people do tend to react badly when people question their...
Insert either "secularism" or "religion" here.
Ian wrote:
the problem with your analogy is that it's not relevant. Religion involves (generally) a book of inarguable truths, for example, the resurrection of Jesus. Our understanding of that even can't be forwarded by religion because it refuses to budge on this issue. It can't be swayed. Any evidence that was produced to refute creation, for example dinosaur bones, can always be dismissed as created by God in week 1.
I could go all day long playing devil's advocate to you, Ian, and not run out of material.
I can cite you numerous examples of secularists who have boneheaded ideas that they presume to be truth.
Meanwhile...
Why do they teach evolution at my son's Christian school? Please explain that to me.
Not all religions are created equal. Core ideas have evolved for generations. There are monodeistic and polydeistic religions. And even religions cast away - such as that employed by the ancient Greeks - have their value. Ever read Greek mythology? My younger (8-year-old) son is in to it now. And going to a Catholic school. Go figure... We talk about the various stories all the time. The lessons of the Greek gods still apply today. In fact there are times when it makes you think the people who came up with this stuff had some kind of time travel ability. Many lessons of humanity are timeless.
The fact that said lessons are dressed up with strange names and characters matters not. In fact if you ask me, the medium enhances the message. My son totally gets it when we talk about it. And if it wasn't for the stories, he wouldn't have the opportunity to sip from the wisdom of the ages. He'd have to figure all those lessons out de novo. That's hardly a productive use of mankind's valuable experiences.
Bill, you're promoting the value of the stories religion teaches, I assume from both literary and moral reasons. I've never taken a stand against literature, whether religious or secular, and I sure haven't taken a stand against stories that teach moral lessons. I think you might be confusing the value of teaching religious literature or morals with taking religous dogma at face value--believing very specific implausible/impossible things without supporting evidence, at least evidence remotely proportionate to the certainty and detail of the claims, just because. There is however, no relation between these two things. You could also read Dawkins on this, as he makes a very good case for the value of religious studies for understanding literature and your fellow man.
PS: I / we know that religions are not created equal. I either have to speak in generalities, or have to address every subsect of mormonism and hinduism separately. I can't do that for many reasons, of course, so I'm stuck confronting the central issue here, which is faith in the face of no evidence or contrary evidence. I think that's unwise and I think its a mistake to call that a virtue. That's all--it doesn't mean religion doesn't do good or console people and so on.
Oye. No, just that understanding religion is wise. You can see that understanding Tolkien's world without believing its real could help you enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies, right? And it would help us understand any terrorist cells convinced that attacks on short people and trees might bring about the return of Sauron.
Quote
"thread on same sex adoption was posted on Tough Issues if anyone has data suggesting it's bad policy."
Well I can't post there .but I can post here
yeah it's bad policy for a number of reasons ( both secular and religious)
firstly Homosexuality is an abomination ( according to christianity/Judaism/islam)..but my argument would be more "Secular"...nurture over nature .if you brought up a "normal" child should we be surprised if they become Homosexual because they where brought up by homosexuals .and of course that would be a bad thing because they were not homosexuals and you would be depriving them of their right to a normal healthy live sexually and a normal healthy upbringing. In my country you cannot adopt "BLack" children if you are white...............because it would be contrary to their ethnicity....so I would assume that they shouldn't be brought up by homosexuals for even more fundamental reasons.....and from a religious and secular point, Darwin or otherwise........homosexuality is not normal.it is a genetic deviance which dies out and does not propaget the species.....if you had a whole planet of homosexuals it would be gone in a generation .......doesn't mean I hate them or anything.your cross to bear ....so to speak
"Firstly Homosexuality is an abomination ( according to christianity / Judaism / Islam)"
My edit: according to some adherents. This very thread, all sorts of religious errors were disregarded because they were thought not to be "true" adherents. In fact, adherents are self identified. And if there's a gay bishop, well, its not a universal opinion. Anyway, religiously motivated policy is precisely why I didn't move to Afghanistan to live under the Taliban. And you haven't specified why I'm an abomination and we have stopped stoning people for mixing fabrics, eating bacon cheeseburgers, or having adultery. We even let menstruating women come to worship now! Next...
"..but my argument would be more "Secular"...nurture over nature .if you brought up a "normal" child should we be surprised if they become Homosexual because they where brought up by homosexuals."
I would be surprised, actually, and this is why I suggested proponents of discrimination bring datato the table. Would you like to post any information here that suggests that homosexuality IS due to upbringing and more specficially that it is increased in adoptees by same sex couples? There have been many, so you ought to be able to find data.
Here's something to think about... I was raised by heterosexuals. Until I was in 12th grade or so, I quite seriously believed that the only people with same sex interests in the USA might be me and HIV+ leather daddies in San Francisco, the only other gay people the TV made me aware of--I never met another gay person till I escaped to college. My classmates played smear the queer and capture the fag and homophobic language ruled the insult hierarchy. I dated women, I tried to force myself to have no "unhealthy" desires, and it just wasn't happening. Doesn't all that unsuccessful pressure (and others have had far worse) suggest that nuture doesn't rule this one?
" .and of course that would be a bad thing because they were not homosexuals and you would be depriving them of their right to a normal healthy live sexually and a normal healthy upbringing." (emphasis mine)
Before, you suggested homosexuality was "nurture?" Here, you imply these kids, raised into homosexuals, were actually heterosexual... intrinsically? Biologically? Interesting counterpoint to your last argument. Anyway, anyone could say that a person of a certain race, religion, lack of religion, age, veteran status, income below 200k, sexual orientation, job, caste, you name it provides an insufficiently "normal" upbringing. But what does it mean? You had German people in 1938 saying Jews were filthy and would raise children in an unhealthy way... so, that makes good policy? Again, my plea was for you to substantiate your claims. Personally, I would rather not have non-gayfriendly people adopt children, but that is not grounds for national adoption policy. How many people have to have an opinion before it justifies policy--and how long would we have had slavery in the US if it was up to majority vote?
"In my country you cannot adopt "BLack" children if you are white... because it would be contrary to their ethnicity....so I would assume that they shouldn't be brought up by homosexuals for even more fundamental reasons"
I guess your country would rather leave kids in orphanages than have them adopted by loving qualified parents of a different race. Here in America the ideal (admittedly, sometimes not the full reality) is that the races are equal and there is no such policy. What does this tell us? Cultures do vary--but not as dictated by race. Ask Clarence Thomas. Skin color should be irrelevant. The foundation for your claim that homosexuality should be lumped in by race as a criterion for sorting at adoption time is based on nothing more than a policy from one country, which you would have to justify. Plus, some of those kids are gay. Should straight parents be allowed to raise them?
"...and from a religious and secular point, Darwin or otherwise... .....homosexuality is not normal."
If you mean infrequent, being left handed isn't normal either. Or having one arm. Do we forbid leftie parents with one arm from raising children? Also, it's worth pointing out that the popular refrain was once that homosexuality was an illness because not even the animals would indulge. Now that it is well known (to some) that many different species of animals do have same sex encounters and even form stable pairs, the chorus is that its dirty because animals do it (Ref: Savage, "The Commitment.") In any case, rabbits don't make transistors, so I would argue that what passes for "normal" in the animal world isn't our best guide of what to do or not do.
And its religiously "abnormal" to be gay? Is this the Taliban argument again? Religion is an important cultural force, but it's not based on anything except shared faith that certain sets of rituals and texts are correct and others aren't. IF a God addresses Congress and says that homosexuality is wrong, I will listen in. Until then, I am not interested in what you think God's word is unless you can prove that's his word or that he exists. I think its ok to love someone of the same sex; some people think its fact that people are resurrected from the dead. Others would challenge one or both of these statements, but neither is proof that someone is an unfit parent as far as I can tell.
In any case, this isn't relevant. This has nothing to do with raising children. Infertility is not "normal" and yet infertile couples are perfectly capable of raising children (and that leads us to your next point...)
"it is a genetic deviance which dies out and does not propaget the species." (emphasis mine).
Ok, so here it seems you confirmed that you think homosexuality is heritable, and nature, not nurture. Now... as for not propagating the species....
1) Gay people have kids all the time. These can be from other relationships or they can be from sperm or uterus loans. We propagate as much as we choose to.
2) What does this have to do with adoption? Infertile couples marry, whether infertile by genetic disease, injury, receipt of chemo, prior STDs, age, or bad luck. And they raise kids all the time. And infertile couples adopt. And they do fine raising kids. This is irrelevant to the adoption debate.
3) Humanity doesn't need any further assistance with reproduction? We have a massive population explosion, which in turn makes for more workers on one hand and for scarcer resources (and orphans, and ecological problems) on the other. There are too many orphans as it is; we need more parents. Gay adoptive people are now like the gay arabic interpreters the army booted--do you want to get the orphans care, and win this war, or don't you?
"....if you had a whole planet of homosexuals it would be gone in a generation."
Perhaps--I think enough people would want kids things would be fine. On the other hand, if you had a whole planet of MEN the situation would be far more dire. Or women. Or infertile couples? Old people? What is we had a whole planet of theoretical physicists? Or even blacksmiths? Who would make the clothes and grow the food? See my point? It doesn't matter if an entirely gay planet would self sustain. Let's NOT prevent all the above people from raising kids... and let's not deny them their full human dignity and a place at the table. We all need a blacksmith now and then.
Further issue: if homosexuality is genetic, its still here. Doesn't that imply that it might have some possible benefit, or at least lack of harm? Well, don't they fail to reproduce? See item #1 above. What could that benefit be if it probably REDUCES offspring at least--well, this isn't a single gene variation, or we'd see simple mendelian inheritance, which we don't. So there are many factors at play, including, possible, nuture; in any case, there are many genetic variances that are more or less advantageous under different circumstances, for example, sickle and thalassemia mutations promote survival from malaria, and cystic fibrosis mutations were thought to ward off death from diarrhea. Aren't those diseases? In certain contexts, they are, but anyway, consider my height (6'3") and imagine me trying to crawl through the dense jungle inhabited by the pygmies. There's a reason they're small. Neither of us has a disease. Evolutionary biologists HAVE pondered this issue and suggest that same sex bonding tendencies might help groups congeal and not fight all the time, or that gay chimps might make great nursemaids to their siblings' kids, who pass on some of their aunts/uncles genes after receiving closer care. Things to think about.
" .......doesn't mean I hate them or anything.your cross to bear ....so to speak"
Well, your words suggest you do have some feelings (not just thoughts) about the matter. To highlight this, ask when was the last time a gay person tried to promote the stripping of your civil rights or called you a genetic deviant (one hand) that can warp homosexual children to your lifestyle (other hand)? Anyway, please come back to the discussion, but again, I'd prefer something back up with data or a stronger argument.
PS: Living on two incomes without kids is hardly cross bearing work.
Last edited by IJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Actually in high school, i was taught that Homosexuality is not genetic, but occurs while the infant is forming in the womb. I forgot what exactly. But from what little i remember, im positive it happens while the fetus is growing in the womb.
"Actually in high school, i was taught that Homosexuality is not genetic, but occurs while the infant is forming in the womb. I forgot what exactly. But from what little i remember, im positive it happens while the fetus is growing in the womb."
I've never seen conclusive evidence in any direction. High school health teachers aren't always reliable witnesses... and when we started medschool they warned us 50% of what they said would be proven wrong within 10-20 years. MANY scientists believe that there are genetic contributors; to me it seems likely that nature (genes and early development) and nuture both play a role, much as they do for height, which has genetic and environmental contributors and varies continuously in the population (it's not an either or). The usual experience of people (most of us) seems to be acting and feeling a certain way spontaneously and early in life without any conscious decision.
Most things do end up being a little nature and a little nurture.
However I've read evidence similar to what Adam has suggested. It has to do with men more than women though. Female homoxexuality/heterosexuality appears to be a slightly more complex phenomenon.
As I understand it, testosterone is needed at a certain point in the male fetus development to create some of the anatomical (and subsequently physiological) changes in the brain. An absence of testosterone at that point can lead to a number of feminine as opposed to masculine characteristics.
We each have degrees of maleness and femaleness, or yin and yang as you will. It shows up now on myriad psychological tests. Being 100% one way or the other way isn't necessarily a good thing. The spectrum is what it is.
It makes sense that nature would genetically select for more heterosexuality. That historically has been the strongest driver of DNA propagation through the generations. So whatever combination of factors leads to what we observe as gay behavior, if there is a direct or indirect genetic component then you will see it selected against - for the most part.
No morals discussion here, BTW. It is what it is. Change the environment, and a different order comes about. Most biologists believe that genetic variability is a good thing. It's what allows a species - a collection of DNA - to survive a dramatic or catastrophic change in environment.
IJ wrote:
I would be surprised, actually, and this is why I suggested proponents of discrimination bring datato the table.
I actually wouldn't be surprised, but for the same reason that the prevalence of rape appears to go up when being a rape victim is destigmatized. That is, children of homosexual couples aren't as likely to have their inborn same-sex tendencies supressed, so the rate at which homosexuality is reported goes up, even if the true rate of incidence is invariant.
Jorvik, you said that being homosexual deprives you of a normal, healthy sexuality. What is unhealthy about homosexuality? Even if homosexuality were 100% choice, why is it any worse than any other uncommon sexual proclivity? Or is it bad to deviate in any way from the most common forms of sexual activity?
Quote
" Jorvik, you said that being homosexual deprives you of a normal, healthy sexuality. What is unhealthy about homosexuality? "
it's unhealthy for the Species, folks are doing stuff that is not intended for the species or it's survival....what about Paedephiles..shouldn't they be shown more compassion ..what they do can be of benefit to the species survival
jorvik wrote:Quote
it's unhealthy for the Species, folks are doing stuff that is not intended for the species or it's survival....what about Paedephiles..shouldn't they be shown more compassion ..what they do can be of benefit to the species survival
Is your argument that the benefit to the species survival homosexuals could create by having babies outweighs the unhappiness felt by individuals denied the chance at ever having a fulfilling romantic relationship?. Are you against birth control?
Homosexuals can do what they want, as far as I am concerned.I just don't think that they should be afforded special privileges......if they cannot produce kids because of the way they are then they shouldn't be allowed to adopt them...and before you ask, the same applies to heterosexuals who cannot pro create...but you missed my point about paedophiles ( I know we spell it correctly here ).shouldn't they be allowed the same rights.and as I've said if white folks cannot adopt black kids why should homosexuals be allowed to adopt heterosexuals
I think you missed the point here, Justin. Ray asked a legitimate question, and it should be addressed.
jorvik wrote:
"Jorvik, you said that being homosexual deprives you of a normal, healthy sexuality. What is unhealthy about homosexuality?"
it's unhealthy for the Species, folks are doing stuff that is not intended for the species or it's survival....what about Paedephiles..shouldn't they be shown more compassion ..what they do can be of benefit to the species survival
This is the slippery slope argument. It's certainly worth a run.
The rational way to respond to this is that the comparison is apples and oranges. Pedophilia involves sex between adults and minors - irrespective of gender. It involves one of the two parties not having fully developed centers of judgement - even if the physical aspects are more or less "functional." Thus it inherently involves a lack of proper consent.
Different cultures and different eras may choose different chronologic ages for this age of consent. But a mark in time is needed.
Prison rape is another example. It is not an act between two consenting adults.
Same-sex sexual activity and same-sex unions generally are considered to be acts between consenting ADULTS. Whether or not that is "right" or should be legalized or institutionalized is an entirely different subject.
As for it being "unhealthy for the Species", well...
Sickle cell anemia is generally thought of as an undesireable genetic trait. However... If you are a sickle cell carrier, then you are immune to the effects of malaria. Ponder that for a bit. Ever wonder why this condition is usually found where malaria is prevalent?
Genetic and behavioral variability is a fact of nature. What is good, right, or accepted can change on a dime. It used to be when I was young that anything you caught from indiscriminate sex could be fixed with some antibiotics or a little lindane. These days...
Sometimes life sux. And not in the good way...
It doesn't surprise me when cultures through time accept or reject various minorities. This would include minority behavior. That kind of thing is ALSO a fact of nature.
But variability exists. And variability often is a good thing - when the environment changes.
I sometimes ponder how many of our greatests artists were gay. Would we be everything we are as a civilization without the occasional gay and lesbian person popping up in the population? Do they have a unique perspective that creates a population-level synergy? In some indirect way, are they beneficial to the gene pool?
Where would we be in art today without Michaelangelo? The pope didn't seem to mind his art on the ceilings of the Cystene Chappel. Can you look at David and tell me that the man wasn't gay? I mean really now... That young boy is just a little bit too... beautiful. Ask any woman.
.but I can post here 
