.

As usual, you dont see because you are engaging with the argument only at its most superficial level.  Homosexuality is "natural" for most species because it conveys some evolutionary advantage (for example, i dont suppose you read the link i gave you which mentioned homosexual male black swans?  One of them impregnates a female swan, whose eggs the two males then take over, ensuring greater survival of "their" chicks than if a male and female parented them, because male swans can secure more territory than females.  Evolutionary advantage to gay genes right there).  However, as you have so astutely observed, for many species eating their sickly or adopted young is "natural", but would neither be evolutionarily selective, nor considered "good" for humans.  Why?  Because human beings are not all animals, just one sort of animal.

[End Bringer]

i'm sorry, i should have asked you to give me an intellectually respectable mechanism by which human "sin" might influence (wild) animal behaviour.  Any explanation dependent on the premise that all living things which have ever existed were created along with the universe sometime after the mesopotamians invented the wheel definitely loses points for credibility in all except the most ignorant and/or ideologically blinkered.

I think you meant dogmaticly closed-minded mechanism. But like I said before - assertions from question begging atheists/evolutionists don't move me particularly. Why on earth should I opperate under your world view when it doesn't even acknowledge "sin" exists. Just because you say so? Please.

Wow.  So you've heard arguments that the small percentage of examples in the link i presented which occured in captivity should be excluded.  Obviously your lazy hearsay refutation of a tiny subsection of the evidence i gave you undermines my whole argument.  Congratulations.[/sarcasm]

For one thing, I take wikipedia with a grain of salt as far as 'evidence' goes. But I can accept it at face value. It just shows that not all studies have come to the same conclusion you have. Not surprising since so much of it relies on interpretation of what goes on in an animal's head.

You'll need to point out where i have ever suggested that it is.  Counsel of desperation on your part, i think - continuing to attack an argument which i have not made.

More like an argument that can only be the reason why you are so....vehement...in using as support for humans engaging in homosexuality and simply deny for some odd reason. If it wasn't you wouldn't have brought up animal behaviour at all and it's not like I don't know how much you support homosexuality anyway. To you homosexuality is natural. To you homosexuality is 'good'. The connection between 'natural' and 'good' seems pretty clear.

In fact it is the anti-gay side of the debate which relentlessly equivocates "natural" with "good" in their continued efforts to demonise the way that homosexuals seek love and companionship.  In demolishing the "It's not natural!" argument i do not necessarily sign up to the moronic assumptions of that position.

We can see your quotes:

...but homosexuality is natural in every meaningful sense of the word...

So, to a great extent, what is "natural" for humans is also what is considered "good" by humans

It's plain to see you are opperating under the same equivocation. Otherwise you STILL have a problem of why homosexuality shouldn't be considered "bad" even if it IS "natural" in which case your 'demolishment' is irrelevant.

"Natural" is so broad and vague a category as to be almost meaningless.

It's natural in every meaningful meaningless sense of the word then?

Religious homophobes tend to invoke concepts of design, but i think a generally agreed definition would be something along the lines of doing what we were intended/evolved to do, and nothing else.  Does that mean that what is "natural" for a swan is also "natural" for me?  Of course not, because we evolved/were designed with different purposes/evolutionary niches to fill.

Now this just shows you don't know what you're talking about. As evolution is indeed a blanketing explanatory for the behaviour of all species. Not the least of which being that the 'purpose' of all life is simply to reproduce. Something that leaves homosexuality a little flat-footed.

If a certain behaviour is found throughout the animal kingdom, then perhaps we can conclude that it is "natural" in the broad sense that you appear to want to use it, but there still may be exceptions for creatures which live in very specific conditions.  For example, we could say that sex is "natural" for most species, but there are also a significant number of species which reproduce asexually.  Spending most of its time in water is "natural" for a duck, but not for a Koala.  See the distinction?  So there is nothing inconsistent in my saying that, despite the simplistic arguments of the anti-gay fringe, homosexuality is "natural", since it is found widely dispersed throughout the animal kingdom (in the wild), but that not everything that animals do is necessarily "natural" or "good" for humans.

I see you are trying to bait-and-switch between the more material differences of physical biology and the more immaterial differences of behaviour. And again we see despite your derision about "simplistic arguments" of natural=good you continue to advocate homosexuality is in the same catagory of being as natural/good as a duck in water. Almost as if it was indeed some kind of justification for being acceptable, and then simply give an ad hoc when it comes to what else can logically follow to be called 'natural' behaviour. So you still have yet to give a true standard between your stance of when 'natural=good' and 'natural=bad'.

Incidentally, since you are a veritable fountain of misleading talking points on this subject, i suppose i should distinguish between homsexuality and homosexual behaviour just to be entirely clear (although no doubt you will find a way to misrepresent me nevertheless).  Homosexuality is a state of tending to be romantically/sexually attracted to people of the same gender, which is distinct from, but correlates with homosexual behaviour in humans.  The behaviour is a choice, often directed by the innate tendency of homosexuality.  In animals, depending on your views about the relative amounts of free will possessed by different species, we can say that the behaviour correlates more tightly with the state, which is why observed homosexual behaviour in wild animals can be taken as evidence for the existence of the state in those animals.  Since it seems strange to say that these animals just "chose" to behave in that way.

Well there are some points needing clarification - Is it your position that 'romantic attraction' is equivolent to just physical sex? Otherwise your comment about seeking love and companionship seems out of context seeing how technically the physical act is not dependant on such things.

See above.  Human behaviour is a choice.  The state of homosexuality or heterosexuality is not.  Twin studies show an unarguable genetic component to sexual orientation.

I've yet to see any study be unarguable. But I think summing up a person's inclination towards homosexuality (or the various catagories of promiscuity) to simply genes to be on the simplistic side. Environmental conditioning being a more substantial influence since someone who has grown up with an entire culture that says 'do it like you do it on Discovery channel' from birth to puberty isn't going to see a problem with promiscuity.

But I would disagree that the state not being a matter of choice strongly simply because in many cases the amount of homosexuals who were solely attracted to one gender and repulsed by the other is virtually nonexistant; many having some degree of bisexuality. So I think the amount of homosexuals who aren't as unwilling to engage with the opposite gender as much as heterosexuals are unwilling to engage with the same gender would indeed indicate just how much personal choice plays a role.

The mistake that you make is to assume that an evolved morality is necessarily a nihilistic one.  Going out and raping every woman i meet might be evolutionarily selective if we were solitary animals with low maintenance babies, but we aren't.  We're communal animals, and the likelihood is that if i did such a thing i would be either imprisoned, exiled or killed (depending on my society) for such behaviour, leading to my genes being less likely to be passed on.  Our morality has evolved in a communal society.

Well for one thing, I can't make a mistake in assuming that an evolved morality is a nihilistic one since I don't hold morality evolved. That's you assuming everyone opperates under the same beliefs you do. Another is that given not all societies share the same views (there are those who have and continue to think women are property and 'rape' is just fine), nor is societal law absolute as rape does indeed exist your explanations seem to be just massive question begging that is naive to reality.

So, to a great extent, what is "natural" for humans is also what is considered "good" by humans, but you are unlikely to grasp that if you stick to the broad-brush cartoon version of what is evolutionarily selective/"natural" for humans.

All I'm likely to grasp is how contradicting and paradoxical your views are if the only explanation you give is 'evolution developed the behaviour in humans and simultaneously developed to refrain from the behaviour in humans'. It should be noted you don't really give an evolutionary explanatory to refrain, but one that's based on the opinions of society (which is fickle to say the least). And strictly under evolution is you were 'fit' enough society would be unable to impede you making for a very compelling/disturbing argument that things like rape is indeed "good" for humans.

However, as you have so astutely observed, for many species eating their sickly or adopted young is "natural", but would neither be evolutionarily selective, nor considered "good" for humans.  Why?  Because human beings are not all animals, just one sort of animal.

Interestingly enough that's MY stance. Human beings are unique from all other animals. Thus shouldn't behave like animals. If you aren't too careful DB your views may get remarkably Christiany. 

Your problem is that you give no distinction for why homosexuality in humans is not to be viewed as the same "bad" as eating one's young. You refrence some evolutionary advantage in some species as the only standard of "good" so far, but have yet to refrence any in human beings (and the amount of diseases attributed to promiscuity making that argument far fetched). And again despite your denials, the only way you seem to be able to point to homosexuality being "good" for human beings is to point to it being "natural" for humans as it is in other species (opening up that can of worms about what else is "natural" for other species). Proving my earlier assesment that you do the same equivocating of 'natural=good' as the anti-gay arguments you mock, with your only reasoning being something along the lines of 'it's natural/good for one species, but not others except when it mysteriously is'.

[Dannyboy]

I think you meant dogmaticly closed-minded mechanism.

   EB, the primary (many would say "only") evidence for your scientific position on the origin of the universe is 2,500 year old writings entrenched as unquestionable "fact" by the use of torture, conquest and oppression by the Christian Church.  You're talking to me about dogma?

Why on earth should I opperate under your world view when it doesn't even acknowledge "sin" exists. Just because you say so? Please.

You're under no obligation to operate under my worldview, irrespective of whether or not it endorses any of your church's metaphysical inventions.  Please feel free not to, especially since i didn't suggest that you should.

"In fact it is the anti-gay side of the debate which relentlessly equivocates "natural" with "good" in their continued efforts to demonise the way that homosexuals seek love and companionship.  In demolishing the "It's not natural!" argument i do not necessarily sign up to the moronic assumptions of that position."

It's plain to see you are opperating under the same equivocation. Otherwise you STILL have a problem of why homosexuality shouldn't be considered "bad" even if it IS "natural" in which case your 'demolishment' is irrelevant.

One step at a time.  i haven't made any argument for homosexuality being "good" (yet), only addressed the poor quality of some of the reasons which many people give for considering it bad.  You're reading far too much into my words.

""Natural" is so broad and vague a category as to be almost meaningless."

It's natural in every meaningful meaningless sense of the word then?

   It [homosexuality] is natural in the sense of being widespread in the animal kingdom.  i consider most other definitions of "natural" used in this context to be meaningless, but feel free to support a different definition if you think i'm missing an important one.

"Religious homophobes tend to invoke concepts of design, but i think a generally agreed definition would be something along the lines of doing what we were intended/evolved to do, and nothing else.  Does that mean that what is "natural" for a swan is also "natural" for me?  Of course not, because we evolved/were designed with different purposes/evolutionary niches to fill."

Now this just shows you don't know what you're talking about. As evolution is indeed a blanketing explanatory for the behaviour of all species. Not the least of which being that the 'purpose' of all life is simply to reproduce. Something that leaves homosexuality a little flat-footed.

That's precisely as idiotic as saying that because the purpose of all directions is to enable you to reach your destination that there is therefore no difference between the directions from Barcelona to Madrid and the directions from Nashville to Phoenix.  Although the overriding purpose of life in an evolutionary paradigm is to reproduce itself, there are many many different strategies for doing so, and things which contribute to the implementations of those individual strategies will be evolutionarily selective.  You are really denying that swans and humans differ at all in their means of perpetuating their genes?

And again we see despite your derision about "simplistic arguments" of natural=good you continue to advocate homosexuality is in the same catagory. Almost as if it was some kind of justification for being acceptable.

*sigh*  All i am saying is that it is incoherent to describe homosexuality as "unnatural" when it is present throughout the animal kingdom.  The rest is your interpretation.

Is it your position that 'romantic attraction' is equivolent to just physical sex? Otherwise your comment about seeking love and companionship seems out of context seeing how technically the physical act is not dependant on such things.

Love and monogamous companionship is clearly not the same thing as physical sex, although they obviously do quite often exist in the same relationships.  Not sure what your issue is here.

I think summing up a person's inclination towards homosexuality (or the various catagories of promiscuity) to simply genes to be on the simplistic side. Environmental conditioning being a more substantial influence since someone who has grown up with an entire culture that says 'do it like you do it on Discovery channel' from birth to puberty isn't going to see a problem with promiscuity.

i did not say that sexual orientation was solely the result of genetic influences (otherwise monozygotic twins would always have identical sexuality).  i said it had been shown to be a component.  Environmental factors, whether conditions in the womb or in early life, clearly also have a large role to play.  Nice equivocation of homosexuality with promiscuity by the way.  Care to substantiate that?

But I would disagree that the state not being a matter of choice strongly simply because in many cases the amount of homosexuals who were solely attracted to one gender and repulsed by the other is virtually nonexistant; many having some degree of bisexuality. So I think the amount of homosexuals who aren't as unwilling to engage with the opposite gender as much as heterosexuals would indeed indicate with just how much personal choice plays a role.

i could make exactly the same (bravely unreferenced) argument to demonstrate that left-handed people chose to be "southpaws" because so many of them can also write with their right hands.  Growing up in a culture which expects and specifically caters for heterosexuality/right-handedness tends to encourage conformity even in those whose natural tendencies go in a different direction, especially when, in both cases, nonconformity with the prevailing norm is socially stigmatised.

You obviously know a lot of gay people.

Well for one thing, I can't make a mistake in assuming that an evolved morality is a nihilistic one since I don't hold morality evolved. That's you assuming everyone opperates under the same beliefs you do.

Really?  You're going to demand that i justify how something can be natural under my "guideless evolutionary belief" and then slate me for discussing the issue with those assumptions?  And how is commenting on your understanding of my worldview synonymous with assuming that everyone thinks the same as i do?  i'll assume that you drifted off at this stage of your post and were just spewing invective on automatic.  Either that or you have an insecure tendency to assume that people are dismissing your worldview whenever they discuss their own (since i notice that you made the same accusation early in the post).

Another is that given not all societies share the same views (there are those who have and continue to think women are property and 'rape' is just fine), nor is societal law absolute as rape does indeed exist your explanations seem to be just massive question begging that is naive to reality.

And different societies' moral codes are a good microcosmal example of different paths to the same evolutionary goal.  Forcibly coopting women into pregnancy and childrearing is a way of ensuring the survival of one's offspring if everyone else is doing it too.  i guarantee you there is no society where it is acceptable for men to rape any woman they like, because the rule that will prevail is what is evolutionarily selective for the majority (because if it isn't then the majority will punish it).  And the existence of people who buck societies' rules is no counterargument to an evolved morality.  Unless it's also a counterargument to an absolute morality.

It should be noted you don't really give an evolutionary explanatory to refrain, but one that's based on the opinions of society (which is fickle to say the least). And strictly under evolution is you were 'fit' enough society would be unable to impede you making for a very compelling/disturbing argument that things like rape is indeed "good" for humans.

Please feel free to make that argument, within an evolutionary paradigm if you can stretch your principles that far.  i'll point out where you make your mistake(s).

"However, as you have so astutely observed, for many species eating their sickly or adopted young is "natural", but would neither be evolutionarily selective, nor considered "good" for humans.  Why?  Because human beings are not all animals, just one sort of animal."

Interestingly enough that's MY stance. Human beings are unique from all other animals. Thus shouldn't behave like animals. If you aren't too careful DB your views may get remarkably Christiany. 

That wasn't really what i said.  Humans are unique in many ways, but then so is the duck-billed platypus.  And i dont think calling human beings "a sort of animal" would endear me to many of your contemporaries.

Your problem is that you give no distinction for why homosexuality in humans is not to be viewed as the same "bad" as eating one's young.

   i'm sorry, you're saying that my problem is that i have not given a counter argument to a moronic position which you have yet to positively support?  If you are asking for an evolutionary explanation why homosexuality has been preserved in human beings while infanticide has largely not, i would say that the conditions under which infanticide is observed in other animals (dominant male taking over a group including females nurturing other males' offspring, for example) largely do not apply in human societies.  If you're asking for a strictly moral explanation then i think you need to ask yourself precisely who is hurt by homosexuality between consenting adults.

You refrence some evolutionary advantage in some species as the only standard of "good" so far, but have yet to refrence any in human beings (and the amount of diseases attributed to promiscuity making that argument far fetched).

Again the unthinking equivocation of homosexuality with promiscuity.  Do you have any support for this premise other than the standard "everyone knows that gays sleep around"?

So do you concede the swan example as a way that homosexuality could conceivably be passed on as an evolutionarily advantageous trait in some species?  i ask because i'm not going to waste my time presenting more evidence if you are unable to recognise it when it's in front of you.

And again despite your denials, the only way you seem to be able to point to homosexuality being "good" for human beings is to point to it being "natural" for humans as it is in other species (opening up that can of worms about what else is "natural" for other species).

As i said, i have not actually made any argument that homosexuality is "good", only presented evidence against your (and other people's) arguments that it is "bad".  And (as i have also already said) the idea that "natural" is some sort of homogenous universal principle applicable to all kinds of animal behaviour is deliberately and artificially simplistic.  For you to suggest that by referring to homosexuality as natural since it exists in many different animal species i am committed to endorsing any and all animal behaviour as "natural" and therefore recommended for human beings is (characteristically) intellectually dishonest.

[End Bringer]

  EB, the primary (many would say "only") evidence for your scientific position on the origin of the universe is 2,500 year old writings entrenched as unquestionable "fact" by the use of torture, conquest and oppression by the Christian Church.  You're talking to me about dogma?

Oh absolutely, given that events in history can not be verified by science in any meaningful way. So I would indeed say that dogmaticly closed-minded would be the apt description, especially when you back it up with finger pointing at the other side (not that I concede your assesment of history is in any way accurate).

One step at a time.  i haven't made any argument for homosexuality being "good" (yet), only addressed the poor quality of some of the reasons which many people give for considering it bad.  You're reading far too much into my words.

Oh please. I think the year or so of debating with each other would give some establishment. With you giving very clear support of homosexuality when issues like Dumbledore's sexual orientation come up and such. So given that this isn't our first wrestling match, why pretend like I don't know where you're going? Is being transparent really such a blow to your argument? Or did you really think I wouldn't notice you are dodging the issue?

That's precisely as idiotic as saying that because the purpose of all directions is to enable you to reach your destination that there is therefore no difference between the directions from Barcelona to Madrid and the directions from Nashville to Phoenix. Although the overriding purpose of life in an evolutionary paradigm is to reproduce itself, there are many many different strategies for doing so, and things which contribute to the implementations of those individual strategies will be evolutionarily selective.  You are really denying that swans and humans differ at all in their means of perpetuating their genes?

Beyond just arbitrary physical differences? None that's relevant to the matter of immaterial behaviour. Especially since you concede behaviour is a matter of choice for humans, thus the choice to act more like swans is entirely within mankind's ability. But also because we see right below you hold behaviour as being "natural" for humans simply because it's present throughout the animal kingdom. And if one is present throughout the animal kingdom to indicate it's "natural" for humans it seems others can be as well. All you do is pick and choose similarities and differences when it suits the behaviour you personally like or dislike.

Another issue being why those differences you invoke should matter in refraining from similar behaviour? I can point to rodents and wolf spiders both engaging in infanticide despite differences. I can also point to the similar behaviour between baboons (an animal with many similarities to humans) and rodents despite differences. So exactly why should any differing features between swans and humans matter when such differences clearly don't seem to when comparing behaviour by other species?

*sigh*  All i am saying is that it is incoherent to describe homosexuality as "unnatural" when it is present throughout the animal kingdom.  The rest is your interpretation.

Well apparently being present throughout the animal kingdom is no longer a measurement for being "natural" for human beings according to you; except when you say it is. Really which is it DB? The homosexual behaviour being "natural" for swans doesn't make it "natural" for human beings, or does it? Because no matter what you say about my understanding you ARE swinging back and forth on this.

i could make exactly the same (bravely unreferenced) argument to demonstrate that left-handed people chose to be "southpaws" because so many of them can also write with their right hands.  Growing up in a culture which expects and specifically caters for heterosexuality/right-handedness tends to encourage conformity even in those whose natural tendencies go in a different direction, especially when, in both cases, nonconformity with the prevailing norm is socially stigmatised.

Aww, but it hasn't been established that homosexuality IS a natural tendency since you admit evironmental influence is a factor and the behaviour a choice. Your twin studies being refrenced with the same level of bravery.

Really?  You're going to demand that i justify how something can be natural under my "guideless evolutionary belief" and then slate me for discussing the issue with those assumptions?

I believe I demanded how something that's "natural" under your "guideless evolutionary belief" isn't 'good' at the same time.

And different societies' moral codes are a good microcosmal example of different paths to the same evolutionary goal.  Forcibly coopting women into pregnancy and childrearing is a way of ensuring the survival of one's offspring if everyone else is doing it too.

Question begging.

i guarantee you there is no society where it is acceptable for men to rape any woman they like, because the rule that will prevail is what is evolutionarily selective for the majority (because if it isn't then the majority will punish it).  And the existence of people who buck societies' rules is no counterargument to an evolved morality.  Unless it's also a counterargument to an absolute morality.

Funny how you can hold behaviour as a matter of choice, yet question beg everything as evolutionarily selective. Does the possibility that people don't choose to do what's evolutionarily best ever cross your mind, or is 'evolutionarily selective' carte blanche? And your ad populum argument misses the fact that majority means little if the minority is 'fitter' than everyone else. Under evolution might is the only thing that makes right.

Please feel free to make that argument, within an evolutionary paradigm if you can stretch your principles that far.  i'll point out where you make your mistake(s).

You seem to make it for me above. You simply give an ad populum as a reason to refrain rather than any true evolutionary reason.

That wasn't really what i said.  Humans are unique in many ways, but then so is the duck-billed platypus.  And i dont think calling human beings "a sort of animal" would endear me to many of your contemporaries.

Yes, I know. Humans are different and then similar depending on when you personally need to invoke either.

  i'm sorry, you're saying that my problem is that i have not given a counter argument to a moronic position which you have yet to positively support? If you are asking for an evolutionary explanation why homosexuality has been preserved in human beings while infanticide has largely not, i would say that the conditions under which infanticide is observed in other animals (dominant male taking over a group including females nurturing other males' offspring, for example) largely do not apply in human societies.  If you're asking for a strictly moral explanation then i think you need to ask yourself precisely who is hurt by homosexuality between consenting adults.

The consenting adults if STDs are any indication.

But who says the conditions observed in animals doesn't exist or is even needed for human beings? I can easily point out abortion as a form of killing at least a potential infant (opperating under terms that will hopefully accommodate you), then it seems that undisputable infanticide for humans would opperate under the exact same reasoning (and HAS been advocated by evolutionsts). Merely being a matter of timing.

And just as I've debated with you long enough to know you support homosexuality as 'good' I know you support abortion as well. So we can see animals commit infanticide as they do homosexuality. Human beings commit infanticide (of a sort) as they do homosexuality. Seems under your reasoning and belief you should give actualy infanticide the same passionate support you do homosexuality, no? If not, exactly what reason do you have to go against everything you say you believe and support?

Again the unthinking equivocation of homosexuality with promiscuity.  Do you have any support for this premise other than the standard "everyone knows that gays sleep around"?

Are you going to keep dodging with irrelevancies?

So do you concede the swan example as a way that homosexuality could conceivably be passed on as an evolutionarily advantageous trait in some species?  i ask because i'm not going to waste my time presenting more evidence if you are unable to recognise it when it's in front of you.

It's a nonissue as far as I'm concerned. Mostly because it seems almost any and all behaviour that's short of total species suicide can be called 'evolutionarily advantageous' (and because your example showed heterosexual reproduction and simply single sex caretaking). You showed THAT when you argued raping and not raping is advantageous at the same time.

As i said, i have not actually made any argument that homosexuality is "good", only presented evidence against your (and other people's) arguments that it is "bad".

Oh that's rich. 'Natural=good is artificially simplistic, but natural=against bad is intellectually acceptable.' Great distinction DB! 

And (as i have also already said) the idea that "natural" is some sort of homogenous universal principle applicable to all kinds of animal behaviour is deliberately and artificially simplistic.

Must be why evolutionists have taken pains to use it.

For you to suggest that by referring to homosexuality as natural since it exists in many different animal species i am committed to endorsing any and all animal behaviour as "natural" and therefore recommended for human beings is (characteristically) intellectually dishonest.

Oh, I know you aren't actually commiting to it. Like I said it would open up a really big can of worms if you did. I'm saying it's the logical and sensible conclusion to your 'evidence against arguments that it is "bad"'. I never expected you to be logical. 

[Dannyboy]

i'm going to try and streamline some of the issues which are coming up repeatedly.

You have continually accused me of trying to smuggle in arguments that homosexuality is good on the basis that you think you already know my position on the subject.  This is at best confused and at worst deliberate obfuscation of the issues we are discussing.  i may know that you believe in God, but that wouldn't justify me in assuming that you were making a case for his existence when all you were doing was pointing out the flaws in an atheistic argument.  It is entirely possible and coherent to separate the critique of an argument against something from a positive statement in its favour, and it may often simplify things to do so.  So, in short, quit muddying the waters and address what i am actually saying, not what you think i secretly mean.  When i am making an argument in favour of homosexuality i will let you know.

Secondly, you dismiss it as "irrelevant" when i challenge your repeated conflation of homosexuality with promiscuity, but since it appears to be the root of your (thus far expressed) practical objections to homosexuality it is something that you actually do need to address.  Can you present any evidence that gay people are more promiscuous, or get more STDs than the equivalent heterosexual population?

On the subject of "natural", you have accused me of changing the meaning to suit my own wishes, rather than maintaining a consistent standard.  Again, i think this is partly because you interpret me to be making a positive case for homosexuality based on its "naturalness", which i have not done.  What i have said is that homosexuality cannot be coherently said to be "unnatural" because it is found throughout the animal kingdom.  That is entirely separate from any discussion of its rightness or wrongness, and i have resisted any attempt to equivocate "natural" as necessarily also meaning "good".  You could say, for example, that murder is a very natural act, since it also occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

So, "natural" is not synonymous with "good", although as i have said, there is some overlap with regards to human beings having an evolved morality in my worldview.  The complicating factor is that we no longer live with the circumstances in which our society and our consciousness evolved.  Obviously i dont expect you to agree with that, but you should understand that - unlike you - my personal morality is not solely informed by my view of where we came from.

  "EB, the primary (many would say "only") evidence for your scientific position on the origin of the universe is 2,500 year old writings entrenched as unquestionable "fact" by the use of torture, conquest and oppression by the Christian Church.  You're talking to me about dogma?"

Oh absolutely, given that events in history can not be verified by science in any meaningful way. So I would indeed say that dogmaticly closed-minded would be the apt description, especially when you back it up with finger pointing at the other side (not that I concede your assesment of history is in any way accurate).

"In any meaningful way"?  "In any way which fits the chronology that i am religiously committed to" is what i think you mean.     Actually the comparison of evidence from the fields of radiometric dating, paleontology, geochronology and archaeology gives us precisely the same rigorous methods of hypothesis testing as exist in the scientific study of reproducible events.  And if you dispute my assessment of history then i would suggest reading a little more widely.  You could start with looking into the bloody conquest of the New World by European Christians.  "Holocaust" is not an overstatement.

"i could make exactly the same (bravely unreferenced) argument to demonstrate that left-handed people chose to be "southpaws" because so many of them can also write with their right hands.  Growing up in a culture which expects and specifically caters for heterosexuality/right-handedness tends to encourage conformity even in those whose natural tendencies go in a different direction, especially when, in both cases, nonconformity with the prevailing norm is socially stigmatised."

Aww, but it hasn't been established that homosexuality IS a natural tendency since you admit evironmental influence is a factor and the behaviour a choice. Your twin studies being refrenced with the same level of bravery.

i assume that "aww" is your compassionate Christian response to those affected by stigmatisation.  Jeez, whatever happened to 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'?  i mean, i know it's an interpolation and never really happened, but it's one of the better parts of the Christian tradition, i would have thought.

As for the twin studies, read this for a start.  There are many conditions which have a some genetic component, demonstrated partly by twin studies, and some environmental influences (schizophrenia, autism etc), but the false dichotomy you appear to present here is that something is either 100% genetic, like Huntington's Disease, or else it is a matter of free choice.  Would you say that schizophrenia, or the height that you are is a matter of choice?

Funny how you can hold behaviour as a matter of choice, yet question beg everything as evolutionarily selective. Does the possibility that people don't choose to do what's evolutionarily best ever cross your mind, or is 'evolutionarily selective' carte blanche?

Things always have to be black and white for you dont they.  My choices are influenced by a number of things, one of which is my personality.  My personality is influenced by a number of things, one of which is my genetic make-up.  My genetic make-up was kept in the gene pool (under an evolutionary paradigm) because of its likelihood to inspire choices compatible with perpetuating itself to future generations.  What part of that is difficult to understand?

And your ad populum argument misses the fact that majority means little if the minority is 'fitter' than everyone else. Under evolution might is the only thing that makes right.

Ad populum means arguing that something is right because most people think it is right, not arguing that society regulates the behaviour of individuals by punishing actions which negatively impact on the interests of the majority.  And for what you are suggesting to work, the nonconformist individuals would have to be nonspecifically "fitter" than the rest of his society put together, which is intrinsically unlikely.  The majority is always mightier.

"Please feel free to make that argument, within an evolutionary paradigm if you can stretch your principles that far.  i'll point out where you make your mistake(s)."

You seem to make it for me above. You simply give an ad populum as a reason to refrain rather than any true evolutionary reason.

For goodness sake EB, for mass rape to be evolutionarily selective in human society the advantage of monopolising many women against their will would have to outweigh the advantages of mutual orgasms to the likelihood of fertilisation, the cooperative effort of two parents working together to ensure the survival of the foetus and the developing child, and the support of ones immediate social group (rather than the active hostility of other men who may not want "their" women raped by another) in ensuring neonatal and infant survival.  If we were solitary creatures whose offspring needed little or no nurturing during their early years then the arithmetic might stack up differently, but our evolved biology mandates certain social conventions which encourage pair-bonding and discourage antisocial acts like rape.  As you observed, this does not translate into an absolute prohibition against rape under any circumstances - in some human societies rape within marriage is positively encouraged - but only where its advantages are not outweighed by the advantages of acting in a less unilateral way.  You're just getting lazy now.

But who says the conditions observed in animals doesn't exist or is even needed for human beings? I can easily point out abortion as a form of killing at least a potential infant (opperating under terms that will hopefully accommodate you), then it seems that undisputable infanticide for humans would opperate under the exact same reasoning (and HAS been advocated by evolutionsts). Merely being a matter of timing.

Well, clearly i'm going to have to choose my words very carefully here otherwise i'll be accused of all sorts of things, but i dont substantially disagree with you.  Pregnant female mice have been observed to have an increased rate of spontaneous miscarriage when placed into an enclosure with a new male (i.e. not the father of their foetuses), and then go on to mate with the new male.  This is known as the Bruce Effect.  i would assume that this is evolutionarily selective because the advantages of having baby mice with the male mouse who you're (presumably) going to be spending all your time with from now on outweigh the disadvantages of abandoning a pregnancy which is already underway.  It may be that the "illegitimate" (in Mr New Mouse's eyes) baby mice would be killed and eaten by him anyway, so what's the point in carrying them to term?

You could say that a similar unconscious evolutionary calculation takes place when a young woman considers whether to abort an unwanted pregnancy.  Unlike the mouse, she has an external mechanism at her disposal, and rather more complex considerations given the fact that she no longer lives in the situation in which her evolutionary drives evolved in.  In our society, the baby of a single, socially isolated girl is very unlikely to die in infancy (although more likely to do so than the baby of a rich educated married woman), but 10,000 years ago?  It wouldn't have much of a chance.  What i think people dont realise is that our brains are playing catch-up with a modern society which they are in many ways not equipped to deal with.

Anyway, so yes, from the point of view of our ancestors, abortion (and perhaps also infanticide) may have sometimes been evolutionarily selective (save the resources needed to carry a baby to term until you're in the position to give it a better chance of surviving to adulthood).  That is very different from arguing in favour of abortion or infanticide on an evolutionary basis.

So we can see animals commit infanticide as they do homosexuality. Human beings commit infanticide (of a sort) as they do homosexuality. Seems under your reasoning and belief you should give actualy infanticide the same passionate support you do homosexuality, no? If not, exactly what reason do you have to go against everything you say you believe and support?

Hang on, let me check the Evilutionist Handbook.     Oh hang on, that's right - i am not committed to defending whatever idiocy you insist i must believe and support.

Again, i am not using the "natural" argument in favour of homosexuality.  i have not made any argument in favour of homosexuality, only critiqued arguments against it.  Nor is anyone who believes that evolution is how we got here committed to advocating the morality of continuing in exactly the same way in the future.  i could coherently believe that we evolved and not want to have children.  Or is that impossible in your eyes?

"So do you concede the swan example as a way that homosexuality could conceivably be passed on as an evolutionarily advantageous trait in some species?  i ask because i'm not going to waste my time presenting more evidence if you are unable to recognise it when it's in front of you."

It's a nonissue as far as I'm concerned. Mostly because it seems almost any and all behaviour that's short of total species suicide can be called 'evolutionarily advantageous' (and because your example showed heterosexual reproduction and simply single sex caretaking).

What were you expecting?  Homosexual reproduction?  You're dodging, predictably, when faced with evidence contrary to your beliefs.  Let's try again.  Given this documented behaviour by male swans, can you admit that this would be a possible way in which homosexual genes could be passed on as being evolutionarily advantageous?  Answer without mentioning what you think i think about it if possible.

"And (as i have also already said) the idea that "natural" is some sort of homogenous universal principle applicable to all kinds of animal behaviour is deliberately and artificially simplistic."

Must be why evolutionists have taken pains to use it.

Ah, so that's where you got the infanticide thing from.  Unless you want to be challenged to answer for any loopy thing any Christian has ever said (think of those rich pickings!) then i take it that this is just a rhetorical gesture rather than any kind of actual point.  The article itself is hardly a balanced look at the topic, and makes precisely the same fallacy that you do - namely that if people criticise arguments that homosexuality is "unnatural" then they must therefore subscribe to any and all animal behaviour being recommended for humans.  The last paragraph similarly fails to grasp that different species have different evolutionary pressures acting on them, and that women killing and eating their lovers after sex would only be selective in a species for whom the input of a father was of little or no advantage during childrearing, which is clearly not the case with humans.  Poorly thought-out choir-preaching, in other words.

[Dannyboy]

It has just occurred to me that the question of whether homosexuality is "unnatural" is a slightly different question from whether homosexuality is "unnatural" for humans, and that the difference is larger for someone of your worldview (which holds humans as being quite separate and distinct from animals) than for someone of mine (for whom the addition of "for humans" only makes the question a bit more specific, rather than a whole different kind of question), and that perhaps this is causing some of the apparent miscommunication we are having on the subject.  Just something to bear in mind.

[End Bringer]

You have continually accused me of trying to smuggle in arguments that homosexuality is good on the basis that you think you already know my position on the subject.  This is at best confused and at worst deliberate obfuscation of the issues we are discussing.  i may know that you believe in God, but that wouldn't justify me in assuming that you were making a case for his existence when all you were doing was pointing out the flaws in an atheistic argument.  It is entirely possible and coherent to separate the critique of an argument against something from a positive statement in its favour, and it may often simplify things to do so.  So, in short, quit muddying the waters and address what i am actually saying, not what you think i secretly mean.  When i am making an argument in favour of homosexuality i will let you know.

Heh. No. I can concede one can critique an argument without necessarily positively supporting another position, but that doesn't apply in this case. For one thing, your derision in the Ideological Introductions thread and throughout your argument makes things pretty clear. But another is that I've already stated the support was implicit in the beginning. With the only thing seperating it from being explicit is your bizzare denial of "natural", which you DO positively support, being "good".

Secondly, you dismiss it as "irrelevant" when i challenge your repeated conflation of homosexuality with promiscuity, but since it appears to be the root of your (thus far expressed) practical objections to homosexuality it is something that you actually do need to address.  Can you present any evidence that gay people are more promiscuous, or get more STDs than the equivalent heterosexual population?

It IS irrelevant, but I'll oblige anyway. My conflation is due to the design mind set and the observable consequence of sexual behaviour (no matter how many partners) outside a heterosexual monogamous relationship. Because the fact is homosexuality IS more at risk and receptive to STDs than a monogamous heterosexual relationship. Which is indicative of the act being "unnatural" for humans (your argument of 'swans doing it too' being cut off at the legs).

On the subject of "natural", you have accused me of changing the meaning to suit my own wishes, rather than maintaining a consistent standard.

You misunderstood. I'm not accusing you of changing the meaning. I'm accusing you of cherry picking when similarities in the animal kingdom allow you to say it's "natural" for human beings, and when the differences allow you to say it's "unnatural".

Again, i think this is partly because you interpret me to be making a positive case for homosexuality based on its "naturalness", which i have not done.  What i have said is that homosexuality cannot be coherently said to be "unnatural" because it is found throughout the animal kingdom.

Except when other behaviours like infanticide and intra-species feeding is found throughout the animal kingdom. Then it CAN be coherently said to be "unnatural" for humans, right?

So, "natural" is not synonymous with "good", although as i have said, there is some overlap with regards to human beings having an evolved morality in my worldview.  The complicating factor is that we no longer live with the circumstances in which our society and our consciousness evolved.  Obviously i dont expect you to agree with that, but you should understand that - unlike you - my personal morality is not solely informed by my view of where we came from.

Nope, not buying a simple denial that allows you to support one behaviour (because it IS clear you think homosexuality is 'ok'), then avoid other logically supportive behaviour based on mere whim. And I know very well you are contradicting in your beliefs, DB. It's why I try to have you face them so you don't have to be so frustrated by it.

"In any meaningful way"?  "In any way which fits the chronology that i am religiously committed to" is what i think you mean.     Actually the comparison of evidence from the fields of radiometric dating, paleontology, geochronology and archaeology gives us precisely the same rigorous methods of hypothesis testing as exist in the scientific study of reproducible events.  And if you dispute my assessment of history then i would suggest reading a little more widely.  You could start with looking into the bloody conquest of the New World by European Christians.  "Holocaust" is not an overstatement.

In the "meanignful way" of testing and observing so-called 'millions of years of evolution' in a repeatable fashion. You know, science? With each and every field you list having to do more with interpretation and guess work than anything else. Which amounts to saying because of Neil Armstrong's landing we can now 'scientificly prove' human beings landed on the moon a million years ago. Unless you think it was a sham. Which isn't that far-fetched given you conspiratorial views of history where Christianity is concerned.

i assume that "aww" is your compassionate Christian response to those affected by stigmatisation.

I think that's your self-esteem reading too much into it. 

As for the twin studies, read this for a start.  There are many conditions which have a some genetic component, demonstrated partly by twin studies, and some environmental influences (schizophrenia, autism etc), but the false dichotomy you appear to present here is that something is either 100% genetic, like Huntington's Disease, or else it is a matter of free choice.  Would you say that schizophrenia, or the height that you are is a matter of choice?

No I hear what your saying in genetics being just a factor. Not that it matters particularly with my views of 'born in sin' not being a matter of choice, and behaviour is a matter of choice (which you concede). So the issue is a bit moot to me.

Things always have to be black and white for you dont they.  My choices are influenced by a number of things, one of which is my personality.  My personality is influenced by a number of things, one of which is my genetic make-up.  My genetic make-up was kept in the gene pool (under an evolutionary paradigm) because of its likelihood to inspire choices compatible with perpetuating itself to future generations.  What part of that is difficult to understand?

Beleiving truth isn't relative does make things clear cut. But it just confirms that no matter what choice is made it's all evolutionarily selective in your view; making it all rather unfalsifiable. Which is a bit unscientific, no?

Ad populum means arguing that something is right because most people think it is right, not arguing that society regulates the behaviour of individuals by punishing actions which negatively impact on the interests of the majority.  And for what you are suggesting to work, the nonconformist individuals would have to be nonspecifically "fitter" than the rest of his society put together, which is intrinsically unlikely.  The majority is always mightier.

Yet we see alphas in communal species and minority elites have existed throughout human history. So it's not a matter of it not being evolutionarily selective. It just can only be done by the 'fitter' which you are not amoung and have no grounds to object.

For goodness sake EB, for mass rape to be evolutionarily selective in human society the advantage of monopolising many women against their will would have to outweigh the advantages of mutual orgasms to the likelihood of fertilisation, the cooperative effort of two parents working together to ensure the survival of the foetus and the developing child, and the support of ones immediate social group (rather than the active hostility of other men who may not want "their" women raped by another) in ensuring neonatal and infant survival. If we were solitary creatures whose offspring needed little or no nurturing during their early years then the arithmetic might stack up differently, but our evolved biology mandates certain social conventions which encourage pair-bonding and discourage antisocial acts like rape.

Now who's opperating under a false dichotomy? It's statements like this where you suggest only one behaviour can be allowed under society that contradict your statements of evolution allowing many strategies. If that was the case you'd say homosexuality is "unnatural" for humans as rape is simply because the only aspect of personal pleasure doesn't outweigh the evolved biology of reproduction and child raising. Yet we see for homosexuality's case you're more than willing to support the two conflicting acts being "natural" at the same time*.

I'm not saying all society has to rape (interesting how you view rape as only men being the aggressor), but under evolutionary terms it would simply be as allowed as homosexuality. Seeing how "cooperative effort of two parents" isn't strictly needed for evolutionary purposes of raising children (single parents prove that). Strictly under evolutionary terms the men can be more solitary and women only needing to rear children till they can fend for themselves. And if the men couldn't hold on to "their" women would just prove they were 'unfit'. Sure it would create conflict that some wouldn't survive, but conflict and brutality is as found thorughout the animal kingdom as homosexuality (as is everything else that's as frequent as homosexuality). Thoset that wouldn't survive would just prove they weren't 'fit' and those that would are.

As you observed, this does not translate into an absolute prohibition against rape under any circumstances - in some human societies rape within marriage is positively encouraged - but only where its advantages are not outweighed by the advantages of acting in a less unilateral way.  You're just getting lazy now.

And you're tap-dancing. Your only defense of refraining from the behaviour being that it would create conflict with an ad populum view within the majority in society and a mere opinion that the minority wouldn't survive. But it blatantly misses the fact that evolution is all about only the 'fittest' surviving, and the reality is that society's views are ever changing. What's prohibited today is allowed tommorrow and it's all under an evolutionary paradigm to you. So you really have nothing to object to rape within your own society under your views. Not like it's 'wrong' or anything.

Hang on, let me check the Evilutionist Handbook.     Oh hang on, that's right - i am not committed to defending whatever idiocy you insist i must believe and support.

Again, i am not using the "natural" argument in favour of homosexuality.  i have not made any argument in favour of homosexuality, only critiqued arguments against it.  Nor is anyone who believes that evolution is how we got here committed to advocating the morality of continuing in exactly the same way in the future.  i could coherently believe that we evolved and not want to have children.  Or is that impossible in your eyes?

More dodging. I've already addressed this above as making a positive claim of being "natural" IS in favour of homosexuality no matter your denial. So answer the issue - Given that you point to evidence of homosexuality being seen thoughout the animal kingdom to justify it as "natural" in human beings (which you HAVE positively made). In regards to infanticide, which is in some way already potentially practiced by humans, undisputable infanticide should be regarded with the same consitent attitude as homosexuality under your justification, correct?

What were you expecting?  Homosexual reproduction?  You're dodging, predictably, when faced with evidence contrary to your beliefs.  Let's try again.  Given this documented behaviour by male swans, can you admit that this would be a possible way in which homosexual genes could be passed on as being evolutionarily advantageous?  Answer without mentioning what you think i think about it if possible.

Nope. Because your 'evidence' just shows a propensity of singular gender child raising, because the reproduction itself with which your precious evolution depends on is heterosexual. Not homosexual acts. At most it's evidence of a possible evolutionarily advantageous way of child rearing by two individuals of the same gender, but that again doesn't mean much when everything is "evolutionarily advantageous". You might as well point to male and female lions as evidence for an evolutionarily advantagious reason for men to be lazy.

Ah, so that's where you got the infanticide thing from.  Unless you want to be challenged to answer for any loopy thing any Christian has ever said (think of those rich pickings!) then i take it that this is just a rhetorical gesture rather than any kind of actual point. The article itself is hardly a balanced look at the topic, and makes precisely the same fallacy that you do - namely that if people criticise arguments that homosexuality is "unnatural" then they must therefore subscribe to any and all animal behaviour being recommended for humans.  The last paragraph similarly fails to grasp that different species have different evolutionary pressures acting on them, and that women killing and eating their lovers after sex would only be selective in a species for whom the input of a father was of little or no advantage during childrearing, which is clearly not the case with humans.  Poorly thought-out choir-preaching, in other words.

Heh. It shows the sheer arrogance of your stance when you're dismissing a long history of evolutionary supported/justified behaviour, as any and all animal behaviour HAS been recommended for humans. Plus it shows an ignorance in blaming 'anti-gays' for the "artificially simplistic" view. But again, I don't concede for a second you're not trying to do the same thing. Because again, I know you, but also because we can see in your past posts that when you say 'what's "natural" for swan isn't for a human' you are indeed asserting the behaviour you think humans shouldn't perform as "unnatural". If you really were sticking to this '"natural" isn't synonym for "good"' excuse you would have said 'Sure, infanticide and canabilism is "natural" for humans' and just said it's not "good" that it's done. But you don't. You continue to define behaviour that you obviously find favorable as "natural" and behaviour you don't support as "unnatural" rather than just 'natural=bad'.

So despite your protests you are indeed as guilty of that same "artificial simplistity". You're simply trying to form a cop out to avoid other behaviour that logically follows. As we can see other evolutionists aren't so inconsistent.

It has just occurred to me that the question of whether homosexuality is "unnatural" is a slightly different question from whether homosexuality is "unnatural" for humans, and that the difference is larger for someone of your worldview (which holds humans as being quite separate and distinct from animals) than for someone of mine (for whom the addition of "for humans" only makes the question a bit more specific, rather than a whole different kind of question), and that perhaps this is causing some of the apparent miscommunication we are having on the subject.  Just something to bear in mind.

I don't think it's relevant in this case. Your argument of 'what's "natural" for a swan isn't "natural" for a human' and then pointing to 'homosexuality is "natural" for a swan so it's "natural" for humans' is the main issue. Showing the fact that it's just inconsistent picking and choosing a behaviour based on personal opinion.

*Disclaimer: I admit I'm taking some liberty in that you've never explicitly said you think heterosexuality is "good" or even "natural" in this one debate. I know how much it bothers you when I can read into more than what you explicitly say in a single thread, but hope you will forgive the liberty given your explicit evolutionary views of life simply being about reproduction and the obvious logical means with which human's reproduce. Forgive me in thinking your views can't be completely nuts. 

[Dannyboy]

Sorry EB, i am not going to let you get away with these diversionary theatrics.  You acknowledge that i have not stated anywhere that i think homosexuality is "good" or "natural", and yet you continue to behave as if i had done so repeatedly in this thread.  All i have done is to critique the coherence of calling homosexuality "unnatural", based partly on the ridiculous vagueness of the term, and partly on the documented epidemiology of homosexuality in the wild.  Is homosexuality "natural"?  It depends entirely on what you mean by the term.  Under most definitions, i wouldn't raise much protest about xenophobia, tribal violence, murder, cannibalism, infanticide and the cultural oppression of women all being labelled as "natural".  But in case you haven't noticed by now, that is very different from me thinking that they are good things.

As a matter of fact, i think homosexuality is a good thing in its proper setting - between two consenting adults.  You can make of that what you will, but i'm going to implement the policy of ignoring anything you write which assumes that i hold positions which you have clearly attributed to me based on things which i have not said.  Expect a radically shorter post this time.

"Can you present any evidence that gay people are more promiscuous, or get more STDs than the equivalent heterosexual population?"

It IS irrelevant, but I'll oblige anyway. My conflation is due to the design mind set and the observable consequence of sexual behaviour (no matter how many partners) outside a heterosexual monogamous relationship. Because the fact is homosexuality IS more at risk and receptive to STDs than a monogamous heterosexual relationship. Which is indicative of the act being "unnatural" for humans.

i do find it interesting that when asked to give evidence for an assertion which you have made you simply repeat that assertion with the air of a man presenting a d--ning closing argument to the jury.  Let the record show that End Bringer has not presented any evidence that homosexuals are more promiscuous than average or that they get more sexually transmitted diseases.  All he has done is repeat himself, and conclude (using the Argument from the Authority of Himself - doubly fallacious) that homosexuality must be unnatural - a statement repeatedly demonstrated as foolish in this thread.

And what about monogamous homosexual relationships?

Not that it matters particularly with my views of 'born in sin' not being a matter of choice, and behaviour is a matter of choice (which you concede). So the issue is a bit moot to me.

So you concede that being homosexual is not a choice?

Yet we see alphas in communal species and minority elites have existed throughout human history. So it's not a matter of it not being evolutionarily selective. It just can only be done by the 'fitter' which you are not amoung and have no grounds to object.

Again you make the mistake of thinking that because i think that something can be explained in evolutionary terms that i believe that it can be morally justified in an evolutionary framework.  i can think of plenty of things which it might be evolutionarily selective for people to do to other people, but that doesn't mean that i would have 'no grounds to object', because i am not a social darwinist.

It's statements like this where you suggest only one behaviour can be allowed under society that contradict your statements of evolution allowing many strategies.

Taken out of context, because in that instance i was talking about many different strategies across many different species to counter your strange conviction that there is no divergence worth talking about in the methods that various species use to perpetuate their genes.

If that was the case you'd say homosexuality is "unnatural" for humans as rape is simply because the only aspect of personal pleasure doesn't outweigh the evolved biology of reproduction and child raising. Yet we see for homosexuality's case you're more than willing to support the two conflicting acts being "natural" at the same time*.

i haven't said that rape is unnatural.  i haven't said that homosexuality is natural.  Your arrogant assumption of complete knowledge of my beliefs, combined with your superficial grasp of how evolution works, makes for an intellectually-deadly combination.  And i mean that in the bad way.  The genes which contribute to homosexuality could be selected for in a whole variety of ways, not necessarily anything to do with their primary (or most obvious) effect.  Why do you think that Sickle Cell Anaemia persists in tropical populations, despite making it much harder for sufferers to reproduce?

I'm not saying all society has to rape (interesting how you view rape as only men being the aggressor), but under evolutionary terms it would simply be as allowed as homosexuality.

It's the comment in brackets that fascinates me here.  Why is it interesting?  Is it because you think that it is untrue that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of rape and other sexual violence?  i'd refer you to the British Crime Survey for clarification, but i know the miniscule impact which carefully researched facts have upon your entrenched ideas.  So just tell me - where am i going wrong with that assumption?

Seeing how "cooperative effort of two parents" isn't strictly needed for evolutionary purposes of raising children (single parents prove that).

   Right.  And American Idol contestants prove that it isn't evolutionarily necessary to have any discernable skill in order to survive.  Or is it possible that we're not now living in the same world as we did the vast majority of our evolving in?

But it blatantly misses the fact that evolution is all about only the 'fittest' surviving, and the reality is that society's views are ever changing. What's prohibited today is allowed tommorrow and it's all under an evolutionary paradigm to you. So you really have nothing to object to rape within your own society under your views. Not like it's 'wrong' or anything.

i have plenty of objections to rape you moron.  i was not, and have not discussed any moral considerations related to rape, infanticide, homosexuality or anything else.  Your inability to differentiate between "where this behaviour came from" discussions and "why this behaviour is A-Okay with me" discussions is tedious in the extreme.

So answer the issue - Given that you point to evidence of homosexuality being seen thoughout the animal kingdom to justify it as "natural" in human beings (which you HAVE positively made). In regards to infanticide, which is in some way already potentially practiced by humans, undisputable infanticide should be regarded with the same consitent attitude as homosexuality under your justification, correct?

Homosexuality is not unnatural, nor is infanticide (under certain circumstances).  If you're asking me for my moral opinion, which is not even partly based on the vague "naturalness" of a particular act, then i would say that the major difference between homosexuality and infanticide is that with homosexuality no one dies (usually).  Gosh that was complex!

"What were you expecting?  Homosexual reproduction?  You're dodging, predictably, when faced with evidence contrary to your beliefs.  Let's try again.  Given this documented behaviour by male swans, can you admit that this would be a possible way in which homosexual genes could be passed on as being evolutionarily advantageous?  Answer without mentioning what you think i think about it if possible."

Nope. Because your 'evidence' just shows a propensity of singular gender child raising, because the reproduction itself with which your precious evolution depends on is heterosexual. Not homosexual acts. At most it's evidence of a possible evolutionarily advantageous way of child rearing by two individuals of the same gender, but that again doesn't mean much when everything is "evolutionarily advantageous".

i am quite happy to accept this case as an example where two male "parents" provide a survival advantage to their offspring.  Thus any genes which encouraged joint male parentage would be more likely to be passed on, wouldn't you say?

[End Bringer]

Sorry EB, i am not going to let you get away with these diversionary theatrics.  You acknowledge that i have not stated anywhere that i think homosexuality is "good" or "natural", and yet you continue to behave as if i had done so repeatedly in this thread.  All i have done is to critique the coherence of calling homosexuality "unnatural", based partly on the ridiculous vagueness of the term, and partly on the documented epidemiology of homosexuality in the wild.

Wrong. Read back to your past posts:

...but homosexuality is natural in every meaningful sense of the word...

So no matter how much you are trying to come off as not making a positive statement that doesn't need defending (now that you've cut your own "critique" off at the legs), it's simply not going to happen.

Is homosexuality "natural"?  It depends entirely on what you mean by the term.  Under most definitions, i wouldn't raise much protest about xenophobia, tribal violence, murder, cannibalism, infanticide and the cultural oppression of women all being labelled as "natural".  But in case you haven't noticed by now, that is very different from me thinking that they are good things.

Well here's the kicker DB - They are all justified under the same evidence and reasoning as you have "critiqued" arguments against homosexuality. We've seen throughout this thread that you use 'can be widely observed throughout the animal kingdom' to justify homosexuality as "natural" for human beings and admit all behaviour is 'evloutionarily selective' in some way. Thus everything else widely observed falls under the same evidence (and same definition of the term "natural"). So despite your obfuscation of what "natural" means and not explicitly stating homosexuality is "good", you really can't seperate homosexuality from the other assorted behaviours of infanticide, intraspecies feeding, etc. under your reasoning. They are all equally as documented in the wild.

As such you have absolutely no basis in which you can seperate your views of homosexuality (whatever your oh so mysterious view may be ) from everything else. As they all have the same consistent evidence and reasoning, you must rationally view such behaviour for humans in the same consistent light. If not, then it only shows your views of what is natural/good to be based on fickle whim rather than substansive reasoning or evidence.

As a matter of fact, i think homosexuality is a good thing in its proper setting - between two consenting adults.  You can make of that what you will, but i'm going to implement the policy of ignoring anything you write which assumes that i hold positions which you have clearly attributed to me based on things which i have not said.  Expect a radically shorter post this time.

  All I've been saying this hold time is that you are positively advocating homosexuality as natural and thus it logically follows as 'good'. Only difference this statement makes is that on the latter matter your view is explicitly stated.

And I'm still waiting for you to address how something "natural" isn't 'good' at the same time according to your guideless evolutionary paradigm.

i do find it interesting that when asked to give evidence for an assertion which you have made you simply repeat that assertion with the air of a man presenting a d--ning closing argument to the jury.  Let the record show that End Bringer has not presented any evidence that homosexuals are more promiscuous than average or that they get more sexually transmitted diseases.  All he has done is repeat himself, and conclude (using the Argument from the Authority of Himself - doubly fallacious) that homosexuality must be unnatural - a statement repeatedly demonstrated as foolish in this thread.

Sorry, didn't know I needed to provide a link to things that are commonly known by now.

http://www.marysremnant.org/Friends/DBK/BKHomAids.html

Did I also needed to provide exhaustive evidence to Armstrong's lunar landing that I mentioned earlier?

And what about monogamous homosexual relationships?

It would be the exception rather than the norm in my experience and in others. But wouldn't matter since the evidence of STDs being pervassive in homosexuality as well as serving no purpose of reproduction doesn't just disappear.

So you concede that being homosexual is not a choice?

Uh no. I say that being sinners isn't a matter of choice and the tendancy of homosexuality may not be a matter of choice for some. But it's just in the sense that one person has a tendancy to be more tempted by a particular sinful behaviour than another person. Having a homosexual urge may not be a choice, being homosexual is.

Again you make the mistake of thinking that because i think that something can be explained in evolutionary terms that i believe that it can be morally justified in an evolutionary framework.  i can think of plenty of things which it might be evolutionarily selective for people to do to other people, but that doesn't mean that i would have 'no grounds to object', because i am not a social darwinist.

Well as I explained above you really don't have any grounds under your belief system. Given your atheism which doesn't even really have a moral framework as it's all equal, and the reasoning and evidence you use to "critique" homosexuality as being "natural" allows for all those behaviours you consider...excuse me...may consider not to be 'morally justified', you really can't make any distinguashment. Except perhaps personal opinion which is meaningless and since all the evidence and reasoning is the same would show that differing opinions are based on whims rather than reasoning.

But that's if you were to be rational and consistent, which I don't expect. If any grounds exist for you to use it's more barrowed capital from the other side than anything existing under your own framework.

It's the comment in brackets that fascinates me here.  Why is it interesting?  Is it because you think that it is untrue that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of rape and other sexual violence?  i'd refer you to the British Crime Survey for clarification, but i know the miniscule impact which carefully researched facts have upon your entrenched ideas.  So just tell me - where am i going wrong with that assumption?

In that you seem to take so much effort in criticizing my view that homosexual relationships are just as overwhelmingly promiscuous as men are as overwhelmingly guilty of being the perpetrators of rape. Since you are so keen about reading what is actually being said, how about you take a look and find where I ever explicitly denied men are largely the one's who rape, just that it is not only perpetrated by men (and I would say may simply not be as widely reported due to issues of shame than not actual existing).

i have plenty of objections to rape you moron.  i was not, and have not discussed any moral considerations related to rape, infanticide, homosexuality or anything else.  Your inability to differentiate between "where this behaviour came from" discussions and "why this behaviour is A-Okay with me" discussions is tedious in the extreme

Like I said - under your framework. That you have plenty of objections is more due to another framework.

Homosexuality is not unnatural, nor is infanticide (under certain circumstances).  If you're asking me for my moral opinion, which is not even partly based on the vague "naturalness" of a particular act, then i would say that the major difference between homosexuality and infanticide is that with homosexuality no one dies (usually).  Gosh that was complex!

And just further demonstrates your inconsistency given infanticide has the same reasoning and evidence as homosexuality, and you believe in evolution which inherently demands death of some over others.

i am quite happy to accept this case as an example where two male "parents" provide a survival advantage to their offspring.  Thus any genes which encouraged joint male parentage would be more likely to be passed on, wouldn't you say?

Hmmm, this seems a clear case of advocating behaviour as 100% genetics, which you admonished earlier. Frankly, for all your talk about homosexuality serving evolutionary purposes, I take homosexuality's very existence as evidence against evolution. I can admit under an evolutionary paradigm the 'homosexual gene' may come into existence, but given evolution is all about reproduction (something that is heterosexual when involving non-asexual production), and we've had 'millions of years of evolution' the tendancy should have been 'unfit' for survival and lost to genetic obliteration.

Oh but I forget, evolution is endlessly adaptive and an explanation MUST exist, because...oh gosh because evolution wouldn't be true then! And that's just unthinkable!

[Dannyboy]

EB,

"...i have not stated anywhere that i think homosexuality is "good" or "natural"..."

Wrong. Read back to your past posts:

"...but homosexuality is natural in every meaningful sense of the word..."

My mistake - that was poorly phrased.  What i meant to say was that i have not made (and do not support) the "homosexuality-is-good-because-it-is-natural" argument which you frequently attribute to me.

"i wouldn't raise much protest about xenophobia, tribal violence, murder, cannibalism, infanticide and the cultural oppression of women all being labelled as "natural".  But in case you haven't noticed by now, that is very different from me thinking that they are good things."

Well here's the kicker DB - They are all justified under the same evidence and reasoning as you have "critiqued" arguments against homosexuality.

There you go again.  You make the unwarranted assumption that because i disagree that homosexuality is unnatural, and because you think that i consider homosexuality to be good, that i therefore must be saying that homosexuality is good because it is natural.  i am not justifying homosexuality on the grounds that it is natural.  i think i've said this several times now.

...you really can't seperate homosexuality from the other assorted behaviours of infanticide, intraspecies feeding, etc. under your reasoning.

   If you want to know my reasons for thinking that homosexuality is a good thing (under certain circumstances) then why not just ask me?  i realise that this would take more brain power than simply continuing to pretend that you already know them.

And I'm still waiting for you to address how something "natural" isn't 'good' at the same time according to your guideless evolutionary paradigm.

My morality is not based on evolutionary theory.

Sorry, didn't know I needed to provide a link to things that are commonly known by now.

http://www.marysremnant.org/Friends/DBK/BKHomAids.html

   Excellent.  i wondered what sort of quality you'd come up with when pressed for evidence, but you've exceded even my low expectations.  Admittedly, this issue is one of those on which it is difficult to find unbiased sources, but you dont even appear to have tried to do so.  A ten year old opinion piece (by someone with virtually identical opinions to yourself) which references three studies all between twenty-five and thirty years old, all cited in what is apparently the author's single source of inspiration - a book called "Homosexuality and Civil Rights".  Thirty year old studies EB!  Do you think anything significant might have changed within that timeframe (your birth excluded)?  HIV/AIDS hadn't even been identified in 1980.

"And what about monogamous homosexual relationships?"

It would be the exception rather than the norm in my experience and in others.

Well, despite your undoubtedly wide experience in these matters i think you might be missing something here.  Heterosexuals are allowed to get married.  Heterosexual relationships can enjoy the support of family and friends because they're not stigmatised as being deviant.  There are plenty of reasons why heterosexual relationships have a lot more going for them than homosexual ones.  Doesn't tell us about anything intrinsic to a particular sexual orientation.

But wouldn't matter since the evidence of STDs being pervassive in homosexuality as well as serving no purpose of reproduction doesn't just disappear.

First, most heterosexual sex has "no purpose of reproduction" - lucky really, or else we'd be walking on babies.  Secondly, your 30yr-old STD stats really dont impress me.  Also, try to find an unbiased source.  Hint - not a conservative Christian blog.  The Centre for Disease Control website is good for up-to-date nonpartisan public health facts.

Look, i'll do it for you....  This link gives a non-judgemental summary of current HIV/AIDS trends.  Holy poo-poo, you're right - homosexuals account for more than half of the new diagnoses of HIV/AIDS, despite making up a small fraction of the population.  Other STD rates are also disproportionately high.  Risky sexual behaviour is cited as one of the main contributing factors.  Wow, EB you were totally right - i don't know what to say...


....


Oh hang on, my mistake.  That CDC factsheet is about African-Americans' rates of HIV/AIDS.    African-Americans have disproportionately high rates of HIV/AIDS and other STDs, rather like homosexuals (yes, i know that they do).  Why could that possibly be?  To paraphrase someone i know, it looks to me like you have absolutely no basis by which you can separate your conclusions about homosexuals from those about African-Americans, since otherwise your use of STD rates against homosexuality would be shown to be based on fickle whim rather than substantive reasoning or evidence.   

What's it to be?  Is being African-American an unnatural and morally inferior state of being, or is all your talk of STD rates being significant to the status of homosexuality just poisonous and irrelevant garbage?

Having a homosexual urge may not be a choice, being homosexual is.

i like to think that you are arguing that its ok for straight guys to sneak a quick look in the communal showers here, but maybe it's something more sophisticated?  Just how many non-volitional homosexual urges would it take to make someone somehow choose to become a homosexual?  What if someone only ever has homosexual urges?  They're still not gay unless they choose to be, according to you?

Given your atheism which doesn't even really have a moral framework as it's all equal, and the reasoning and evidence you use to "critique" homosexuality as being "natural" allows for all those behaviours you consider...excuse me...may consider not to be 'morally justified', you really can't make any distinguashment. Except perhaps personal opinion which is meaningless and since all the evidence and reasoning is the same would show that differing opinions are based on whims rather than reasoning.

Being so wrong with such confidence is quite a gift.  Have you considered a career in politics or perhaps as a televangelist?

Once you realise that morality is simply a question of balancing the wellbeing and suffering of sentient creatures, then it becomes apparent that there are objective facts which can be known about these issues.  It's not dissimilar to the issue of physical health - there may be different cultural variations on the concept of "health", but if someone tells you that a dead person is healthier than an athlete then you can confidently correct them.  We might take various measurable factors into consideration when assessing health - stamina, strength, energy etc.  On the negative side we might look at excess fat, cholesterol levels, depressive behaviours etc.  Likewise with morality, thinking about the relative amounts of happiness and suffering which a certain action will create gives an objective (although granted, difficult to measure) standard of what is "good".  It takes religious dogma to disengage our moral intuition from considerations of actual suffering - criminalising actions done in private between consenting adults is morally illiterate.

you believe in evolution which inherently demands death of some over others.

Almost the stupidest thing you have ever written.  Congratulations.  i guess if you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy then you must think its ok to shoot presidents.

"i am quite happy to accept this case as an example where two male "parents" provide a survival advantage to their offspring.  Thus any genes which encouraged joint male parentage would be more likely to be passed on, wouldn't you say?"

Hmmm, this seems a clear case of advocating behaviour as 100% genetics, which you admonished earlier.

i said that behaviour is more a choice in humans than in most animals.  Do you think swans have free will then?

Frankly, for all your talk about homosexuality serving evolutionary purposes, I take homosexuality's very existence as evidence against evolution. I can admit under an evolutionary paradigm the 'homosexual gene' may come into existence, but given evolution is all about reproduction (something that is heterosexual when involving non-asexual production), and we've had 'millions of years of evolution' the tendancy should have been 'unfit' for survival and lost to genetic obliteration.

Shut your eyes and ears to evidence and you can believe anything.  You didn't answer my enquiry about genetic diseases which stay in the population despite being detrimental to reproduction (hint - the reason that they do is because of their advantageous by-products).  Sickle Cell Anaemia conveys increased malaria resistance on carriers, despite massively inconveniencing sufferers.  This is a proven way in which genes which at first sight should be obliterated by evolution can be retained and even selected for.  The example i've discussed above, which you have consistently dodged out of acknowledging, is another way.

If your beliefs on this subject are immune to any evidence to the contrary then it might be worth admitting it, at least to yourself, and save us both some time.

Oh but I forget, evolution is endlessly adaptive and an explanation MUST exist, because...oh gosh because evolution wouldn't be true then! And that's just unthinkable!

i can see that the irony-recognition gene would not be evolutionarily selective in the EB household, which may be why you seem not to have it.

[End Bringer]

My mistake - that was poorly phrased.  What i meant to say was that i have not made (and do not support) the "homosexuality-is-good-because-it-is-natural" argument which you frequently attribute to me.

Much better.

There you go again.  You make the unwarranted assumption that because i disagree that homosexuality is unnatural, and because you think that i consider homosexuality to be good, that i therefore must be saying that homosexuality is good because it is natural.  i am not justifying homosexuality on the grounds that it is natural.  i think i've said this several times now.

You've said it. But I don't really buy it, because simply saying it is about as far as you go. Not the least because you've "critiqued" so hard to justify homosexuality as "natural" for human beings and in your last post finally explicitly say it is "good" for human beings; therefore one wonders what justification you have under your guidless evolutionary beliefs to protest in people making that logical connection. When it comes to homosexuality your stance is - 'It's natural.' 'It's good.' So the conclusion of 'Therefore if it's natural it's good.' seems more than reasonable. Being "natural" certainly doesn't hurt it.

  If you want to know my reasons for thinking that homosexuality is a good thing (under certain circumstances) then why not just ask me?  i realise that this would take more brain power than simply continuing to pretend that you already know them.

Because I do already know them. Mostly it's, again, that fact that we've talked over a year or two, but also because I don't really accept your denials that everything from this point where you've justified it as "natural" you hadn't implicitly been justifying it as "good" at the same time.

But that's irrelevant as you've missed my point. The point is that you have nothing within your evolutionary/atheistic framework to truly seperate homosexuality from the other assortment of behaviour found in the animal kingdom. So if homosexuality is justified as natural (and given your protest of what is "natural" for an animal not being "natural" for a human being your "critique" has fallen to pieces) and evolutionarily selective, and all the other behaviour is justified as the same. Then you simply can't seperate your attitude towards homosexuality and the other behaviour and remain rational and consistent under your professed belief.

My morality is not based on evolutionary theory.

I know. It's more influenced by Christianity's long standing in the Western world. My point is yours should be based on evolutionary theory in order for you to remain consistent. But you just pick and choose whenever it's convenient.

  Excellent.  i wondered what sort of quality you'd come up with when pressed for evidence, but you've exceded even my low expectations.  Admittedly, this issue is one of those on which it is difficult to find unbiased sources, but you dont even appear to have tried to do so.

Well let's face it ANY study that cast homosexuality in a bad/good light is going to be claimed as 'biased' like you said.

A ten year old opinion piece (by someone with virtually identical opinions to yourself) which references three studies all between twenty-five and thirty years old, all cited in what is apparently the author's single source of inspiration - a book called "Homosexuality and Civil Rights".  Thirty year old studies EB!  Do you think anything significant might have changed within that timeframe (your birth excluded)?  HIV/AIDS hadn't even been identified in 1980.

I'm so glad we are now free to dismiss scientific studies based on when conducted. I'm sure you won't mind we just throw evolution out all together based on how long it's been since Darwin's time, right?

And I didn't put that piece up to show concrete scientific evidence homosexuality causes HIV/AIDS. I challange you to find where I specificly say that and/or that STDs are limited to HIV/AIDS. I've said all this time homosexuality is a higher risk of reception of STDs (though AIDS was identified in 1981) than a monogamous heterosexual relationship. It also helps illustrtate the promiscuity of homosexuals which you took issue. So given how an observable negative consequence to human beings was recognized thirty years ago (not limited to HIV/AIDs), makes your clammering for links and evidence seem like grasping at straws.

Well, despite your undoubtedly wide experience in these matters i think you might be missing something here.  Heterosexuals are allowed to get married.  Heterosexual relationships can enjoy the support of family and friends because they're not stigmatised as being deviant.  There are plenty of reasons why heterosexual relationships have a lot more going for them than homosexual ones.  Doesn't tell us about anything intrinsic to a particular sexual orientation.

Tells about a lot of whinning and rationalization when none of that is needed for a monogamous homosexual relationship. But a minority is a still a minority no matter how it's dressed up.

First, most heterosexual sex has "no purpose of reproduction" - lucky really, or else we'd be walking on babies.  Secondly, your 30yr-old STD stats really dont impress me.  Also, try to find an unbiased source.  Hint - not a conservative Christian blog.  The Centre for Disease Control website is good for up-to-date nonpartisan public health facts.

Actually no. The 'intent' of people may not be to reproduce but the 'act' is self-evidently the purpose of reproduction. Otherwise people wouldn't need artificial methods of birth control to prevent that natural biological function. And given the link provided research FROM Center for Disease Control, I'd say your biased attitude is just clouding your outlook.

Oh hang on, my mistake.  That CDC factsheet is about African-Americans' rates of HIV/AIDS.    African-Americans have disproportionately high rates of HIV/AIDS and other STDs, rather like homosexuals (yes, i know that they do).  Why could that possibly be?  To paraphrase someone i know, it looks to me like you have absolutely no basis by which you can separate your conclusions about homosexuals from those about African-Americans, since otherwise your use of STD rates against homosexuality would be shown to be based on fickle whim rather than substantive reasoning or evidence.   

Heh. Funny thing is if I were opperating under YOUR evolutionary framework I may indeed have no basis to seperate such a conclusion. And I think I've read that kind of reasoning before in fact. In Germany and such I believe. That's where being consistent under evolution ultimately leads. But then I don't opperate under such a paradigm.

What's it to be?  Is being African-American an unnatural and morally inferior state of being, or is all your talk of STD rates being significant to the status of homosexuality just poisonous and irrelevant garbage?

Funny how you think a race and an act/behaviour has no basis for seperation. Or is even in the same catagory. But I suppose those homosexual rights movements that try to emulate racial equality does tend to overlook this important fact. I don't however.

i like to think that you are arguing that its ok for straight guys to sneak a quick look in the communal showers here, but maybe it's something more sophisticated?  Just how many non-volitional homosexual urges would it take to make someone somehow choose to become a homosexual?  What if someone only ever has homosexual urges?  They're still not gay unless they choose to be, according to you?

Well again, I think societal teaching and behaviour may help account for development of urges. At mininumim whether to resist or give in. But how ever many one has, again, no one is dragged kicking and screaming by their sexual organs. And as a Christian I accept that even our thoughts and urges are sinful and a matter of choice.

Once you realise that morality is simply a question of balancing the wellbeing and suffering of sentient creatures, then it becomes apparent that there are objective facts which can be known about these issues.

I would if I conceded that was in fact what 'morality' is/does, but I don't. And it seems you just dig yourself into a deeper pit given evolution doesn't care about well-being or suffering as much as survival, and a-theism doesn't have a basis for "balance" or even a basis to provide that one has to even exist. So it's like I said - you've got no basis under your beliefs to seperate homosexuality from the rest except in whimsical opinion.

Almost the stupidest thing you have ever written.  Congratulations.  i guess if you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy then you must think its ok to shoot presidents.

A flimsi denial that's typical whenever you face the reality of evolution. What on earth did you ever think 'survival of the fittest' meant?

i said that behaviour is more a choice in humans than in most animals.  Do you think swans have free will then?

Oh yes, I forgot. Humans are like every other animal accept when it becomes convenient to your world view. Sorry, your fickleness is hard to keep up with. 

Shut your eyes and ears to evidence and you can believe anything.  You didn't answer my enquiry about genetic diseases which stay in the population despite being detrimental to reproduction (hint - the reason that they do is because of their advantageous by-products).  Sickle Cell Anaemia conveys increased malaria resistance on carriers, despite massively inconveniencing sufferers.  This is a proven way in which genes which at first sight should be obliterated by evolution can be retained and even selected for.  The example i've discussed above, which you have consistently dodged out of acknowledging, is another way.

Question beg and you can rationalize anything. I think I conceded it would come up. I said  that given it is ultimately inconsistent to the purpose of reproduction (which is what evolution is all about), and the fact we had 'millions' of years' for genetics to settle down a bit, it should not NOW exist. The problem with your example of Sickle Cell anaemia is that in homosexuality's case we are talking about the inherent core purpose of evolution. Which is nominally different. And the increase survival  in Sickle Cell disease just means more people are likely to suffer and less likely to mate due to ill-health in an evolutionary paradigm, so I don't fully accept your "evidence" of one positive by-product circumventing numerous disadvantages in an evolutionary paradigm. Given 'millions of years of evolution' Sikle Cell defect should have probably been obliterated as well.

But again, it just shows the inherent unfalsifiability of evolution. If the purpose of evolution is ultimately about surviving to reproduce and things like homosexuality, which is logically inconsistent to that end, is observed to exist then evolution is undermined rather than confirmed further. But if you are allowed to say 'well there's advantageuous by-products' that allows a behaviour to undermine the core purpose of evolution that we have been told for the last 100 years, then evolution is truly unfalsifiable. There's never a point where it can be said 'this disproves evolutionary theory'. And that seems more like religious dogma than 'science'.

If your beliefs on this subject are immune to any evidence to the contrary then it might be worth admitting it, at least to yourself, and save us both some time.

I don't see "evidence". I see "interpretation". If you're going to condescendingly take the "scientific" postion, you can at least admit when a theory is failing to meet the minimum logical requirement of being falsifiable. When it endlessly adapts to the point to include behaviour that goes against it's very purpose you aren't using 'science'.

i can see that the irony-recognition gene would not be evolutionarily selective in the EB household, which may be why you seem not to have it.

Yes, I can see it ended up with you. I must have inherented the objective-truth-recognition gene that you missed out on.

[Dannyboy]

EB,

Let's play a little game.  1) Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian.  2) Adolf Hitler instituted a genocide.  Now, even though it's going to be really difficult for you, i want you to try and see those two statements as separate and not necessarily causally linked in my mind.  It'll be a good exercise for you to absorb two unconnected facts without insisting that i must see them as being part of a chain.  Another good project for you to work on is understanding that i don't think homosexuality is "good" because i also happen to think that it is "not unnatural".  Likewise, there is nothing about (1) and (2) which bindingly commits me to saying that i think that Hitler instituted a genocide because he was a vegetarian.  Recognise.

The point is that you have nothing within your evolutionary/atheistic framework to truly seperate homosexuality from the other assortment of behaviour found in the animal kingdom.

This statement assumes that a) my morality is based on evolutionary theory, and b) that i justify homosexuality on the grounds that it appears in the animal kingdom.  Both of these assumptions have been repeatedly refuted.

"My morality is not based on evolutionary theory."

I know. It's more influenced by Christianity's long standing in the Western world.

If that was true then shouldn't i hate the gays?

My point is yours should be based on evolutionary theory in order for you to remain consistent. But you just pick and choose whenever it's convenient.

i have not made any argument in favour of any moral position from an evolutionary point of view, so your accusation of "picking and choosing" seems to be imaginary.

Well let's face it ANY study that cast homosexuality in a bad/good light is going to be claimed as 'biased' like you said.

There's an easy standard to apply here.  Using an opinion piece as a reference for your opinions is not a good idea if you aspire to derive your beliefs from the facts rather than just unthinkingly inheriting them from your own cultural group.  It should be obvious that if you type "homosexuality human rights equality" into google then you will get a radically different set of opinions than if you type "homosexuality promiscuity STDs" in.  The raw data plus or minus objective analysis is a much more durable means of support than www.godhatesfags.com (for example).

"A ten year old opinion piece (by someone with virtually identical opinions to yourself) which references three studies all between twenty-five and thirty years old, all cited in what is apparently the author's single source of inspiration - a book called "Homosexuality and Civil Rights".  Thirty year old studies EB!  Do you think anything significant might have changed within that timeframe (your birth excluded)?  HIV/AIDS hadn't even been identified in 1980."

I'm so glad we are now free to dismiss scientific studies based on when conducted. I'm sure you won't mind we just throw evolution out all together based on how long it's been since Darwin's time, right?

Misleading comparison.  i doubt you'd accept a study conducted on African Americans in the 1850s as being relevant to the general health and behaviour of that population today.  Likewise with homosexuals, a lot has changed since the early 1980s, so it makes sense to look at more up-to-date figures, wouldn't you say?  By contrast, theories about our origins stand or fall on whether or not later discoveries back them up, and do not go out of date.

I've said all this time homosexuality is a higher risk of reception of STDs (though AIDS was identified in 1981) than a monogamous heterosexual relationship.

Why should i bother to engage with that when you're comparing different things?  i might as well say that a promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle carries more risk of STDs than a faithful and monogamous homosexual relationship.  It's true, but what have i proved?

It also helps illustrtate the promiscuity of homosexuals which you took issue. So given how an observable negative consequence to human beings was recognized thirty years ago (not limited to HIV/AIDs), makes your clammering for links and evidence seem like grasping at straws.

   i am not questioning the statement that homosexuals are more promiscuous on average than heterosexuals - although i did want to see you justify it, partly for my own fun - but i am taking issue with the idea that it means anything.  As i have said, in order to be consistent you must agree that whatever higher levels of promiscuity and STDs mean for the homosexual community, they must also mean the same for the African-American community, which suffers from similar problems.  So, what exactly is it that you want to say about Blacks and Gays?

Funny how you think a race and an act/behaviour has no basis for seperation. Or is even in the same catagory. But I suppose those homosexual rights movements that try to emulate racial equality does tend to overlook this important fact. I don't however.

That makes no sense whatsoever.  If you are saying that greater-than-average promiscuity and STDs say something about a particular group, then unless you get a little more specific it is logical to conclude that you think that the same epithet applies to any other group with greater-than-average promiscuity and STDs.  If you (wisely, i think) don't wish to make any general statement about the African-American community as a whole based on their significantly higher rates of these social problems, then i wonder how you can justify tarring all gay people with the slut-brush based on very similar demographic indicators.

Perhaps you think that there are social reasons why black people in the US get more STDs and are more promiscuous?  Amazing how that has never occurred to you in the case of homosexuality.

"Once you realise that morality is simply a question of balancing the wellbeing and suffering of sentient creatures, then it becomes apparent that there are objective facts which can be known about these issues."

I would if I conceded that was in fact what 'morality' is/does, but I don't. And it seems you just dig yourself into a deeper pit given evolution doesn't care about well-being or suffering as much as survival, and a-theism doesn't have a basis for "balance" or even a basis to provide that one has to even exist. So it's like I said - you've got no basis under your beliefs to seperate homosexuality from the rest except in whimsical opinion.

You obviously have no interest in seeing past your prejudices on this subject, so i have no interest in discussing it any further with you.  Any subsequent statements assuming an evolutionarily-based morality on my part will be ignored, since they have already been corrected to no noticeable effect.

[End Bringer]

EB,

Let's play a little game. 1) Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. 2) Adolf Hitler instituted a genocide.  Now, even though it's going to be really difficult for you, i want you to try and see those two statements as separate and not necessarily causally linked in my mind.  It'll be a good exercise for you to absorb two unconnected facts without insisting that i must see them as being part of a chain.  Another good project for you to work on is understanding that i don't think homosexuality is "good" because i also happen to think that it is "not unnatural".  Likewise, there is nothing about (1) and (2) which bindingly commits me to saying that i think that Hitler instituted a genocide because he was a vegetarian.  Recognise.

Hmmmm. Sounds tough. How about you play a round DB. 1) All-natural foods are promoted as healthy. 2) Healthy foods are understood as good. So even though it may be difficult for you, I want you to try and see those two statements as linked and not necessarily seperate in my mind. It'll be a good exercise for you to absorb two connected facts without insisting that I must not see them as being a part of a chain. Another good project for you to work on is understanding that when one promotes homosexuality as "natural" they are promoting it as a positive quality, in which it is understood as a "good" thing. Likewise there is something about (1) and (2) which bindingly commits me to saying that I think that foods are "good" because they are all-natural. Recognize.

This statement assumes that a) my morality is based on evolutionary theory, and b) that i justify homosexuality on the grounds that it appears in the animal kingdom.  Both of these assumptions have been repeatedly refuted.

The statement is actually based on the fact if you are going to promote something based on behaviour found in the animal kingdom you can't nit-pick which ones and be consistent, in addition to the fact that under an evolutionary paradigm there is no significant distinction between humans and all other animals. Facts that all your dodging doesn't address.

If that was true then shouldn't i hate the gays?

Seeing how it doesn't teach to hate anyone, I guess that would be a 'no'. Proving just how much it's influencing you.

i have not made any argument in favour of any moral position from an evolutionary point of view, so your accusation of "picking and choosing" seems to be imaginary.

Heh. Sure, given that you previously argued your very morality is evolutionarily selected, it would seem there is no way to seperate any moral position from an evolutionary point of view.

Misleading comparison.  i doubt you'd accept a study conducted on African Americans in the 1850s as being relevant to the general health and behaviour of that population today.  Likewise with homosexuals, a lot has changed since the early 1980s, so it makes sense to look at more up-to-date figures, wouldn't you say?  By contrast, theories about our origins stand or fall on whether or not later discoveries back them up, and do not go out of date.

Well given your little thought experiment above I guess you'd know all about missleading comparisons. And it would depend on exactly what I'm looking for on whether I'd find studies 100 years or so ago relevant. If say a study showed longer life spans 100 years ago than what is the average life span today it would help determine whether 'progress' or so has been more negative to health or such. I would say nothing really has changed in the last 30 years except in identifying the specifics of the diseases. That and the knowledge of how such a "natural" act has negative consequences is more wide spread.

Why should i bother to engage with that when you're comparing different things?  i might as well say that a promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle carries more risk of STDs than a faithful and monogamous homosexual relationship.  It's true, but what have i proved?

That there is strong evidence that sex for humans was designed to be in the context of a monogamous heterosexual relationship and that stepping away from this designed context is comparable to intentionally driving in the wrong lane of traffic. 

  i am not questioning the statement that homosexuals are more promiscuous on average than heterosexuals - although i did want to see you justify it, partly for my own fun - but i am taking issue with the idea that it means anything.

Suuuure. Drive in the opposite side of the road and see if that means anything.

As i have said, in order to be consistent you must agree that whatever higher levels of promiscuity and STDs mean for the homosexual community, they must also mean the same for the African-American community, which suffers from similar problems.  So, what exactly is it that you want to say about Blacks and Gays?

Well, I could point out that this is a missleading comparison between race and behaviour, but what's really amusing is that I AM consistent that what higher levels of disease means for the homosexual community means the same for the African-American community. And the Spanish community. And the Oriental community. And the Caucasion community. When I say 'everyone is a sinner' I do mean everyone.

So it seems I pass your little challenge. Got anything else, or are you going to pony up? 

That makes no sense whatsoever.  If you are saying that greater-than-average promiscuity and STDs say something about a particular group, then unless you get a little more specific it is logical to conclude that you think that the same epithet applies to any other group with greater-than-average promiscuity and STDs.  If you (wisely, i think) don't wish to make any general statement about the African-American community as a whole based on their significantly higher rates of these social problems, then i wonder how you can justify tarring all gay people with the slut-brush based on very similar demographic indicators.

I'll help make the contrast more abvious - Race is what you are. What you are can't be changed. Behaviour is what you do. Doing things means acts. And acts have consequences. Clear?

Not that it matters given my statement above.

Perhaps you think that there are social reasons why black people in the US get more STDs and are more promiscuous?  Amazing how that has never occurred to you in the case of homosexuality.

Oh I'm sure there are. There is simply none that justifies it any more than all the social reasons to treat black people like farm equippment justified THAT behaviour.

You obviously have no interest in seeing past your prejudices on this subject, so i have no interest in discussing it any further with you.  Any subsequent statements assuming an evolutionarily-based morality on my part will be ignored, since they have already been corrected to no noticeable effect.

More like 'denied' rather than "corrected". But in truth the more you argue the more my previous statement looks to have hit the nail on the head.

[Dannyboy]

"Let's play a little game. 1) Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. 2) Adolf Hitler instituted a genocide.  Now, even though it's going to be really difficult for you, i want you to try and see those two statements as separate and not necessarily causally linked in my mind.  It'll be a good exercise for you to absorb two unconnected facts without insisting that i must see them as being part of a chain.  Another good project for you to work on is understanding that i don't think homosexuality is "good" because i also happen to think that it is "not unnatural".  Likewise, there is nothing about (1) and (2) which bindingly commits me to saying that i think that Hitler instituted a genocide because he was a vegetarian.  Recognise."

Hmmmm. Sounds tough. How about you play a round DB. 1) All-natural foods are promoted as healthy. 2) Healthy foods are understood as good. So even though it may be difficult for you, I want you to try and see those two statements as linked and not necessarily seperate in my mind. It'll be a good exercise for you to absorb two connected facts without insisting that I must not see them as being a part of a chain. Another good project for you to work on is understanding that when one promotes homosexuality as "natural" they are promoting it as a positive quality, in which it is understood as a "good" thing. Likewise there is something about (1) and (2) which bindingly commits me to saying that I think that foods are "good" because they are all-natural. Recognize.

Clever though that undoubtedly is, i'm not sure how your counter-example of an actual logical chain (natural=healthy=good) equates to my distinct categorisations of homosexuality as being both "good" (in certain circumstances) and "not unnatural".  You surely can acknowledge that it is possible to make two statements relating to the same phenomenon without the logical necessity of admitting a causal connection between them?  Your insistence, in the case of my position on homosexuality, that there must be a causal connection in my mind is difficult to explain, since i have not made any such connection.  i can only assume that you are persisting to your last breath with this tedious line of warped logic because it allows you to deploy your preprepared counter-argument, even if that means you have to wholly fantasise my actual arguments in order to do so.

And regardless of the context, it is moronic to suggest that being "natural" is always a good thing - i have this argument with devotees of herbal medicine all the time.  Arsenic is natural, so is hemlock (just ask Socrates), and so - in another context - is violence and murder.  As i have said before, "natural" is not a useful category.  The only concrete thing i will say about it is that, broad as it is, it is meaningless to exclude homosexuality from it.

The statement is actually based on the fact if you are going to promote something based on behaviour found in the animal kingdom you can't nit-pick which ones and be consistent

i have not promoted homosexuality on the basis that it is found in the animal kingdom.  Really.  Prove me wrong.

Sure, given that you previously argued your very morality is evolutionarily selected, it would seem there is no way to seperate any moral position from an evolutionary point of view.

Well, given that under my view everyone's morality is evolutionarily selected, are you saying that there is no way to separate your morality from an evolutionary point of view?  Forget it, you probably see this as irrefutable evidence for evolution being false.

I would say nothing really has changed in the last 30 years except in identifying the specifics of the diseases. That and the knowledge of how such a "natural" act has negative consequences is more wide spread.

And acceptance of homosexuality (in most Western countries) is significantly greater now than it was thirty years ago.  In the UK at least i could name ten or twenty openly gay public figures today (politicians, actors, comedians, etc) which would have been impossible a generation ago.  That changes the attitudes and behaviours of both gay and straight people with reference to homosexual relationships.

Let's take another example - mixed race relationships.  If i told you that they were immoral and unnatural, and offered as proof some fifty year old statistics (from back when they were illegal in most states) showing a very high rate of relationship breakdown in mixed race couples, would you consider that to be compelling evidence against mixed race relationships today?

"i am not questioning the statement that homosexuals are more promiscuous on average than heterosexuals, but i am taking issue with the idea that it means anything."

Suuuure. Drive in the opposite side of the road and see if that means anything.

Homosexuality does not equal promiscuity, any more than being African-American equals promiscuity.  You are conflating a behaviour with an entire social group, and whether that behaviour is disproportionately found in that group or not, that kind of makes you a bigot.  A homosexual person can choose to have a committed monogamous relationship which makes irrelevant all of your anti-promiscuity rhetoric, but you would apparently still see their solid romantic bond as infinitely inferior to a drunken heterosexual one-night stand, for no reason better than your religious prejudices.

I could point out that this is a missleading comparison between race and behaviour, but what's really amusing is that I AM consistent that what higher levels of disease means for the homosexual community means the same for the African-American community. And the Spanish community. And the Oriental community. And the Caucasion community. When I say 'everyone is a sinner' I do mean everyone.

You seem to want to have it every which way.  You can't claim that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality in your worldview (well, you can, but it would be out of character).  Yet when challenged to consistently apply your condemnation of those disproportionately-promiscuous homosexuals to all disproportionately-promiscuous social groups, you come out with this "well, we're all sinners" malarkey.  According to your above statement, the issue of promiscuity and STDs is entirely irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality, so i remain confused about why you brought it up.

And as for a misleading comparison between race and behaviour, you are the one who is conflating a state that has a range of behavioural expressions (homosexuality) with a single behaviour - that of promiscuity.  That makes precisely as much sense as invariably conflating any given state with any given behaviour, regardless of how over- or under-represented within that particular group.

I'll help make the contrast more abvious - Race is what you are. What you are can't be changed. Behaviour is what you do. Doing things means acts. And acts have consequences. Clear?

Clear to everyone but you apparently.  We've already been through this.  Homosexuality is a state.  It's what you are.  What you are can't be changed.  Promiscuity is a behaviour, found in all sexual orientations and cultural groups to some extent, more in some than in others.  To define any social group or sexual orientation as entirely promiscuous is bigotry, because behaviour is not who or what you are.  Got that?

[End Bringer]

And regardless of the context, it is moronic to suggest that being "natural" is always a good thing - i have this argument with devotees of herbal medicine all the time.  Arsenic is natural, so is hemlock (just ask Socrates), and so - in another context - is violence and murder.  As i have said before, "natural" is not a useful category.  The only concrete thing i will say about it is that, broad as it is, it is meaningless to exclude homosexuality from it.

Not so meaningless when one notes your constant obfuscation of the term "natural". Like everything else you argue about you simply go back and forth whenever it suits you. You have argued vehemently that homosexuality is "natural" in a "meaningful" sense, then turn around and say being "natural" is "meaningless", much the same way you go back and forth when humans are like/unlike every other animal, and when it's suddenly appropriate or not to look for general behaviour in the animal kingdom as a standard. But it again all comes down to the fact that the only standard of seperation seems to be your personal whim rather than anything substantial. You can assume all you like about my "warped logic". I've taken this whole matter as evidence on how far your denial is prepared to go based on your wounded pride of having your reasoning seen through and shredded.

i have not promoted homosexuality on the basis that it is found in the animal kingdom.  Really.  Prove me wrong.

i am saying that if animals do it then 1) it is difficult to attribute that to human sin, and 2) it is even more difficult to substantiate arguments that homosexuality is a choice and "not natural". Not all things that are natural are good, incidentally, something which anti-homosexual writers often appear to forget, but homosexuality is natural in every meaningful sense of the word, and does not appear to be a matter of choice.

It was one of the very first posts you wrote that got this discussion going.

And acceptance of homosexuality (in most Western countries) is significantly greater now than it was thirty years ago.  In the UK at least i could name ten or twenty openly gay public figures today (politicians, actors, comedians, etc) which would have been impossible a generation ago.  That changes the attitudes and behaviours of both gay and straight people with reference to homosexual relationships.

Heh. Not really. There were societies who openly supported homosexuality a thousand years ago, and there were people who opposed it back then too. It's simply evidence that humans haven't changed an iota since recorded history. But I do also note that it blows your "majority view always wins" argument in regards to things like rape and such out of the water. Seeing how acceptance of homosexuality being a "good" thing was and still is a minority view social acceptance of homosexuality wouldn't have ever left the ground according to you.

Let's take another example - mixed race relationships.  If i told you that they were immoral and unnatural, and offered as proof some fifty year old statistics (from back when they were illegal in most states) showing a very high rate of relationship breakdown in mixed race couples, would you consider that to be compelling evidence against mixed race relationships today?

Another one of your missleading comparisons of race and acts I see. I don't consider relationships to be in the same catagory as disease. Show a statistic where a mixed race relationship produced cancer or such in both indviduals and a direct link of the relationship being the cause for aquiring the condition and then you'd have something.

Homosexuality does not equal promiscuity, any more than being African-American equals promiscuity.  You are conflating a behaviour with an entire social group, and whether that behaviour is disproportionately found in that group or not, that kind of makes you a bigot.  A homosexual person can choose to have a committed monogamous relationship which makes irrelevant all of your anti-promiscuity rhetoric, but you would apparently still see their solid romantic bond as infinitely inferior to a drunken heterosexual one-night stand, for no reason better than your religious prejudices.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear - I'm saying the STDs aquired when engaging in homosexuality and/or promiscuity means something. And please. Try to wipe some of the drool from your mouth after frothing rants.

You seem to want to have it every which way.  You can't claim that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality in your worldview (well, you can, but it would be out of character).  Yet when challenged to consistently apply your condemnation of those disproportionately-promiscuous homosexuals to all disproportionately-promiscuous social groups, you come out with this "well, we're all sinners" malarkey.  According to your above statement, the issue of promiscuity and STDs is entirely irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality, so i remain confused about why you brought it up.

Heh. You parrot me about consistently holding one's view and when I show to do so you complain about it. Rich.

In reality YOU are the one going on and on about the issue of promiscuity. When it comes to morality of sexual behaviour if it's not a monogamous heterosexual relationship, then it's all the same. Any promiscuity is just as bad as monogamous homosexuality in my world view. And the existance of STDs help give an observable consequence to such behaviours, since if it's not seen in the material world a-theists like you would just wave it off.

And as for a misleading comparison between race and behaviour, you are the one who is conflating a state that has a range of behavioural expressions (homosexuality) with a single behaviour - that of promiscuity.  That makes precisely as much sense as invariably conflating any given state with any given behaviour, regardless of how over- or under-represented within that particular group.

Except I deny homosexuality is a "state". It's a behaviour just as promiscuity is. One is not born a homosexual as one is born white or black. One becomes it, just as one becomes a thief after stealling an item. The two do not compare. And all I'm really doing is noting an observable physical consequence (STDs) to a particular act/behaviour (homosexuality and/or promniscuity), as evidence for the moral status of the act/behaviour.

Clear to everyone but you apparently.  We've already been through this.  Homosexuality is a state.  It's what you are.  What you are can't be changed.  Promiscuity is a behaviour, found in all sexual orientations and cultural groups to some extent, more in some than in others.  To define any social group or sexual orientation as entirely promiscuous is bigotry, because behaviour is not who or what you are.  Got that?

No, I conceded that one can possibly be born with a particular inclination towards homosexuality. I don't believe I ever conceded it to be a full unchangible state of being like race is, and quite explicitly stated that environmental influences likely have more to do in developing one towards homosexuality than anything else. You've just been constantly asserting it is a state. If you're going to do that, then I don't see why pedophilia or rape isn't as much a "state" as homosexuality. In which we are seriously close to that 'genetics is destiny' argument again. Your twin study show that there may be a bit of a gentic influence, but influence is all it is and may have as much influence as a cup of water from the ocean influences the sea level.

No, ultimately homosexuality is a behaviour. Given sexual orientation does not develop until puberty or such if it is in any way a "state" then it's a "state" developed through conditioning rather than genetic birth, which is wholely different from race. So the comparison does not fly.

[Dannyboy]

EB,

You have argued vehemently that homosexuality is "natural" in a "meaningful" sense, then turn around and say being "natural" is "meaningless"

Ok, how about if you're going to accuse me of being inconsistent you cut and paste my actual comments, because it will then be a lot less labour-intensive for me to demonstrate that you're full of it.  i have said very clearly that "natural" is an almost meaningless category on account of it's vagueness and broadness, but that it is nonsensical to say that homosexuality is excluded from it.  That is not inconsistent, no matter how desperately you apparently wish that it were.

In the same way, when i asked you to give an example of me "promoting" homosexuality on the basis that it is found in the animal kingdom (as you have confidently accused me of doing), you provided this quote:

i am saying that if animals do it then 1) it is difficult to attribute that to human sin, and 2) it is even more difficult to substantiate arguments that homosexuality is a choice and "not natural". Not all things that are natural are good, incidentally, something which anti-homosexual writers often appear to forget, but homosexuality is natural in every meaningful sense of the word, and does not appear to be a matter of choice.

Where in that paragraph did i say that homosexuality is a good thing?  Your relentless conflation of "natural" and "good" may have fooled you into thinking that i did, but as i have pointed out before, many things which we would both agree are bad fit the definition of natural perfectly.  i even make that explicit in the above paragraph, but your apparent inability to see what i am actually saying through the filter of what you think i might be saying blinds you to everything but your expectations.  i'd be grateful for more cut-and-paste opportunities to show up your basic comprehension skills in this way.

There were societies who openly supported homosexuality a thousand years ago, and there were people who opposed it back then too. It's simply evidence that humans haven't changed an iota since recorded history.

i think even a cursory reading of the Bible would show that a great deal of moral progress has been made since those books were written.  i am certainly grateful that most people in the Western world dont feel compelled to kill disobedient children, or to stone a young woman to death on her father's doorstep if she is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night.  These are things explicitly mandated by the book which you (laughably) claim to derive your morality from.

Show a statistic where a mixed race relationship produced cancer or such in both indviduals and a direct link of the relationship being the cause for aquiring the condition and then you'd have something.

Something you have failed to do in the case of homosexuality and STDs.  What you have pointed out is a correlation, and i have responded that exactly the same correlation exists in other social groups.

I'm saying the STDs aquired when engaging in homosexuality and/or promiscuity means something. And please. Try to wipe some of the drool from your mouth after frothing rants.

Occasionally ranting is warranted.  Your interpretations on this issue are entirely ideologically driven and insulting to committed monogamous homosexuals who you might otherwise learn a great deal from.  Your correlation is no more meaningful than the correlation between African-Americans, promiscuity and STDs.  There is nothing inherent about either ones sexual orientation or ones race which inevitably leads to promiscuity, despite your weaseling implications.  The correlations in these cases are the result of social and cultural factors which should definitely be addressed from a public health perspective, but which unfortunately also provide cowardly ammunition to those wishing to demonise certain cultures and orientations in the service of their religiously-motivated neuroses about sexuality.

When it comes to morality of sexual behaviour if it's not a monogamous heterosexual relationship, then it's all the same. Any promiscuity is just as bad as monogamous homosexuality in my world view. And the existance of STDs help give an observable consequence to such behaviours, since if it's not seen in the material world a-theists like you would just wave it off.

There is little need to wave it off when it misses the mark so obviously.  STDs are not a consequence of monogamous relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, so your statement makes little sense.  STDs are a consequence of unprotected promiscuity.  If you were arguing against unprotected promiscuity in this manner, i would have no quarrel with you, but you are trying to make the facts fit your prejudices.

I deny homosexuality is a "state". It's a behaviour just as promiscuity is.

Is heterosexuality a state or a behaviour?  Are you only heterosexual when engaging in sexual behaviour, or are you heterosexual all the time?  i'm honestly curious.

And all I'm really doing is noting an observable physical consequence (STDs) to a particular act/behaviour (homosexuality and/or promniscuity), as evidence for the moral status of the act/behaviour.

No, you're noting the consequences of unprotected promiscuity (a subset of promiscuity), making generalisations about the behaviour of promiscuous homosexuals (a subset of homosexuals), and then claiming that those consequences apply to all homosexuals.  In other words you are taking a subset of a subset as being representative of the whole category.  That's like critiquing all fruit by saying you don't like Braeburn Apples, QED.

"Homosexuality is a state.  It's what you are.  What you are can't be changed.  Promiscuity is a behaviour, found in all sexual orientations and cultural groups to some extent, more in some than in others.  To define any social group or sexual orientation as entirely promiscuous is bigotry, because behaviour is not who or what you are.  Got that?"

No, I conceded that one can possibly be born with a particular inclination towards homosexuality. I don't believe I ever conceded it to be a full unchangible state of being like race is, and quite explicitly stated that environmental influences likely have more to do in developing one towards homosexuality than anything else. You've just been constantly asserting it is a state.

i'm not aware that there is any evidence that homosexuality is materially different to heterosexuality in terms of how it develops, only the orientation differs.  After all, what can you say to disprove my assertion that while you may have been born with a small inclination towards heterosexuality, it isn't a fixed or integral part of you because it was shaped by environmental factors and is simply a behaviour, willfully expressed.  Or would you agree with that?

If you're going to do that, then I don't see why pedophilia or rape isn't as much a "state" as homosexuality.

Uh, well rape is a specific act.  i assume you mean the inclination to rape.  The difference i would suggest there is that being a rapist is more like a fetish, because it is an obsession with a particular sort of sexual experience which is unpalatable to most people.  It does not qualify as an orientation towards a particular sort of partner.  However, pedophilia i can absolutely admit may be a state just like hetero or homosexuality.  Bestiality too, for all i know.  i do not believe that we get to choose who (or what) we are attracted to, and that is what defines our "state" of orientation.  Are you denying that your heterosexuality is a state, an important part of your identity, and not just a behaviour that you express whenever you meet a pretty lady?

Again, to anticipate your most obvious responses, this does not mean that i am morally equating bestiality and pedophilia with homosexuality.  i would have nothing but respect for a self-confessed pedophile who had taken steps not to put his inclinations into practice because of the harm that he knew could be done to children in the process.  However, since there is no victim in consensual homosexuality (just like with consensual heterosexuality), i see no reason why people should deny their sexual inclinations in this direction as part of the pursuit of happiness.

Unless you can give me some better reasons than you have given so far.

[Dannyboy]

"Of all words, there is none more ambiguous and equivocal than 'Nature'" - David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature.

"The 'natural/unnatural' distinction is one of which few practicing scientists can make any sense.  Whatever occurs, whether in a field or a test tube, occurs as the result of natural processes, and can, in principle, be explained in terms of natural science." - The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Genetically Modified Crops: the ethical and social issues.

[End Bringer]

Ok, how about if you're going to accuse me of being inconsistent you cut and paste my actual comments, because it will then be a lot less labour-intensive for me to demonstrate that you're full of it.  i have said very clearly that "natural" is an almost meaningless category on account of it's vagueness and broadness, but that it is nonsensical to say that homosexuality is excluded from it.  That is not inconsistent, no matter how desperately you apparently wish that it were.

With you being the only one who knows where that boarder between meaningful and meaningless is located oh all-knowing one. You really don't disprove my statement seeing how you have also explicitly said "being natural is not always a good thing". In which case you asserting it as natural IS meaningless.

Where in that paragraph did i say that homosexuality is a good thing?  Your relentless conflation of "natural" and "good" may have fooled you into thinking that i did, but as i have pointed out before, many things which we would both agree are bad fit the definition of natural perfectly.  i even make that explicit in the above paragraph, but your apparent inability to see what i am actually saying through the filter of what you think i might be saying blinds you to everything but your expectations.  i'd be grateful for more cut-and-paste opportunities to show up your basic comprehension skills in this way.

If you want to get snippety about what is actually written why don't you take a look at what I actually wrote - The statement is actually based on the fact if you are going to promote something based on behaviour found in the animal kingdom you can't nit-pick which ones and be consistent Do I say you are promoting it as "a good thing" in that line or that you are just 'promoting'? Which you have been doing - promoting it as "natural". Sheesh

Frankly as "broad" as you claim the term "natural" to be, you really can no longer claim it as "natural" anyway seeing how you yourself have invoked that something being "natural" for animals ISN'T "natural" for human beings. And as that seems to be the only evidence to support your claim, you've basicly got nothing. So no, homosexuality is indeed an unnatural act that perverts the self-evident purpose and design of sexual intercourse (perversions being understood as "bad" no matter what Humes thinks). Animal behaviour having no baring on human behaviour as animals have many behaviours that would be abhorrent for human beings to perform, homosexuality amoung them.

i think even a cursory reading of the Bible would show that a great deal of moral progress has been made since those books were written.  i am certainly grateful that most people in the Western world dont feel compelled to kill disobedient children, or to stone a young woman to death on her father's doorstep if she is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night.  These are things explicitly mandated by the book which you (laughably) claim to derive your morality from.

And which would happen again if the exact same circumstances that such acts were performed under were the same today. And likely still happen in one form or another today in some parts of the world. Nope, people ultimately haven't changed.

Something you have failed to do in the case of homosexuality and STDs.  What you have pointed out is a correlation, and i have responded that exactly the same correlation exists in other social groups.

And I have responded that the correlation means the exact same thing for all social groups under my world view - everyone is guilty of sin. While amusingly being called a bigot though I explictly include all races of people.

Occasionally ranting is warranted.

So is thinking.

Your interpretations on this issue are entirely ideologically driven and insulting to committed monogamous homosexuals who you might otherwise learn a great deal from.  Your correlation is no more meaningful than the correlation between African-Americans, promiscuity and STDs.  There is nothing inherent about either ones sexual orientation or ones race which inevitably leads to promiscuity, despite your weaseling implications.

So you simply assert. I already said YOU are the one constantly bringing up promiscuity, but it ultimately doesn't matter because homosexuality with any amount of partners is simply more receptive to STDs than monogamous heterosexual relations. And although I know for a fact that I've never said homosexuality "inevitably leads" to promiscuity, I don't think the leap between them is as big as it is for any social group like African-Americans. For one thing homosexuality and promiscuity are both catagorically sexual behaviours with largely hedonistic motives, and secondly since homosexuality opperates under the notion that there is no one set context for sexual behaviour it's not surprising to see many homosexuals act like there's no one set context for sexual behaviour.

So again, I've never said "inevitably leads", but it's not that big a jump to see when the ratio can best be described as 'overwhelming' (less than 3% are "monogamous" by some studies).

The correlations in these cases are the result of social and cultural factors which should definitely be addressed from a public health perspective, but which unfortunately also provide cowardly ammunition to those wishing to demonise certain cultures and orientations in the service of their religiously-motivated neuroses about sexuality.

While being addressed with sheer denial by those closed to any amount of facts due to emotional views of a differing ideology. Or are we to ignore that Sexually Transmitted Diseases may in fact have some correlation with the method of sexual transmission?

There is little need to wave it off when it misses the mark so obviously.  STDs are not a consequence of monogamous relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, so your statement makes little sense.  STDs are a consequence of unprotected promiscuity.  If you were arguing against unprotected promiscuity in this manner, i would have no quarrel with you, but you are trying to make the facts fit your prejudices.

Uh no, monogamy doesn't guarantee absolute protection for either. For homosexuality the very act itself has a few health risks no matter the amount of times or partners. Depending on methodology of performance there is a load of risk in the anal and rectal areas simply because, again, the body parts were simply not made for sexual intercourse any more than those areas were made to take the function of the mouth for eating (something I'd think even you would term "unnatural"). Then there is intestinal infections, bacterial, and parasitic infections.  And yes, even monogamous heterosexual relationships risk STDs, but this is due to hygene issues rather than the basic sexual act. So STDs are simply a risk for homosexuality in it's entirety and heterosexual promiscuity.

Is heterosexuality a state or a behaviour?  Are you only heterosexual when engaging in sexual behaviour, or are you heterosexual all the time?  i'm honestly curious.

Depends what you mean by "engaging in sexual behaviour", as I doubt few has sex on their mind 24/7. When I find myself attracted to another it's always to the opposite sex when the attraction comes up. And since I didn't have it on my mind before I hit puberty, I can't say I was heterosexual all the time.

Here's an issue for you, if you determine homosexuality as a state by a genetic component like race, how exactly do you differentiate between homosexuals who DON'T have that genetic component, and those who do, but are solely practicing heterosexuality? Is a homosexual always a homosexual even if one's never practiced homosexuality even once? And can you tell the difference between such a person and a heterosexual like you can race and ethnicity?

No, you're noting the consequences of unprotected promiscuity (a subset of promiscuity), making generalisations about the behaviour of promiscuous homosexuals (a subset of homosexuals), and then claiming that those consequences apply to all homosexuals.  In other words you are taking a subset of a subset as being representative of the whole category.  That's like critiquing all fruit by saying you don't like Braeburn Apples, QED.

More like 'main body' than "subset of homosexuality". But like I addressed above homosexuality in any amount has a higher risk of STDs. Just as any promiscuity has a higher risk, which no amount of protection can avoid. Those are simply the facts.

i'm not aware that there is any evidence that homosexuality is materially different to heterosexuality in terms of how it develops, only the orientation differs.  After all, what can you say to disprove my assertion that while you may have been born with a small inclination towards heterosexuality, it isn't a fixed or integral part of you because it was shaped by environmental factors and is simply a behaviour, willfully expressed.  Or would you agree with that?

I would say it's more than a "small inclination", due to the fact that human beings having different genders self-evidently means for the two to go together. That and the fact many homosexuals admit to having some degree of attraction for the opposite gender. But ultimately I would say the orientation isn't so "fixed" as to be absolute. Sexual desire at it's bottom maybe, but the orientation takes some developing.

Uh, well rape is a specific act.  i assume you mean the inclination to rape.  The difference i would suggest there is that being a rapist is more like a fetish, because it is an obsession with a particular sort of sexual experience which is unpalatable to most people. It does not qualify as an orientation towards a particular sort of partner.

So is homosexuality - a particular sort of sexual experience with the same gender. It's orientation being simply not caring about willingness, or caring about unwillingness.

However, pedophilia i can absolutely admit may be a state just like hetero or homosexuality.  Bestiality too, for all i know.  i do not believe that we get to choose who (or what) we are attracted to, and that is what defines our "state" of orientation.  Are you denying that your heterosexuality is a state, an important part of your identity, and not just a behaviour that you express whenever you meet a pretty lady?

I'm denying my heterosexuality was set in stone from the moment I was in the womb.

Again, to anticipate your most obvious responses, this does not mean that i am morally equating bestiality and pedophilia with homosexuality.  i would have nothing but respect for a self-confessed pedophile who had taken steps not to put his inclinations into practice because of the harm that he knew could be done to children in the process.  However, since there is no victim in consensual homosexuality (just like with consensual heterosexuality), i see no reason why people should deny their sexual inclinations in this direction as part of the pursuit of happiness.

Obvious responses, because you quite explicitly say it's all the same as the orientation you support. And really, your only objection to pedophilia is asserting it would be harmful to children (and I notice you ignore beastiality all together). Seeing how the basic process of sex doesn't change with age and your stance on rape, it would seem 'consensual pedophilia' would be entirely consistent under your world view. Both would be consenting, pedophilia is a state of being, the 'act' is the same for adults, you really have nothing to seperate your view on one behaviour from the other. Again. Or to go by your earlier rant are you conflating a subset of pedophilia (rape), with all pedophilia? Would that make you a bigot by your own words?

Or you could come to terms with the fact that what is moral isn't based on a hedonistic view of the world with which you base homosexuality on.

[Dannyboy]

EB,

With you being the only one who knows where that boarder between meaningful and meaningless is located oh all-knowing one.

   i haven't claimed to be able to perfectly define the boundaries of the "natural" - a concept which, if you remember, i have repeatedly described as being so broad as to be almost meaningless.  i could say much the same about the word "healthy", but that doesn't make me inconsistent if i disagree with someone who says that "Dead is healthy".  Likewise with the alleged "unnaturalness" of homosexuality.

You really don't disprove my statement seeing how you have also explicitly said "being natural is not always a good thing". In which case you asserting it as natural IS meaningless.

Why?  Just because i consider the category of "natural" (in so far as it means anything concrete) to be value neutral, i can't say anything further about inclusion or exclusion from it?  That doesn't make any sense.

If you want to get snippety about what is actually written why don't you take a look at what I actually wrote - The statement is actually based on the fact if you are going to promote something based on behaviour found in the animal kingdom you can't nit-pick which ones and be consistent Do I say you are promoting it as "a good thing" in that line or that you are just 'promoting'? Which you have been doing - promoting it as "natural". Sheesh

   "Promote" (in this context) literally means to say that whatever you're promoting is a good thing.  It doesn't make sense to say that someone promoted X as a bad thing.  So your suggestion that i was "promoting" homosexuality because it was found in the animal kingdom actually contained within it the assumption that i had said it was a good thing on the basis that it was found in the animal kingdom.  Which i have not done.  Again, i think you're confused because you consider "natural" and "good" to be synonymous, but i dont, and since i have explicitly stated that many times in this thread, your continued insistence that i mean one thing when i say the other can only be the result of deliberate misunderstanding or poor comprehension skills on your part.

So no, homosexuality is indeed an unnatural act that perverts the self-evident purpose and design of sexual intercourse (perversions being understood as "bad" no matter what Humes thinks). Animal behaviour having no baring on human behaviour as animals have many behaviours that would be abhorrent for human beings to perform, homosexuality amoung them.

Well there's a lot to unpack in that statement.  Most of it subjective assertion.  You have not made any compelling case for considering homosexuality to be "unnatural", but i invite you to do so.  "Perversion" is a totally subjective derogatory term which really neither requires or deserves a response.  If name-calling is all you've got left...

As for animal behaviour, i have not and would not claim that it is in any way binding, but it gives those of us who believe in common ancestry at least some useful data to compare with human behaviour.  And when you say that animals do many things which it would be "abhorrent" for humans to do, you are just stating your own opinion, right?  Because many humans (not to mention animals) clearly do not consider it abhorrent to form romantic and sexual relationships with people of their own gender, and have apparently done so in every culture, historical or contemporary, which we have detailed knowledge of, despite facing often fierce persecution as a result from people like you.  Why on earth would anyone choose to be gay in Muslim countries where homosexuality is punishable by death?

"i think even a cursory reading of the Bible would show that a great deal of moral progress has been made since those books were written.  i am certainly grateful that most people in the Western world dont feel compelled to kill disobedient children, or to stone a young woman to death on her father's doorstep if she is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night.  These are things explicitly mandated by the book which you (laughably) claim to derive your morality from."

And which would happen again if the exact same circumstances that such acts were performed under were the same today.

This isn't simply recorded history EB, these are the alleged commandments of the creator of the universe.  Are you suggesting that there is a remotely conceivable set of social or cultural circumstances in which it would be the right thing to do to stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding day?

And I have responded that the correlation means the exact same thing for all social groups under my world view - everyone is guilty of sin.

Ok then, so the higher rates of STDs and promiscuity which you brought up in the case of homosexuality are entirely irrelevant to our discussion of the morality of homosexuality, because all they show is that homosexuals are human and - like everyone else - guilty of sin, in your view.  You regret bringing it up.  No worries, let's move on.

I already said YOU are the one constantly bringing up promiscuity, but it ultimately doesn't matter because homosexuality with any amount of partners is simply more receptive to STDs than monogamous heterosexual relations.

You are misinformed.  Anal sex is a risky sexual behaviour, practiced by something in the region of a quarter of heterosexuals, between a third and half of male homosexuals, and by very very few lesbians.  Lesbian sex is actually considerably safer than traditional heterosexual intercourse.  Why do you think cervical cancer screening services dont bother too much about women who have never had penetrative vaginal sex - because heterosexual sex is itself a risk factor for cervical cancer, not to mention HPV and fungal infections.  Monogamous or otherwise.

If a woman was choosing her sexual bahviour on the basis of least risk, as you seem to be advocating, she'd probably become a monogamous lesbian.  Do you not see this as a problem for your analysis that "STDs are simply a risk for homosexuality in it's entirety"?

homosexuality and promiscuity are both catagorically sexual behaviours with largely hedonistic motives

   It's sex EB.  It's a crazy mix of hedonism and altruism, emotion and physicality, commitment and abandon.  It's different every time, but if you're telling me that you unequivocally know that homosexual sex is all about casual hedonism, then i'm going have to either call bullsh*t or ask you to come out of the closet so we can discuss your experiences without pretence.

...since homosexuality opperates under the notion that there is no one set context for sexual behaviour it's not surprising to see many homosexuals act like there's no one set context for sexual behaviour.

   As if homosexuality was some vast anti-moral-establishment conspiracy.  Why should everyone organise their lives according to your ideas of the correct context for sexual behaviour?

So again, I've never said "inevitably leads", but it's not that big a jump to see when the ratio can best be described as 'overwhelming' (less than 3% are "monogamous" by some studies).

...which you feel no requirement to reference, or probably even to read, since they conform to your prejudices and therefore merit very little critical appraisal.

Here's an issue for you, if you determine homosexuality as a state by a genetic component like race, how exactly do you differentiate between homosexuals who DON'T have that genetic component, and those who do, but are solely practicing heterosexuality? Is a homosexual always a homosexual even if one's never practiced homosexuality even once? And can you tell the difference between such a person and a heterosexual like you can race and ethnicity?

Ok, well just to be clear, i dont consider sexuality to be quite like "race" (in so far as i agree that race is a valid construct), because it isn't only genetically determined, as can be seen from the 50% concurrence rate in monozygotic twin studies.  Some people may be "born" gay, while others are "made" gay, while others (most?) may be a mixture of both.  i dont know.  From talking to gay people, i believe that none of them had a choice in the matter, so whether it was genetics or early environment seems a bit of a pointless distinction.

As for telling the difference, without access to the technology necessary to "read" the brain in all its complexity, it is currently only possible to reliably determine whether someone is homosexual when they exhibit certain behaviour.  Not that this is particularly unusual.  Being able to roll your tongue is a very simple, single gene, trait.  You either can or you cant.  But unless i have a stupendous amount of technology at my disposal, i cant tell whether you're a tongue-roller or not until i see you either do or fail to do it.

This is not to say that sexuality is like a kind of mental Schrodinger's Cat.  We are begining to find ways to see into the box.  For example, there are recordable and reliable changes in brain activity when we are exposed to images which we find sexually arousing.  Showing an individual a variety of gay and straight pornography while he is in a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imagining (fMRI) machine is a quite reliable way to tell whether he or she is hetero or homosexual.  This study is an example of such an experiment.

So, in one way, no, we can't tell the difference between people of different sexualities the way we can between people of different races, yet.  But i would question how precisely you can tell the difference between people of different races/ethnicities.  Perhaps not as well as you think you can.  For example, what race is she:



Or him:



The first one is Cote de Pablo, who i thought was a rather attractive example of how fickle the concept of race can be, since she is South American, but convincingly playing an Israeli in NCIS.  The second is Tiger Woods, who you might be tempted to describe as African-American, despite the fact that he has Asian and Native American ancestry.  It's not so easy as you make out.

...human beings having different genders self-evidently means for the two to go together.

You're over-interpretting.  Clearly anyone trying to reproduce homosexually is making a mistake, but there is no non-dogmatic reason why people shouldn't choose a life-partner of the same sex.  i have even showed you some evolutionary methods by which homosexuality could be selected for, which you ignored, of course.

That and the fact many homosexuals admit to having some degree of attraction for the opposite gender.

Source?  No?  Too much to ask i suppose.  Regardless, i fail to see how this is any kind of argument.  i already mentioned left-handed people - a trait much more genetically fixed than sexuality - who often develop to be ambidextrous due to the not-so-subtle pressure in schools to write with the right hand.  If that sort of societal pressure can alter the expression of a behaviour fixed from before birth (ultrasound scans have demonstrated that foetuses have a reliable preference for which thumb to suck, which translates into right- or left-handedness after birth), then why should we expect it not to in the case of a behaviour subject to so many different influences?

"The difference i would suggest there is that being a rapist is more like a fetish, because it is an obsession with a particular sort of sexual experience which is unpalatable to most people. It does not qualify as an orientation towards a particular sort of partner."

So is homosexuality - a particular sort of sexual experience with the same gender. It's orientation being simply not caring about willingness, or caring about unwillingness.

Stretching semantics to breaking point does not qualify as an argument.

I'm denying my heterosexuality was set in stone from the moment I was in the womb.

i'm not suggesting that it was.  It may have been, but either way, it was not a choice, was it.

"Again, to anticipate your most obvious responses, this does not mean that i am morally equating bestiality and pedophilia with homosexuality."

Obvious responses, because you quite explicitly say it's all the same as the orientation you support.

 

And really, your only objection to pedophilia is asserting it would be harmful to children (and I notice you ignore beastiality all together). Seeing how the basic process of sex doesn't change with age and your stance on rape, it would seem 'consensual pedophilia' would be entirely consistent under your world view. Both would be consenting, pedophilia is a state of being, the 'act' is the same for adults, you really have nothing to seperate your view on one behaviour from the other.

i dont know if you've noticed that our laws generally assume that children are not capable of giving consent for certain types of activity, for the very obvious reason that they are not yet mature enough to fully understand the consequences of their actions.  That alone mandates against the "consensual pedophilia" which you suggest.  Pedophilia shows a strong correlation with left-handedness (not the other way around, by the way, just to reassure any left-handed people out there), which strongly suggests influences prior to birth - whether genetic or pre-natal environment - being responsible for the state of pedophilia.  No doubt some pedophiles are also "made" by social or cultural influences.  My point remains that we dont get to chose who we are attracted to.  We only get to chose what we do about it.  However, since allowing adult homosexual behaviour hurts no one, and makes some people very happy, i am unable to come up with any good arguments against it.  Fortunately i can rely on you to provide very bad ones.

[End Bringer]

  i haven't claimed to be able to perfectly define the boundaries of the "natural" - a concept which, if you remember, i have repeatedly described as being so broad as to be almost meaningless.  i could say much the same about the word "healthy", but that doesn't make me inconsistent if i disagree with someone who says that "Dead is healthy".  Likewise with the alleged "unnaturalness" of homosexuality.

Except the only reason you find the term so "broad" is due mostly to YOU inflating it to include almost anything. Unlike you I find the two terms "natural" and "healthy" to be far more specific and narrow. Of course the crux of the issue is that in admitting that there is a narrower standard for how things should be, admits to a design or at minimum intent. Which is awkward for an atheist and so to be resisted.

Why?  Just because i consider the category of "natural" (in so far as it means anything concrete) to be value neutral, i can't say anything further about inclusion or exclusion from it?  That doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does. If you're going to hold "natural" is neutral then it does no good to even bring it up. As such what would have been consistent behaviour from you is to just shrug and concede the claim that homosexuality is "not natural" but it's still "ok". But this entire time you've argued vehemently for homosexuality to be included in the catagory. And that tells me some part of you recognizes it's more sensical and significant than you care to outwardly admit.

  "Promote" (in this context) literally means to say that whatever you're promoting is a good thing. It doesn't make sense to say that someone promoted X as a bad thing.

Seems that for all your protests about me reading arguments that you don't make, you tend to do it yourself. It does make sense to promote a positive claim. Which is what advocating something as "natural" is - a positive statement.  Seems the only issue is that even YOU have jumped to using "natural" as a synonym for "good". At least in this one instance. Not that it matters much sense the issue that got this started was that all the other behaviours in the animal kingdom have the same evidence and reasoning as homosexuality. So ultimately your attitude towards them should be consistent across the board as with homosexuality, which you have admitted to being a good thing in THIS discussion (even if not admitting being "natural" has something to do with it).

Well there's a lot to unpack in that statement.  Most of it subjective assertion.  You have not made any compelling case for considering homosexuality to be "unnatural", but i invite you to do so.  "Perversion" is a totally subjective derogatory term which really neither requires or deserves a response.  If name-calling is all you've got left...

Oh the irony is just so rich comming from you. But I didn't realize I even needed to make a case. I'm just "critiquing" yours.

Not that it's all too difficult. Again, the self-evidency of sexual organs being a means of reproduction just as the digestion system is a self-evident means of digesting food makes things clear what is natural sexual behaviour. And "perversion" is not so subjective when one isn't under the notion that "natural"  is so broad as to include practicly any behaviour.

As for animal behaviour, i have not and would not claim that it is in any way binding, but it gives those of us who believe in common ancestry at least some useful data to compare with human behaviour.

Now you really are franticly trying to dump out water to save your sinking argument. If it's not in any way binding, then it's not in any way useful.

And when you say that animals do many things which it would be "abhorrent" for humans to do, you are just stating your own opinion, right?

Oh, so you are admitting that things like rape and infanticide being "bad" for humans is just you stating your own opinion and not some rationalization gymnastics to say that refraining from such behaviour is evolutionarily selective, right?

Because many humans (not to mention animals) clearly do not consider it abhorrent to form romantic and sexual relationships with people of their own gender, and have apparently done so in every culture, historical or contemporary, which we have detailed knowledge of, despite facing often fierce persecution as a result from people like you.  Why on earth would anyone choose to be gay in Muslim countries where homosexuality is punishable by death?

And some didn't consider it abhorrent to enslave others of their own species or carry out mass extermination. If you yourself don't consider those people's opinion on such things at all relevant, I don't see why I need to consider other's opinions on this subject. Especially when MY worldview holds opinions as irrelevant to issues of "good" and "bad". You might as well argue "up" and "down" are matters of opinion.

As far as your example of choice is concerned, well, why does anyone steal or murder where the penalty is long years in prison or even death? I have sin and rebellion that's in all people as an answer for all of it (and the idiotic notion that one can get away with it), but what do you got?

This isn't simply recorded history EB, these are the alleged commandments of the creator of the universe.  Are you suggesting that there is a remotely conceivable set of social or cultural circumstances in which it would be the right thing to do to stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding day?

The same alleged commandments were given under an alleged circumstance. And are you suggesting such things would be "wrong" as if there is some transcendant objective standard between "right/good" and "wrong/bad"? That would seem to greatly contradict your previous statements and entire worldview. 

Ok then, so the higher rates of STDs and promiscuity which you brought up in the case of homosexuality are entirely irrelevant to our discussion of the morality of homosexuality, because all they show is that homosexuals are human and - like everyone else - guilty of sin, in your view.  You regret bringing it up.  No worries, let's move on.

Ha! It would be irrelevant if there was no meaning to the issue of 'sin' itself. No, what it shows is that those social groups are guilty of sinning just as homosexuals are. And with STDs noted, they are guilty of a particular sin that goes to the heart of homosexuality - sexual immorality.

You are misinformed.  Anal sex is a risky sexual behaviour, practiced by something in the region of a quarter of heterosexuals, between a third and half of male homosexuals, and by very very few lesbians.  Lesbian sex is actually considerably safer than traditional heterosexual intercourse.  Why do you think cervical cancer screening services dont bother too much about women who have never had penetrative vaginal sex - because heterosexual sex is itself a risk factor for cervical cancer, not to mention HPV and fungal infections.  Monogamous or otherwise.

You are biased. Risks don't stop at anal sex and include oral-sex, sadism, fisting, and any other concevable physical approach for homosexuality. That some risked are shared by heterosexuals who practice the same behaviour just goes to show further how appropriate sexual behaviour is narrower than you advocate. And Lesbian sex is less documented than homosexual males due to males recieving the lions share of AIDS. Also a factor is that women are just generally less sexually aggressive than men. But they are just as much at risk of HPV, hepatitis, bacterial vaginosis, crabs, herpes, etc. Your example having as much meaning as showing men are at less risk of ovarian cancer.

If a woman was choosing her sexual bahviour on the basis of least risk, as you seem to be advocating, she'd probably become a monogamous lesbian.  Do you not see this as a problem for your analysis that "STDs are simply a risk for homosexuality in it's entirety"?

Nope, because as said above lesbians have their problems too. And you are misconstruing my arguement. It being STDs are simply a risk for any sexual practice outside a monogamous heterosexual relationship.

  It's sex EB.  It's a crazy mix of hedonism and altruism, emotion and physicality, commitment and abandon.  It's different every time, but if you're telling me that you unequivocally know that homosexual sex is all about casual hedonism, then i'm going have to either call bullsh*t or ask you to come out of the closet so we can discuss your experiences without pretence.

Well it CAN'T be about having kids like heterosexuality, so the other motive of 'doing what feels good', which you don't really disprove, seems more than reasonable. Or do I need to sit you on my lap and explain where babies come from?

  As if homosexuality was some vast anti-moral-establishment conspiracy.  Why should everyone organise their lives according to your ideas of the correct context for sexual behaviour?

Your question seems to prove my point - believing there is no correct context for sexual behaviour leads to *gasp* believing there is no correct context for sexual behaviour. As such if there is no incorrect context, why refrain? So like I said, not that big of a jump.

So again, I've never said "inevitably leads", but it's not that big a jump to see when the ratio can best be described as 'overwhelming' (less than 3% are "monogamous" by some studies).

...which you feel no requirement to reference, or probably even to read, since they conform to your prejudices and therefore merit very little critical appraisal.

Which you seem to feel no hesitation in mocking to suit your own prejudices despite your own explicit admittance of recognizing homosexuals as largely more promiscuious.

Ok, well just to be clear, i dont consider sexuality to be quite like "race" (in so far as i agree that race is a valid construct), because it isn't only genetically determined, as can be seen from the 50% concurrence rate in monozygotic twin studies.  Some people may be "born" gay, while others are "made" gay, while others (most?) may be a mixture of both.  i dont know.  From talking to gay people, i believe that none of them had a choice in the matter, so whether it was genetics or early environment seems a bit of a pointless distinction.

And here we see the back pedalling. Frankly if you don't see the choice in the matter of behaviour no matter if it's genetics or environmental I don't see how you can justify even arguing with those who oppose homosexuality. Some people may be "born" anti-gay, while others are "made" anti-gay, while others may be a mixture of both. Seems a pointless distinction. Which inevitably leaves the conclusion you must think there is no free will at all, and so futile to argue with others as if there was a choice to change one's behaviour.

As for telling the difference, without access to the technology necessary to "read" the brain in all its complexity, it is currently only possible to reliably determine whether someone is homosexual when they exhibit certain behaviour.  Not that this is particularly unusual.  Being able to roll your tongue is a very simple, single gene, trait.  You either can or you cant.  But unless i have a stupendous amount of technology at my disposal, i cant tell whether you're a tongue-roller or not until i see you either do or fail to do it.

Things like rolling one's tongue are also traits that can be done in isolation. It requires no outside circumstance of being around other people.

This is not to say that sexuality is like a kind of mental Schrodinger's Cat.  We are begining to find ways to see into the box.  For example, there are recordable and reliable changes in brain activity when we are exposed to images which we find sexually arousing.  Showing an individual a variety of gay and straight pornography while he is in a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imagining (fMRI) machine is a quite reliable way to tell whether he or she is hetero or homosexual.  This study is an example of such an experiment.

No real difference than seeing how tight the pants are getting. At least for men.

The first one is Cote de Pablo, who i thought was a rather attractive example of how fickle the concept of race can be, since she is South American, but convincingly playing an Israeli in NCIS.  The second is Tiger Woods, who you might be tempted to describe as African-American, despite the fact that he has Asian and Native American ancestry.  It's not so easy as you make out.

But it's more evident than needing to perform a behaviour to figure it out.

You're over-interpretting.  Clearly anyone trying to reproduce homosexually is making a mistake, but there is no non-dogmatic reason why people shouldn't choose a life-partner of the same sex.  i have even showed you some evolutionary methods by which homosexuality could be selected for, which you ignored, of course.

You're in denial and asserting. You've showed a rare case of parenting by two animals of the same gender that in no way can be applied to humans, but ultimately even THAT needed heterosexual activity to be even possible (and is practically meaningless as anything can be said to have an evolutionary purpose). Quite frankly if everyone in the world chose a life-partner of the same sex, I think the fact that the human race would die with that generation shows a pretty self-evident non-dogmatic reason why the heterosexual behaviour is the "natural" way to go.

Seriously, the conclusion of total homosexuality leading to extinction, while total heterosexuality leading to the race continuing on is enough to blow your argument of homosexuality being in any way "natural" out of the water.

Source?  No?  Too much to ask i suppose.  Regardless, i fail to see how this is any kind of argument.  i already mentioned left-handed people - a trait much more genetically fixed than sexuality - who often develop to be ambidextrous due to the not-so-subtle pressure in schools to write with the right hand. If that sort of societal pressure can alter the expression of a behaviour fixed from before birth (ultrasound scans have demonstrated that foetuses have a reliable preference for which thumb to suck, which translates into right- or left-handedness after birth), then why should we expect it not to in the case of a behaviour subject to so many different influences?

This seems to admit an ability to choose to change you deny above and below. Which is pretty much my point - It's not so fixed that a person can't help it even if there is a genetic component. Societal pressure is just an influence in making that choice. Seeing how homosexuality was and still is largely a minority, if no one had a choice in the face of societal pressure homosexuality would not exist in the West as much as it does today, and blacks would still be farm equipment.

Stretching semantics to breaking point does not qualify as an argument.

  Look who's talking.

i'm not suggesting that it was.  It may have been, but either way, it was not a choice, was it.

Is this a question? Because it was absolutely a choice. The same as any behaviour of murdering or raping is a choice. And those are no more like race than homosexuality is.

i dont know if you've noticed that our laws generally assume that children are not capable of giving consent for certain types of activity, for the very obvious reason that they are not yet mature enough to fully understand the consequences of their actions. That alone mandates against the "consensual pedophilia" which you suggest.

I don't know if you've noticed, but people break the law all the time, and it's remarkably subject to change (again the slave issue ). Unless all one needs to do is get homosexuality declared illegal by saying homosexuals are not competant enough to fully understand the consequences of homosexuality for your support of homosexuality to vanish, I'd say you're just looking for an excuse you won't hold consistently yourself. And frankly with people wanting to teach sex to kids at younger and younger ages it seems actual performance would be a logical progression.

That alone mandates against the "consensual pedophilia" which you suggest.  Pedophilia shows a strong correlation with left-handedness (not the other way around, by the way, just to reassure any left-handed people out there), which strongly suggests influences prior to birth - whether genetic or pre-natal environment - being responsible for the state of pedophilia.  No doubt some pedophiles are also "made" by social or cultural influences.  My point remains that we dont get to chose who we are attracted to.  We only get to chose what we do about it.  However, since allowing adult homosexual behaviour hurts no one, and makes some people very happy, i am unable to come up with any good arguments against it.  Fortunately i can rely on you to provide very bad ones.

Again, as pedophila and homosexuality is ultimately the same act/behaviour, if homosexuality hurts no one and would make some people happy, then it stands pedophilia should be supported under the same reasons. Those opposing merely having their 'bigoted dogmatic opinions' to paraphrase you. As such you should support such behaviour as consistently as you do homosexuality, right? Time to pony up, or admit to hyopcrisy DB, because like most things you've simultaneously rejected along with homosexuality you simply can't seperate your own reasoning (not even with an ad hoc of "hurting others" like you use for murder in this case).

And ultimately genetics has as little to do with one's behaviour as they do with behaviours of murdering or raping. Seeing how you yourself admit a genetic component like being left-handed is not unchangible (making genetics all but irrelevant anyway), there is nothing to suggest a more complicated behaviour like pedophilia and homosexuality which have more environmental factors influencing them can't change those too. Ultimately all behaviour and acts are a choice. And if you can be 'fine' with the "state" of pedophilia as long as one doesn't perform pedophilia , I don't see an issue with me objecting to homosexuals putting their inclination into practice regardless of "state". Though I guess if no pedophilia or homosexuality is performed they wouldn't be pedophiles and homosexuals then, would they?