Thank you Moiraine! Very, Very interesting indeed.

Kuru for one example.



I think you have provided your own answer here - it's patently obvious that "it occurs in nature" that humans will nurture their young until they are able to fend for themselves. Just as many other species do. Humans are part of the natural world after all. To argue that no natural laws or imperatives apply to the human race is utterly specious.

Absolutely, however, if homosexuality is so abhorrent to the "natural" order, shouldn't natural selection have consigned it to oblivion? Or (wierd thought) could it just possibly be that homosexuality can actually confer some sort of long term benefits to the human race and that is why it survives ???? :eek:

What benefits do you see Mouse?

As far as the practice being consigned to oblivion, isn't that the aim of the Pope?

It could be that it's a natural weakener for the human race. Hetrosexuality is far less important to a race so numerically dominant over it's surroundings.

However, given that Islam and Catholicism ban homosexuality, and Catholicism bans contraception, the battle for the minds of the Protestant west is in a sense irrelevent. Even if America in a thrice suddenly became openly endorsing of all things homosexual, and in fact the mjority of Americans became exclusively homosexual, their numbers would dwindle, leaving Islamic and Catholic nations as possessing far greater numerical superiority.

We can hypothesise endlessly about how, and in what manner those nations would achieve dominance, but it would be an inevitability.

It is a reality, that a culture dominant at the top of humanity ends up being choked on the fruits of it's success and starts an inexorible decline. Homosexuality has often been linked to a sucessful and "decadent" society.

Affluence is linked to stagnation in population growth. Europes population figures today are a prime example.

Perhaps that is the natural "evener".

I didn't argue that Mouse. I simply said, holding up nature as a justifier for human behaviour is groundless and pointless.

Infant care occurs in nature, but so does infant abandonment. A rigid caste system exists in nature. So many things humans have rejected in society exist in nature. So many situations have pro's and con's in nature.

There are species that do NOT practice homosexuality. Simply blindly and blanketly drumming up the occurence of a practice among some animals is hardly compelling.

We as humans are making choices. Some humasn choose to remove themselves from the animal kingdom. An evolutionist using nature as a defender of actions to a person against homosexuality for religious reasons, is like a religious person using the bible to prove something to the atheist!

You're not going to convinve the person because the point of reference is not universally held!

Aside from which one can go to nature and find justifiers the other way.

Oh so Dolphins engage in homosexual activity. A contestable point of itself, Dolphins do not have the natural enemies humans do. Their young are not born as dependent as human babies are. They are not suceptible to the same diseases or dangers.

Using the dolphin is irrelevent.

What is natural to humanity? That is te question.

We need to look at our own species, at what are our strengths and weaknesses, what enables survival and perpetuation, and through THAT determine what is natural. We are at the top of the chain. For an evolutionist to look BACKWARDS down the chain is to see weaker species that we are superior to in every way, that we have progressed from, and through our strength, dominated.

Yorick, you've made a couple of points in separate posts I'd like to respond to.

1. On: What Social Benefits Homosexuality May Confer:

Jokingly, I could reference "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," a show on Bravo where 4 (or 5??) fags help overly-hetero, mustard-stained tee-shirt guys learn how to be more attractive and better present themselves. In short, they give them style -- be it for wooing a woman (1 instance) or having their first art gallery exposure as an artist (another instance). HOwever, joking not aside, I've seen another.

One that seems obvious is adoption. If homosexual couples seek to raise a child, they normally do so through adoption. Now, so long as they are not adopting kids from the foreign market (mostly Asia and Eastern Europe), they are providing a social service. As I've mentioned previously, there are TONS of kids without homes. Giving them homes, be it traditional or non-traditional, is better than them having no home at all. On this front, I think homosexual relationships may confer a HUGE social good.

2. On: The Catholic Church's Continued Propogation:

I know your post doesn't really go here, but to the extent the Catholic "Every Sperm Is Sacred, Every Sperm Is Good" (can you sing it? ;) ) notion, I must admit I find it abhorrent.

While I repspect MANY things about the Catholic faith (e.g. the scholarly nature of it -- comparable to the scholarly Rabinic nature I respect in Judaism, and the notion that certain PROCEDURES must be followed to get to Heaven -- no easy "get saved on the deathbed" route that I grew up learning as a Baptist), I find the urgency of procreation irresponsible. Catholic, Hindu, Taoist, or otherwise, we have too many frikkin people on the planet. I think advocating more procreation is bad, mkay. In fact, this may be a footnote to the religious tolerance thread.

P.S.: If I misrepresented your posts, or took them to far afield, I apologize.

I strongly suggest you read the article I mentioned above (this article). It is a good summary of the scientific researches that have been made so far about male homosexuality, it may give you new insights about how homosexuality is perceived in different human cultures and what it brings to human societies. It is a very dense and docuemented article, so I won't be quoting parts of it out of context, lest I end up quoting the entire article ! [img]smile.gif[/img]

The simple fact that many animal species, which are not dominant and have to struggle for survival, practice homosexuality, dismisses this argument.

Not true Yorick - not in many human cultures. Read the article ! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Oh, so the core of your thinking is now unveiled. You worship a God namely in the name of love, but ultimately it is power that counts. We are "superior" because we dominate, eh ? No, evolutionists do NOT look at evolution this way, Yorick. Evolution is not a straight line from "worse" to "better", from "weaker" to "stronger". Evolution is the amazing story of adaptability of the living to ever changing life conditions. The human species likes to believe it is controlling its environment - but the deadly potential of WOMD, the climate changes from pollution, ..., show us clearly that it is not so. Past dominant species were those who were better adapted to their environment, future dominant species may arise who will be better adapted to the future state of the earth, and they may not be us. If we manage to blow up the earth through our mad race to more and more power, which will be the "better" species then ? ;)

Thank you Chewie ! [img]smile.gif[/img] I was hoping we could go on discuss this topic based on scientific researches instead of on personal and cultural bias. I found this article very interesting because it provides a comprehensive summary of the researches by different areas of science, and because it provides insights into other cultures' views of homosexuality. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-10-2003, 06:04 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

No, that is how I would see the world without my God. It is my thinking without my God as point of reference. Put him back in and it's a different equation.

As far as "dominated" dominating requires superiority. Dominating indicates superiority. What do you call domesticity? What do you call breeding animals for food? What do you call the horse, the oxen, elephant and other beasts of burden? What do you call animals like monkeys experimented on? Battery hens that live their lives in cages? Mice that have ears grown on their backs by scientists? Rats that live off human excess in areas void of other parts of the animal kingdom? Lions removed from vast areas such as all Europe, dodos and other animals completely wiped out?

If that is not domination from a position of superiority I don't know what is.

Dominate:
1 : RULE, CONTROL
2 : to exert the supreme determining or guiding influence on
3 : to overlook from a superior elevation or command because of superior height or position
4 : to have a commanding or preeminent place or position in <name brands dominate the market>
intransitive senses
1 : to have or exert mastery, control, or preeminence
2 : to occupy a more elevated or superior position

Humans exert the guiding influence on most species. Wiped out, pigs, cats, dogs and cows bred into palatable forms, their very genes determined by human intervention.

How is this not dominating? How is the decision to engage in driftnet fishing not determining whether masses of Dolphins live or die?

As a nonevolutionist, I see domineering attitudes in evolutionist and scientists, economists and financial barons concerned with money, just as evolutional thinking justified the horrific treatment of the Australian Aboriginie and the South African Bantu.

Were you aware that in Apartheidic South Africa, a scientific finding determined that the Bantu was indeed a human being? Sometime later a judge ruled that hunting them was illegal! Hunting Bantu was henceforth illegal!

I've seen the press articles concerned. Unbelievable. An attitude brought on by the belief that they were "missing links" in the evolutionary chain, and somewhere between Apes and humans. Horrifying!

So in any case, no it is NOT about power. I was simply stepping outside of myself to present a different line of argument. I can actually perceive the world from a different angle. 'Tis the nature of the artist. ;)

Excuse me But where do the WoMD come from? Or the pollution that is changing the enviroment? If these do no come from Humans and Humans actions Where do they come from then? The Fact that they exist because of Humans and their actions defy the logic used in the above statement. Now if examples of hurricanes, tornados, storms, tides rising and falling, etc. were used I could see where the logic was coming from.

I believe both you and Yorick miss the point of domination, donimate, or have dominion. Check out the first in the definition Yorick gave : Rule, control both of those by nature require RESPONSIBILITY for ones actions, "HALE" they DEMAND it. In fact all of the definitions demand responability to one degree or another.

I've been away a few days so I've missed a few pages (LOL, it expanded exponentially, I think!) :D

Just a general note since it's often at this point in an ongoing thread that nearly everything has been said (and most of it more than once) so people sometimes revert to personal comments or attacks out of frustration with the cirucular discussion/repetition.

I'd like to just remind everyone of the general principle here that we are supposed to argue ideas and opinions, but not make our posts personal, meaning we refrain from posts that contain various versions of "you believe this so you are xxxx and YOU don't tolerate xyz so obviously you need to have your head examined" the idea being that this isn't the 'take apart the other member' board.

If you find yourself at the point where you are detailing your opinons on the other guys personality/life choices and personal hygiene, go get a cold drink and read the comics or call your mom. ;)


And if at some point you see that the thread has come full circle (maybe for the fourth time!) don't repeat yourself, just let the thread sink.

Thanks...now carry on! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Thank you Chewie ! [img]smile.gif[/img] I was hoping we could go on discuss this topic based on scientific researches instead of on personal and cultural bias. I found this article very interesting because it provides a comprehensive summary of the researches by different areas of science, and because it provides insights into other cultures' views of homosexuality. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]I agree! I must admit Moiraine, reading the article is a bit of cranial exercise, but that is okay with me! [img]smile.gif[/img]

An interesting question comes to mind, can a person suspend their own personal and cultural bias on the topic in light of objective reasonable scientific research?

Through-out the 300+ posts on this topic I have injected the testimony of a sociologist, a web-based history of marriage, and a dictionary definition of the word marriage. I also brought up the legal issues with regards to the U.S. constitution as far as seperation of church/state and equal protection goes.

In reply, I have not seen *{edit}very much* like data or discourse from those on the otherside of the debate. This makes me wonder if scientific objectivity and reason is, in part or whole, lost to personal and cultural bias with regards to this issue.

I will wait and see what kind of replies the article you posted recieves, if any at all.

[ 08-11-2003, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]