[Guest]

Open to all opinions. No bashing, please. Keep it civil.

To start it off, here's my opinion: Homosexuality is a genetically favored trait. The argument is just this simple: Man is a social animal - it is our most basic evolutionary advantage. Sex has evolved beyond procreation to become a key tool for social bonding (not just in humans but in other higher primates). The community that accepts LGBT bonding has an evolutionary advantage over the one that does not.

So what do you think?

[Izzy]

I know correlation doesn't equal causation, but all I'm saying is that with the statistic there, it means it's a serious possibility and as likely as the explanations you've provided. With further insight, we can probably know. Without, our reasoning is guesses at best.

..I don't understand Phaze's question? Is he asking if I think religiousity is evolutionarily beneificial? Roflmfaowtf no. It was used by rulers to legitimize their rule. If it were, we would have never gotten past polytheism.

I think there's two ways to look at this. One will start a flame war, one won't. Both are.. probably right. The child indoctrination of religious filt belief does have a huge impact on the child, especially depending on how naive they are. Most children? Very. If you regard something as absolute truth upwards of 5-10 or even 15 years and are constantly in a community of people with the same beliefs practicing the same rituals, it makes sense you're going to believe it. This isn't genetic. Put some kid from Africa with an animalist past into the home of some fundies; making a hypothesis of the results shouldn't be too difficult.

And.. I'll post the other bit when I get home. School time. D:

[Guest]

Do you have similar views for religious fundamentalism (mostly biology)?

I think homosexuality is more complex than you are portraying.

Well, since your experiment has been tainted by other responses already, I'll point out that you're also using a false analogy as the basis of your question. Religious fundamentalism generally grows from an entrenched culture that reinforces that fundamentalism. Such nurture encourages fundamentalism.

Meanwhile, homosexuality still exists with a strong stigma attached to it in most cultures the world over (less so today than in recent times, but still vastly outweighing the positive) and yet people still turn out to be homosexual. So people prove to be homosexual in spite of their nurture.

So if fundamentalism was considered "dangerous and immoral" by the culture at large (I'd support such a movement... ) and a significant portion of the population still grew up with fundamentalist beliefs, then I would say that they could be compared on the same level. I actually think this is a really good experiment. We should petition fundamentalists to stop being fundamentalists for a generation or so. If they are following the "one, true religion" then everyone will naturally gravitate back to fundamentalism without the external stimuli of parents and church elders. Since they are so utterly convinced that they are right, they should jump at this opportunity to prove it, right?

[Izzy]

...On the other hand (continuing from where I left off earler), intellect is genetic, and, *ahem* people of a higher intelligence are more likely to question the social strata of their society, religions included. They will seek actual answers to their questions, and with their pursuit of knowledge, overcome their religious disadvantages. Now, there are outliers, and people can be incredibly intelligent and religuous.. but.. *digs up charts*

So, in a sense, religion have a genetic basis (not the religion itself, but the inclination to actually believe in it), but it's still mostly environmental, arguably the antithesis to homosexuality.

If no one has heard of particular religions, they won't come back. If no one has heard of homosexuality, it will still happen because it feels natural to those people whereas religion is, lightly put, brainwash.

[phaze]

You know what they say about statistics Izzy...

There may be other explanations to your graph (such as religion being more accepting of the disadvantaged)

So let's see if I got this straight homosexuality good, fundamentalism bad because one is more genetically based whilst the other is more of a social construct.

If fundamentalism can be mostly a social construct why can't homosexuality?

As I said I think homosexuality is more complex then you are portraying.

[Izzy]

It's by countries. Are you telling me Germany is less accepting of the handicapped than Cambodia, where they don't have the resources to deal with them? What the graph indicates is clear: as socities advance, religions disappear. Then, this is probably a bad example, but have you ever been on RDF (now nonexistent ) and compared it to religious-based forums with users of the same ages? The difference in content, typing styles, et al. is astounding. ...Meh, if I had my way, schools would conduct some survey where students are polled by religions and then the religions (or lack thereofs) are ranked by GPA or something. I think it'd be something like Atheist > Hindu > Jainist/Buddhist > Islam > Christianity. Not because I oppose the latter two or anything, but that's just what I've observed. Now, it can be argued that immigrants are going to try harder, and therefore acquire higher GPAs, and that people from Asia tend to be more intelligent, but.. if anything the religions people in those regions have developed reflect that and be less ridiculous by contrast.

No, homosexuality neither good nor bad, it just is, sort of like the color blue is neither good nor bad. Fundie-ism bad; I don't think I need to explain myself on this one, right? Attempting to outgrow religion bashing.

...Because homosexuality isn't a social construct? You don't have any more choice in being gay than you do in being born left handed. It's not like if we started raising all children with a homosexual mentality, gay rates would be higher than they are now.

Wait.. are you a fundie, and if so, are you one of the "Gays? Burn in Hell! Let G-dawg pass judgement on thee!" ones?

[phaze]

Fundie-ism bad; I don't think I need to explain myself on this one, right? Attempting to outgrow religion bashing.

Just think it is interesting that you don't have much bad to say about homosexuality but if I drop the 'F' word it really pushes your button.

Fundamental = the basics

I believe in the redemptive work of Rabbi Yeshuah Ben Yoseph (Jesus the supposed son of Joseph) but everything else I an not too fussed either way about. This means I am a fundamentalist by the way I have defined the word above but agnostic about most things.

[Izzy]

Definition one is how I and most of the internet interpret fundamentalists: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fundamentalist

Why would I have anything bad to say about homosexuality?

[phaze]

Definition one is how I and most of the internet interpret fundamentalists: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fundamentalist

Yeah, I blame the media

<rant>Why is it that people from the US mess up everyones English?</rant>

Why would I have anything bad to say about homosexuality?

Why would you have anything bad to say about fundamentalism?

(I haven't seen a graph that for each country that compares homosexuality to birth rate let alone IQ)

[Izzy]

Why would I have anything bad to say about people who want to burn Qur'ans as a method of political bullying, hold "God Hates Fags" signs, and are generally really ridiculous? No idea, bro, no idea.

(Hmm, because I'd honestly never considered a correlation between IQ and sexuality. I'm not convinced one exists, and have no reason to believe otherwise. *googles*

..After considerable googling, I found no studies, only some haphazard guessing similiar to what I'm doing here. I'm going to go with no correlation. *shrug* If there would be one, it's definitely caused by some lurking variable because I'm doubting sexual attraction has anything to do with quickness to understand concepts or that intelligence leads to a different sexual orientation.)

Edited September 23, 2010 by Izzy

[phaze]

So you had to google? Sorry, I assumed you had a thing about peoples IQ and had one on-hand. How about one for birth-rate then (as it seems more applicable to me as well)?

* gives up on Izzy being a reliable source for statistics *

Please note that your last graph was not fundamentalism over IQ but religion over IQ It is an arguable difference, but are you willing to say all religious people are fundamentalist (as you define fundamentalist)?

[Izzy]

Uh.. no?

Birth-rate. Well, Google doesn't give any interesting graphs, but, there's two things I can think of when it comes to homosexuality and birth rates. The Greeks, in response to over-population, encouraged young men to compete in the Olympics where they could find suitable partners to distract themselves from women and having kids for a years. This kept the population fairly controlled, so I guess you could say higher proportions of homosexuality will yield lowers birth rates because less heteosexual intercourse = less pregnancies.

..Meaning you indirectly gave up on Google.

Not at all. Most religious people tend to be fairly normal, and fundamentalists (as I define them) really stick out as outliers on the bat-sh*t crazy and inherently idiotic scale. It's a huge difference, but also remember that my original argument was that religious people, over all, will be less intelligent than their non-religious peers, especially when considering matters of logic, reasoning, and science. Their average is probably significantly brought down by the fundies that think the Earth is 6k years old, flat, and that we co-existed with dino-rawrs. I think it's fair to say that faith is a silly thing to have, and where faith exists is a great deal of naivity and gullibility, which *shrug* isn't often associated with what one would consider "smart" people.

I think the hugest counter-point to any of my arguments is the existence of Hindus, who tend to be religious but also very talented in maths and sciences. So.. *shrug* Though, that's comparing two different of different cultures and different environmental pressures leading to different specializations. Indians atheists vs. Indian hindus would be interesting. *googles*

Haha, relatedish.

Meh, couldn't find a chart I liked. New Google Images search sucks. =/

[phaze]

..Meaning you indirectly gave up on Google.

Just means,I am going to have to go direct to Google (a lot less colourful)

* Chart explains a lot, likes *

I think you will find that people are still people.

Yes both you, me and everyone else on the planet is to some degree biased, homophobic, racist, anti-something, "bat-sh*t crazy" and not terribly bright.

Just don't let me catch you wearing a "your god hates Fundamentalists" placard (although technically it is probably accurate for the way you describe fundamentalists). To do so means you have stooped to their level.

[Izzy]

I own this t-shirt, but, but, but, ACCURATE. http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/the-god-delusion-t-shirt

I definitely agree that humanity is inherently stupid, stupidity defined as almost any arbitrary concept like "racist", "homophobic", "intellectual elitist", "music elitist" (haha.. According to almost everyone, I have this written all over my face/clothes. I get a bit.. out there.. if I think your depriving yourself or not seeing the awesomeness in certain music >_>), etc. I disagree that everyone falls into multiple categories, though. Meh, t'is the bane of our existence, but it's hella interesting.

Levels are also interesting. As a fairly nihilistic person, I'll occaisonally swap maturity and my reputation for having a good time, aware and fully content with looking like an idiot in the process. Then again, people capable of doing that also don't rely on others' constant validation, so there's a maturity component in there too. Life is complex, yet simple. More on topic: live to live. F'uck who you want to f'uck, curse when you want to curse, use when you want to use, and die when you want to die. Mmm, there are some song lyrics I want to quote, but if the previous sentence doesn't get me banned, this will. >_> The rest of the song is eh, though, so linking to lyrics will provide the wrong effect, meh.

Bah, I r sleepy.

Redemptive work? So.. literal interpretation of the NT?

[phaze]

Back on topic (after side track)

I think homosexuality is very complex and cannot be described by genetics, environment or social structure on their own (maybe even explaining them together). This is basically because humans tend to be fairly complex, they tend to adapt and change themselves as well as adapt and change their environment. Decisions you make today are based on decisions you made yesterday. One can make oneself sick by worrying so it could be possible that social structure changes a person physically.

[Izzy]

Chemicals!

[phaze]

Edit: You mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_makeup_of_the_human_body

Edited September 24, 2010 by phaze

[Izzy]

Are you facepalming me or yourself?

Meh, the thought of a predeterministic universe freaks me out, but then again, it's *supposed* to.

[phaze]

Meh, the thought of a predeterministic universe freaks me out, but then again, it's *supposed* to.

Me too (but for a different reason)

I kinda see the quote "God made me gay" as more of a question rather than a statement.

[gvg]

I'm late to the party in a major way; I have no idea where we are. I will just start off by saying: Repeal DADT, allow gays to marry, give homosexuals the same rights as normal people. It's ridiculous that it's stayed this way for so long, but the truth is: It was probably because of people like my confirmation teacher (who drove me out of Catholicism). Wacky people. Now, not ALL Catholics of course. Just, well, a bit.

BTW, News update: The Rep. are not allowing the repeal, but I'm not surprised, because the Dems were stupid and connected it to another military thing... I dunno, but bottom line: Nothing is happening because of both sides.

I take pride in being independent. =)

[Izzy]

I kinda see the quote "God made me gay" as more of a question rather than a statement.

How so? If an omniscient deity exists and set particles in play that must follow laws of the universe he set out, he was the direct cause of every action, including whether or not people are gay.

Mmm.. I like to adhere to the opposite view of the above (which works with or without a god). I can't prove it, and I feel seriously inclined to believe the opposite (honestly mostly agnostic on the issue), but I'm hoping we have free will. Meh. If we don't, *shrug*, *sigh*, *tear*; if we do, I'm happy I didn't waste it. I guess that's my sort of faith. (faskdjfaksjdfa eugh I just realized that sounds as irrational as having a religion; so, sticking with agnosticism on free will but hoping we have it, which is different.

[phaze]

How so? If an omniscient deity exists and set particles in play that must follow laws of the universe he set out, he was the direct cause of every action, including whether or not people are gay.

Zactly! Including determining the quote above which you chose to write even though it was pre-determined that you would.

[Izzy]

As well as it was pre-determined that you would elicit your response and I would retort with this. Even so, how is that a question? Well, I sorta see what you mean, but you have to realize most gay people wouldn'tt think of it as "God made me gay? Why? ", but rather "Yeah, God made me gay."

Edited September 24, 2010 by Izzy

[Guest]

Do you have similar views for religious fundamentalism (mostly biology)?...

...trying to work out if Izzy had a double standard

Maybe I misunderstood, but my reading of this was that maybe religious fundamentalism (or even just religiosity generally) may be a characteristic that you are born with, and therefore we shouldn't judge people because of it (that being the whole point with double standards). That doesn't presuppose that your selection of religion is genetic, merely a propensity to be religious (in the absence of actual religion maybe expressed in other forms, such as a zeal for some political movement or whatever).

Interpreting phaze's question like that, and answering it on my behalf since Izzy's probably asleep now, I'd say it doesn't matter. Judging people by their religiosity isn't really the point. It may make them wrong in a logical or factual sense, but not a moral one. But the things that people do and say, which affect other people, are a moral issue.

By way of comparison, consider paedophilia. There may be a genetic propensity for this (or other causes arguably not the fault of the paedophile), but any moral judgement should be based on actions. If a person is sexually attracted to children and never does anything about it, we have no cause for moral judgement. Of course, in the real world you have to consider that action is often quite subtle action, and ask how much we are prepared to trust someone to never do anything in response to their sexual preferences. So it makes sense to keep paedophiles away from children, but that's not a moral judgement, just common sense.

Now if we are to judge religious fundamentalists (using Izzy's interpretation of that) on what they do, not what they are, there's plenty of cause for condemnation. Even widening the scope to religious people in general, they often do harm by indoctrinating their children into believing falsehoods that cause confusion and conflict. The credibility of religious belief rests mainly on the fact that lots of people already believe it, so by congregating and making their beliefs known, religious believers compound this fallacious thinking. The acceptance of religious doctrine generally leads to suffering as people try to shoehorn their lives into irrelevant and archaic systems of rules and values. And it's not unusual for religious believers to try to impose that on anyone else in the vicinity. So there is a moral issue here.

Homosexuality on the other hand, if it takes place between consenting adults, is nobody else's business. Where's the harm? It makes no difference whether it's down to nature or nurture, as far as our standards are concerned. It's the actions that people take and the effect it has on others that matters.

I'm aware that I brought morality into this, and I don't wish to imply that Izzy actually considers religious fundamentalism a moral matter, maybe she just argues against it because it makes no sense.

You might say there is another kind of double standard, in that it makes no sense to speak out against something which occurs naturally. Maybe fundies are born to be fundies, and no opinion, or reasoning can change that. Maybe it's even independent of nurture (I doubt it). But if that is the case, it falls to the rest of us to make sure it does the minimum of harm. So it still makes sense to speak against it, at least to raise awareness, and help less fundie-oriented individuals to see what's wrong with it.

[Guest]

I'm late to the party in a major way; I have no idea where we are. I will just start off by saying: Repeal DADT, allow gays to marry, give homosexuals the same rights as normal people. It's ridiculous that it's stayed this way for so long, but the truth is: It was probably because of people like my confirmation teacher (who drove me out of Catholicism). Wacky people. Now, not ALL Catholics of course. Just, well, a bit.

BTW, News update: The Rep. are not allowing the repeal, but I'm not surprised, because the Dems were stupid and connected it to another military thing... I dunno, but bottom line: Nothing is happening because of both sides.

I take pride in being independent. =)

I basically agree with all points in your first paragraph. If I wanted to be PC, I might change "normal people" to "everyone else". Sounds like your confirmation teacher fits pretty well into Izzy's definition of fundamentalist. No matter how "divinely inspired" a person might have been, all of these religious books were written and transcribed by humans. Humans are fallible. People make mistakes. I don't remember the interview itself, but a couple of years ago, John Stewart interviewed someone who wrote a book about various typos and mistakes that have crept into the Bible over centuries of transcribing and translating. I just remember that he (i.e. Jon) introduced the segment by saying, "Apparently, it's the 'Geek who will inherit the Earth'". I'm down with that.

A lot of Christians use the Bible to condemn homosexuality, but as far as I know, they have to fall back to the OT to find the quotes that support their position, usually in Leviticus. The double standard there is that if you start quoting some of the nastier things in the OT at them, they usually fall back to the "Second Covenant" argument, saying that the new covenant supersedes all that nasty stuff in the OT. But their perfectly happy to use the OT as justification for something when it suits them.

But I've also heard that people misinterpret what some of those passages in Leviticus (or the Bible in general) are actually saying (though I admit I don't remember the passages and I don't care to look them up ), which brings me to the next problem with relying on these religious texts. We have these words on a page, but they don't mean anything until we interpret them. Writing is not natural. There is no basic human tenant that allows humans to understand written language. So everything we read we interpret from marks on a medium (ink on paper, pixels on a monitor) into language. And in that interpretation, we can (nay, must) impose our own biases on the text we are interpreting. So even if the text can be considered reliable as written, that still allows people to change the meaning of the text to suit their needs. It's not possible to take things truly in their literal translation because no person possesses a literal translator.

Bit of a non sequitur, but in regard to the failure to repeal DADT, I would say that while it may "stupid" that the Dems connected DADT to the military spending bill (though it is tangentially related), the Reps would still have blocked it even on its own, so the Dems hoped that they could tie it to a popular bill to get enough votes. I have to admit, it's a practice that I don't care for either side to be doing, but it's totally hypocritical for one side to call the other out on it, since both do it whenever they hold the reins. (Obviously, I'm not trying to call you out gvg, since you specifically stated you were independent. I guess this is more of a rant on the subject. It is somewhat disheartening that we seem to be led by either a group of craven cowards, or a group of craven blowhards... </rant> Of course, the Tea Party isn't the answer because they are even more religiously adherent to their ideology than the people in office right now. What we need is some movement to, I don't know, Restore Sanity. )

Sorry for the kind of rambling post.

[Izzy]

My gawds.. Tea Party. In AP Lang we're covering the art of persausion, so have been non-stop debating politics for the last three days. The next door teacher has her plan period while I have English, and is a Tea Party Member who likes to join in on our class discussions. (I say class, it's really me, four-five other people, and two teachers.) ...Craziness. Today my English teacher (who has Christopher Hitchens quotes in the room!) and I started arguing against the other teacher about Beck and Coulter. I love this class.

I think the quote you were thinking of was "Don't lie with a man as you lie with a woman", which is actually a verse against polygamy, not homosexuality.

I'm aware that I brought morality into this, and I don't wish to imply that Izzy actually considers religious fundamentalism a moral matter, maybe she just argues against it because it makes no sense.

Hmm. Self-restraint is a good thing, and I definitely don't want to bring Thought Crime into this, but I think it's fair to judge people for their thoughts. If they don't act on or voice their ideas, then on some level they realize how silly they are. While thinking about doing something unforgivable is nowhere near as extreme as carrying out the action, if you're mentally, say, stoning homosexuals, I will judge you. I will question your morality. I realize I'm wrong for doing this, and like you, I can't control my feelings on the situation.

Not that I'm implying religiousity in and of itself is immoral (just illogical ), but fundamentalism as I've described most definitely is.