Homosexuality as a sin against both worldviews

[cholland]

Am I missing something, or is homosexuality not only an affront against most of the major religions, but also against natural selection? How does an evolutionist justify the insertion of a homosexual gene in the natural selection process, considering it is its enemy?

From my point of view, homosexuality is a sin not only according to the Christian Bible, but also against the evolutionary worldview. You EITHER hold one of the two and are inconsistent:
1. I'm a Christian, but decided to cherry pick the Bible and/or disobey it.
2. I'm an evolutionist, but decided somehow homosexuality is not an attack on the natural selection process.

OR you hold one of the two and are consistent:
1. I'm a Christian and homosexuality is an offense against God.
2. I'm an evolutionist and homosexuality is an offense against the natural selection process.

The only worldview I see that can justify homosexuality is nihilism. But of course, they can justify rape, murder, etc. as well.

[Autodidact]

OK, you believe that lust is bad. Now show that love toward someone of the same sex is more lustful than love toward someone of a different sex.

I am not saying any form of lust greater than another because it isn't but I was simply trying to explain that one reason homosexuality is the same problem that plagues heterosexuals that being lust.

Love can be shown in ways that are not sexual. For as a Christian I am commanded to love my neighbor that doesn't mean to hold sexual lust for the person I love. The word love has been corrupted by popular culture to mean something that it is not. Love should mean having a deep personal feeling of affection(in an non-lustful manner).

Yes but what does this have to do with our subject? Are you saying that homosexuals are more lustful than heterosexuals? If not, what is your point?

I said that lust is one problem of both sides and no both sexualities are probably equally lustful.

OK then apparently it has no relevance to our discussion then?

[cholland]

I'll break it down. You want me to show you anything about something immaterial, eternal, and true (God) without using the thing itself (God's words). Substitute [The Laws of Thought] for "God" and [The Laws of Thought as communicated in the wikipedia article] for "God's words". So until you can figure out a way to prove the Laws of Thought true WITHOUT using the laws themselves, I don't see how you can ask me to do the same.

This is a Red herring. I never said anything about 'the laws of thought'..

Rather than show that your claim is true, you want me to support a claim I never made??

Ok, Goat. This whole discourse you have been assuming the laws of thought without basis. By even communicating, attempting to distinguish between true and false, using words, etc. the laws of thought must be true. But you have yet to show me how they are true without using the laws themselves.

IN THE SAME WAY, I assume God and his words (or actually Jarte did), and make an argument from there. Enter Goat "And other than a book written by man, how does anybody know what 'God' likes or dislikes?"

SO, if you are to demand us to show you something immaterial, eternal, and true that we assume, I am asking you to do the same.

Laws of Thought:God::Goat:Jarte

If you cannot, I see no problem with making our assumptions as well. I can't make it more simple than that.

[cholland]

Other than the third study, they don't really answer the question of natural selection. The gene would never pass on because they do not reproduce (at least not in great numbers). All of your theories are (shot in the dark) theories, but they all assume they pass on the gene which they don't.

At least we can assume that homosexuality is some sort of genetic mutation that will die off rapidly, right? Again assuming they do not reproduce in great numbers.

We know from identical twin studies that there is no single gay gene. It seems to be a collection of genes along with some environmental influences (such as the mother's uterus).

So these genes do get passed on because they do not cause 100% gayness. And in cases where people are gay, homosexuals may help out family members which share many of these genes.

I'm not a geneticist, but I would still think they will die off. Take the color of your skin, for example. If 100% black people and those who are majority black identify themselves as black could not reproduce, the black gene would eventually die off, right? Even if they helped out their family members.

[Goat]

I'll break it down. You want me to show you anything about something immaterial, eternal, and true (God) without using the thing itself (God's words). Substitute [The Laws of Thought] for "God" and [The Laws of Thought as communicated in the wikipedia article] for "God's words". So until you can figure out a way to prove the Laws of Thought true WITHOUT using the laws themselves, I don't see how you can ask me to do the same.

This is a Red herring. I never said anything about 'the laws of thought'..

Rather than show that your claim is true, you want me to support a claim I never made??

Ok, Goat. This whole discourse you have been assuming the laws of thought without basis. By even communicating, attempting to distinguish between true and false, using words, etc. the laws of thought must be true. But you have yet to show me how they are true without using the laws themselves.

IN THE SAME WAY, I assume God and his words (or actually Jarte did), and make an argument from there. Enter Goat "And other than a book written by man, how does anybody know what 'God' likes or dislikes?"

SO, if you are to demand us to show you something immaterial, eternal, and true that we assume, I am asking you to do the same.

Laws of Thought:God::Goat:Jarte

If you cannot, I see no problem with making our assumptions as well. I can't make it more simple than that.

I am doing more than that. I am demanding that you are backing up your claim that a God exists,,.. and now you are making a claim about the generic 'immaterial, eternal and true'. >> Let's break that down, and I challenge you to show that 'eternal' has any truth to it what so ever. To heck with the 'immaterial and true'. Just show me that 'eternal' has any meaning outside of the imagination.

Again, you shift the burden of proof.

[Uijboo]

Other than the third study, they don't really answer the question of natural selection. The gene would never pass on because they do not reproduce (at least not in great numbers). All of your theories are (shot in the dark) theories, but they all assume they pass on the gene which they don't.

At least we can assume that homosexuality is some sort of genetic mutation that will die off rapidly, right? Again assuming they do not reproduce in great numbers.

We know from identical twin studies that there is no single gay gene. It seems to be a collection of genes along with some environmental influences (such as the mother's uterus).

So these genes do get passed on because they do not cause 100% gayness. And in cases where people are gay, homosexuals may help out family members which share many of these genes.

I'm not a geneticist, but I would still think they will die off. Take the color of your skin, for example. If 100% black people and those who are majority black identify themselves as black could not reproduce, the black gene would eventually die off, right? Even if they helped out their family members.

Except that no one has demonstrated that homosexuals don't reproduce. Historically, there have been times when you could continue to be homosexual but still be expected to have children. Or, at times when homosexuality was punishable by death, would hide it in a heterosexual relationship. It isn't unheard of in our age that a married man divorces because of it.

I addressed this topic a little more in a previous post, and I'd be interested in your response.

[cholland]

Ok, Goat. This whole discourse you have been assuming the laws of thought without basis. By even communicating, attempting to distinguish between true and false, using words, etc. the laws of thought must be true. But you have yet to show me how they are true without using the laws themselves.

IN THE SAME WAY, I assume God and his words (or actually Jarte did), and make an argument from there. Enter Goat "And other than a book written by man, how does anybody know what 'God' likes or dislikes?"

SO, if you are to demand us to show you something immaterial, eternal, and true that we assume, I am asking you to do the same.

Laws of Thought:God::Goat:Jarte

If you cannot, I see no problem with making our assumptions as well. I can't make it more simple than that.

I am doing more than that. I am demanding that you are backing up your claim that a God exists,,.. and now you are making a claim about the generic 'immaterial, eternal and true'. >> Let's break that down, and I challenge you to show that 'eternal' has any truth to it what so ever. To heck with the 'immaterial and true'. Just show me that 'eternal' has any meaning outside of the imagination.

Again, you shift the burden of proof.

Let's start over. By even communicating, you are ASSUMING the Laws of Thought are true. No proof. Just faith.

When you make statements like "I am demanding that you are backing up your claim that a God exists", you are demanding proof for something that can only prove itself. Much like the Laws of Thought.

SOOOOO...if you want to go down the road of "proving God exists", all I can tell you is he proves himself. If that answer doesn't satisfy you, I ask you to look in the mirror and ask yourself "Goat, how can I CONSISTENTLY ask someone to prove something that can only prove itself while I do the same in what I believe to be true (i.e. the Laws of Thought)? Aren't I being hypocritical?"

No shifting the burden of proof here...just trying to be consistent. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[cholland]

Other than the third study, they don't really answer the question of natural selection. The gene would never pass on because they do not reproduce (at least not in great numbers). All of your theories are (shot in the dark) theories, but they all assume they pass on the gene which they don't.

At least we can assume that homosexuality is some sort of genetic mutation that will die off rapidly, right? Again assuming they do not reproduce in great numbers.

We know from identical twin studies that there is no single gay gene. It seems to be a collection of genes along with some environmental influences (such as the mother's uterus).

So these genes do get passed on because they do not cause 100% gayness. And in cases where people are gay, homosexuals may help out family members which share many of these genes.

I'm not a geneticist, but I would still think they will die off. Take the color of your skin, for example. If 100% black people and those who are majority black identify themselves as black could not reproduce, the black gene would eventually die off, right? Even if they helped out their family members.

Except that no one has demonstrated that homosexuals don't reproduce. Historically, there have been times when you could continue to be homosexual but still be expected to have children. Or, at times when homosexuality was punishable by death, would hide it in a heterosexual relationship. It isn't unheard of in our age that a married man divorces because of it.

I addressed this topic a little more in a previous post, and I'd be interested in your response.

Sure, they CAN reproduce, but they do it such small numbers that they will eventually die off. They definitely don't reproduce at a replacement rate. Most of the homosexual community wants to "come out" and normalize their behavior to the point where they won't have to hide their orientation in a heterosexual relationship. To me, they're killing themselves, right? Most of the them adopt so just give it a generation or two and there won't be anymore.

[Goat]

Ok, Goat. This whole discourse you have been assuming the laws of thought without basis. By even communicating, attempting to distinguish between true and false, using words, etc. the laws of thought must be true. But you have yet to show me how they are true without using the laws themselves.

IN THE SAME WAY, I assume God and his words (or actually Jarte did), and make an argument from there. Enter Goat "And other than a book written by man, how does anybody know what 'God' likes or dislikes?"

SO, if you are to demand us to show you something immaterial, eternal, and true that we assume, I am asking you to do the same.

Laws of Thought:God::Goat:Jarte

If you cannot, I see no problem with making our assumptions as well. I can't make it more simple than that.

I am doing more than that. I am demanding that you are backing up your claim that a God exists,,.. and now you are making a claim about the generic 'immaterial, eternal and true'. >> Let's break that down, and I challenge you to show that 'eternal' has any truth to it what so ever. To heck with the 'immaterial and true'. Just show me that 'eternal' has any meaning outside of the imagination.

Again, you shift the burden of proof.

Let's start over. By even communicating, you are ASSUMING the Laws of Thought are true. No proof. Just faith.

When you make statements like "I am demanding that you are backing up your claim that a God exists", you are demanding proof for something that can only prove itself. Much like the Laws of Thought.

SOOOOO...if you want to go down the road of "proving God exists", all I can tell you is he proves himself. If that answer doesn't satisfy you, I ask you to look in the mirror and ask yourself "Goat, how can I CONSISTENTLY ask someone to prove something that can only prove itself while I do the same in what I believe to be true (i.e. the Laws of Thought)? Aren't I being hypocritical?"

No shifting the burden of proof here...just trying to be consistent. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

NO.. I get it. You don't want to show that you speak the truth... so you insist that I back up a claim I didn't make.

The 'Laws of Thought' are a conceptual tool made by man. .. they have no actual reality outside of the mind of man. Since you are equating God to something similar, are you saying that God only exists in the mind of man???

I say that you just can't support your own claim.. You can't support what God wants .. you can't support that God wants anything.. you can't support that homosexuality is a sin on a world view that does not believe in sin.

[Uijboo]

Other than the third study, they don't really answer the question of natural selection. The gene would never pass on because they do not reproduce (at least not in great numbers). All of your theories are (shot in the dark) theories, but they all assume they pass on the gene which they don't.

At least we can assume that homosexuality is some sort of genetic mutation that will die off rapidly, right? Again assuming they do not reproduce in great numbers.

We know from identical twin studies that there is no single gay gene. It seems to be a collection of genes along with some environmental influences (such as the mother's uterus).

So these genes do get passed on because they do not cause 100% gayness. And in cases where people are gay, homosexuals may help out family members which share many of these genes.

I'm not a geneticist, but I would still think they will die off. Take the color of your skin, for example. If 100% black people and those who are majority black identify themselves as black could not reproduce, the black gene would eventually die off, right? Even if they helped out their family members.

Except that no one has demonstrated that homosexuals don't reproduce. Historically, there have been times when you could continue to be homosexual but still be expected to have children. Or, at times when homosexuality was punishable by death, would hide it in a heterosexual relationship. It isn't unheard of in our age that a married man divorces because of it.

I addressed this topic a little more in a previous post, and I'd be interested in your response.

Sure, they CAN reproduce, but they do it such small numbers that they will eventually die off. They definitely don't reproduce at a replacement rate. Most of the homosexual community wants to "come out" and normalize their behavior to the point where they won't have to hide their orientation in a heterosexual relationship. To me, they're killing themselves, right? Most of the them adopt so just give it a generation or two and there won't be anymore.

That's a weak assumption in the face of all the other genetic disease/traits that have distinctly less survivability but have persisted through generations. I'm going to restate that because of the diversity of causes (gene/genes/genes+switches/genes+switches+inert carrying parents/specific environment), it's small effect on fitness (homosexuals still reproducing at an assumed small rate), and it's ability to be ignored/allowed/forbidden by cultural influences, that it isn't something we should assume that would pass away very soon.

There is good evidence to warrant a justified belief that this human trait works within the same system all the other human traits have been shown to work. Your objections are understandable, but at this point I think their only coming from your misunderstandings of the field, influenced by your ideology, and the blood you smell from the freshling science of homosexual research.

[Bust Nak]

I won't hold my breath.

They are self evident. Contradictions are absurd. I knew that before knowing anything about Aristotle.

I'm saying you can't begin with "God does not exist" and then ask someone to prove his existence. Similar to you can't begin with "The Laws of Thought do not exist" and then ask someone to prove them.

You are wrong here too. There are things that I thought didn't exist and was proven wrong.

You want me to show you anything about something immaterial, eternal, and true (God) without using the thing itself (God's words).

Well that's your problem: God is not the same thing as God's words, and incidentently, God's words not necessarily the same thing as what is written in the Bible.