Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study

Religion and science are very different modes of thinking with very different assumptions and very different payoffs. There's nothing wrong with religious thinking, but religion involves mostly faith-based and intrapersonal evidence while true science insists on objective and verifiable evidence.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, just saying that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. I see science as a "religion" that self-corrects, but the fact that science does base itself in "truths" that can not be proven remains. And there is nothing wrong with that since like the Greeks said "nothing can be deduced if nothing is assumed."

When you refer to "true science" I assume (please correct me if I am wrong) that you do so because there is other "science" that is pure bs or not based on facts. Well I see the same for faith, "true faith" uses reason "BS faith" (like the example of the mormons you stated) is the kind of blind faith that leads to fanatism, hate and killing.

For example and to get on the topic of Homosexuality.

TRUE faith would reason that if I believe homosexuality is wrong then I won't do it, but God did said to love your neighbor and that he would be the judge, so I must love, respect and feel compasion (not pity but compassionate true love) for homosexuals, and if there is going to be any judging that is going to be God's job not mine. To me this is using reason within your beliefs.

BS Faith says I hate them because God hates them (even when a God able to hate, and not accept his children contradicts the whole ideology.) or I MUST change them, judge them or tell them they are wrong it is my duty (so where is free will?).

BTW In my opinion the existance of God is irrelevant (don't believe it does or it doesn't exist just saying it doesn't matter)

Please note that I do not talk about science and religion, I talk about faith and reason, and reason does not always equal science.
 
E J said:
First I would like to clarify that personally I do not believe in heaven (can not dispprove it either), then again I also don't think that all correct reasoning MUST be based on tangible evidence.

Can you prove that the universe is infinite? Do you believe it? I have never heard of anyone speeding a particle at the speed of light squared, but still it is taken that E=MC2, isn't it? Why because even without physical evidence, reason can lead you to believe it. (under mathematical terms). Under "religous terms" MAYBE heaven does make sense.

For example in science an axiom (which to me is pretty similar to a dogma) can not be proved. And from what I understand most modern mathematical theories start from a given set of axioms (BTW some of them are non-logical).

BTW I do not consider myself religious, the "religion" I am most compatible with is Buddhism.
Click to expand...
Interesting. You may enjoy this.

Invalid Link Removed

<rant>I have grown so disgusted with the morality issue of religion(s). So many wonders of the world and the creation get lost on mans moralistic approach to faith and their projections of immorality upon others simply because they have a god or God and an other man does not. The difference in the parties is one mans confession of faith and the others man's confession otherwise. I have what I claim is a relationship with Christ and they don't. They are no less good people.</rant>

Seriously I did learn a lot here. I also don't want to do this again soon. Self examination is a power to behold. I never fail to grow and fall weary of it afterward. I'm out!
 
Interesting. You may enjoy this.

Indescribable

<rant>I have grown so disgusted with the morality issue of religion(s). So many wonders of the world and the creation get lost on mans moralistic approach to faith and their projections of immorality upon others simply because they have a god or God and an other man does not. The difference in the parties is one mans confession of faith and the others man's confession otherwise. I have what I claim is a relationship with Christ and they don't. They are no less good people.</rant>
Click to expand...

Beautiful images!
On the rant, Couldn't agree more, so many wonders and people get lost in stupid details?, when whether you believe in religion or not life is about enjoying and loving.
 
By default another version of this US wouldn't be the "US". So, I don't see how it would be innacurate to say without Christianity the US wouldn't exist. It could exist by name but i highly doubt it would be a standing replica of what we currently have or how our history played out.(for better or worse)
 
Seperation of church and state,
but you can't overlook the impact the church had on the US.

Same goes with any country. buddhism in asia
islam in the middle east
 
Let me put it this way: I think jay has it right, it would exist, however most likey in different form. The issue I was making reference to (evidently quite poorly) was negatively or positively would the US exist without christianity? Additionally, I think the found fathers feelings on the role of religion in government is not as clear cut as most theists believe.
 
E J said:
I have never heard of anyone speeding a particle at the speed of light squared, but still it is taken that E=MC2, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Because there's experimental evidence that is consistent with this. But relativity, however deeply entrenched, is still a theory. A well established and supported one, but not one that people would be afraid to modify. I think a better example for you would be evolution. Still a well established theory, but there's so much hung up on that one that if science hit a snag and people had to admit they weren't sure about this or that aspect of it, all hell would break loose.
 
RenegadeRows said:
Seperation of church and state,
Click to expand...

Perhaps the most misunderstood phrase of all time. The founding of this nation goes way back into the enlightenment in western Europe, and yes the separation of church and state. But that was more a revolt against the alliance of throne and altar and the way people believed the government corrupted their faith. Seperation of church and state does not translate to a denial of religion, people wanted religion to be freed from the bonds of the state. It's also notable that our 'seperation' was at the federal level only at first. There were several established state churches at the time of the constitution's ratification. However, at the federal level, there was little trust between the Catholics, the Protestants, the Quakers, the Puritans, etc., so rather than cede authority to one another they kicked the state out and left it silent on the issue. Eventually that same idea trickled down to the state level. However the idea of a purely secular state with religion playing no role in it is a very modern one.

It's also notable that the appeal to our inalienable rights only holds if they are granted by nature and/or God, not by the state. The only way an appeal to over throw the state can be legitimized is by calling on a power higher than the state. Jefferson called on our creator as the source of our rights. While that flows roughly with natural law theory as well, I seriously doubt anyone at that time was doing a rigirous deduction of property rights as applied to the colonies' relationship with Britain. Rather they likely believed they had a God given right to seperate from the empire should it be necessary for their well being.

Without the ideals if self determination, personal responsibility, and the possibility of an individual relationship with one's God, which do seem to come uniquely from Judeo Christian culture, and without the desire to free religion from state subversion, the US would not be here in anything like its current form. Even if you posit the founder's tendency to be natural law types as a big influence, that goes straight back to Aquinas and the scholastics in general.
 
CDB said:
Perhaps the most misunderstood phrase of all time. The founding of this nation goes way back into the enlightenment in western Europe, and yes the separation of church and state. But that was more a revolt against the alliance of throne and altar and the way people believed the government corrupted their faith. Seperation of church and state does not translate to a denial of religion, people wanted religion to be freed from the bonds of the state. It's also notable that our 'seperation' was at the federal level only at first. There were several established state churches at the time of the constitution's ratification. However, at the federal level, there was little trust between the Catholics, the Protestants, the Quakers, the Puritans, etc., so rather than cede authority to one another they kicked the state out and left it silent on the issue. Eventually that same idea trickled down to the state level. However the idea of a purely secular state with religion playing no role in it is a very modern one.

It's also notable that the appeal to our inalienable rights only holds if they are granted by nature and/or God, not by the state. The only way an appeal to over throw the state can be legitimized is by calling on a power higher than the state. Jefferson called on our creator as the source of our rights. While that flows roughly with natural law theory as well, I seriously doubt anyone at that time was doing a rigirous deduction of property rights as applied to the colonies' relationship with Britain. Rather they likely believed they had a God given right to seperate from the empire should it be necessary for their well being.

Without the ideals if self determination, personal responsibility, and the possibility of an individual relationship with one's God, which do seem to come uniquely from Judeo Christian culture, and without the desire to free religion from state subversion, the US would not be here in anything like its current form. Even if you posit the founder's tendency to be natural law types as a big influence, that goes straight back to Aquinas and the scholastics in general.
Click to expand...

Interesting analysis, but you are running off of the faulty presumption that the law's current incarnations rest solely, or even largely, on the interpretation of the authors. While this standard definitely has a place in US law, the Courts have time and again upheld many other standards for interpreting a law. In particular, when it comes to a fundamental civil rights issue, Strict Scrutiny makes this only a fraction of the issue.

What is also interesting though, is that the debates around the "morality" of same-sex behavior often run on the same flawed reliance on "history" (which, in case people haven't caught on to this yet, is just a political tool of the present).

Animal studies are interesting, but they're a problematic argument by analogy and argument to god/nature. Nature/Evolution are spoken about in the exact same way God was/is spoken about- the message never changed- just the speaker. And they both presume a design, an intent to the way things are. And that's part of the problem with these debates.

The other problem is that animals practicing same-sex behavior are NOT homosexual. Same-sex behavior has a LONG history in human societies (in fact, one is hard pressed to find societies without it- it's very much within our brains and bodies to participate in it- just as it is to participate in opposite-sex behavior). But you can't lump all same-sex behavior into homosexuality. In the West today, we have a very specific concept of sexuality that really came out of the field of Sexology and the Industrial Revolution. The idea that there are people out there who are fundamentally different from each other, who can "be" homosexual or heterosexual before ever engaging in sexual activity, the notion of exclusive emotional AND sexual investment in one gender or another (boy did the emergence of the idea of bisexually really screw with that one!) is modern and culturally fixated. In other times and other places, same-sex behavior has had a wide variety of roles in culture. Sometimes it's expected in a limited fashion, sometimes it's expected that some will engage in it exclusively but others will never engage in it, sometimes it's considered to be purely behavioral and not a reflection of any "inner" self, etc.

The point to all of this? There are no universals except this one simple fact: people have sex. EVERYTHING else about that sex (what's acceptable to do, with him you can have it, when it's appropriate, etc) is culturally specific and geographically located. So using animal studies to try to prove the legitimacy of homosexuality/bisexuality and using old religious texts and modern day interpretations to prove its illegitimacy is BS. Both sides miss the point entirely.
 
KDLMaj said:
Animal studies are interesting, but they're a problematic argument by analogy and argument to god/nature. Nature/Evolution are spoken about in the exact same way God was/is spoken about- the message never changed- just the speaker. And they both presume a design, an intent to the way things are. And that's part of the problem with these debates.
Click to expand...

I would disagree, and say you may be projecting your conceptualization of the word "Nature" (with a capital N) onto the debate: I think most atheists/pantheists who use the term would disagree completely that there exists intent and/or directionality to the evolutionary process; but rather, it exists as such. To say that intent and/or directionality and/or purpose exist in nature is to abandon a Naturalist - speaking about Philosophical naturalism here, and not David Suzuki - ontology completely, and venture more into a Spinoza-esque interpretation of the "Absolute".

The point to all of this? There are no universals except this one simple fact: people have sex. EVERYTHING else about that sex (what's acceptable to do, with him you can have it, when it's appropriate, etc) is culturally specific and geographically located. So using animal studies to try to prove the legitimacy of homosexuality/bisexuality and using old religious texts and modern day interpretations to prove its illegitimacy is BS. Both sides miss the point entirely.
Click to expand...

I see what you are driving at, but your point exists in a debate that is framed fundamentally differently than this one. The point of using an animal study as evidence is not, as you suggest here, to [...directly...] analogize sub-human behavior sans social context, with contextual human behavior. The point, rather, is to oppose a particular view that homosexuality is a cognitive, rational act of self-interest - i.e., that it exists beyond the realm of necessity, urge, instinct and so forth. Put otherwise still: that it is "unnatural". And so, conversely, this study and others of its nature are not to analogize social, temporal and geographical context with instinctual animal behavior, but rather to show that same-sex behavior "exists naturally". Or, put otherwise: that it is a product of natural selection and process - a process giving it no more or less "social legitimacy" than other behaviors, but merely a process that brought it into permanent existence. Just like any and all other necessary behaviors (: eating, sleeping and so on) sex will have socially and historically peculiar stigma attached to it. Defeating and/or disproving these specific to homosexuality is not the aim of discussing this study. At least, this is how I understand it.

I am unsure if you read the full-text of the study, but you may be interested to know that the behavior several of these animals engaged in was precisely homosexual, and not just same-sex! (Involved intimate pair-bonding and same gender attachment, etc.,)
 
B5150 said:
We need to have mark Wahlberg settle this for us.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Looks like the animals are feeling the vibration, too.
 
B5150 said:
We need to have mark Wahlberg settle this for us.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed

Here's a good template, how to discipline kids properly so they don't turn into homos and degenerates IN THE FIRST PLACE. :)
 
KDLMaj said:
Interesting analysis, but you are running off of the faulty presumption that the law's current incarnations rest solely, or even largely, on the interpretation of the authors.
Click to expand...

No, just pointing out the difference. When people these days seperation of church and state they mean an entirely different thing than the founders, and they should know that before appealing to the founders and/or the constitution to support their assertions.

Animal studies are interesting, but they're a problematic argument by analogy and argument to god/nature. Nature/Evolution are spoken about in the exact same way God was/is spoken about- the message never changed- just the speaker. And they both presume a design, an intent to the way things are. And that's part of the problem with these debates.
Click to expand...

There is no intent to evolution. It just happens as a consequence of life and the specific conditions of this planet, and perhaps others too. Plus there is the issue that those who speak about evolution have science behind them, not just theory but lab tests that demonstrate the principles, whereas all religion has is an unconfirmed book of their choosing.

The other problem is that animals practicing same-sex behavior are NOT homosexual. Same-sex behavior has a LONG history in human societies (in fact, one is hard pressed to find societies without it- it's very much within our brains and bodies to participate in it- just as it is to participate in opposite-sex behavior). But you can't lump all same-sex behavior into homosexuality. In the West today, we have a very specific concept of sexuality that really came out of the field of Sexology and the Industrial Revolution. The idea that there are people out there who are fundamentally different from each other, who can "be" homosexual or heterosexual before ever engaging in sexual activity, the notion of exclusive emotional AND sexual investment in one gender or another (boy did the emergence of the idea of bisexually really screw with that one!) is modern and culturally fixated. In other times and other places, same-sex behavior has had a wide variety of roles in culture. Sometimes it's expected in a limited fashion, sometimes it's expected that some will engage in it exclusively but others will never engage in it, sometimes it's considered to be purely behavioral and not a reflection of any "inner" self, etc.
Click to expand...

That's all true but besides the point. The overall point is those who appeal to nature for 'proof' that homosexual behavior, strictly speaking men ****ing men and women screwing women, is unnatural are factually incorrect. In the portion of the animal kingdom exclusive of humans, men still **** men and women, women, and just as we, for a variety of reasons and ends.

The point to all of this? There are no universals except this one simple fact: people have sex. EVERYTHING else about that sex (what's acceptable to do, with him you can have it, when it's appropriate, etc) is culturally specific and geographically located. So using animal studies to try to prove the legitimacy of homosexuality/bisexuality and using old religious texts and modern day interpretations to prove its illegitimacy is BS. Both sides miss the point entirely.
Click to expand...

That assumes culture is seperate from evolution/biology somehow, when it isn't. And once more besides the point. The whole crux of the issue is people of a religious bent appeal to nature and what they presume is a lack of gayness in it as proof gay is 'wrong', when in reality there's all kinds of sex happening in nature and even blurry lines of gender. Saying anything beyond the basics is all cultural ignores the fact that culture comes from the same source; for example population control. A perfectly valid and plausible reason why homosexuality seems more accepted and tolerated in large metro areas but shunned in smaller, more rural setting is because of its effect on population growth. Smaller groups need breeding to survive, they would encourage sex to that end. Large groups over breeding may put too much pressure on local resources, they would encourage sex without the possibility of offspring as a release of tension and way to curb population growth. Thus they would be more tolerant of 'deviant' sex practices, being defined as anything that can't produce kids.

Plausible explanations and aspects of the debate, and both case show how biology and evolution form the culture, not the other way around. If culture dictates what's acceptable sexually, then all you do is push the argument one step back; where then does the cultural directive come from? In actuality it's all of a piece.
 
AE14 said:
Invalid Link Removed



Based on some previous discussions around the board, I thought that some of you might find this interesting
Click to expand...


I never really researched it(will be doing so now), but I did have a notion that some homosexuality might be nature's population control.

I am just glad I am hetero and am addicted to women.
Because I have seen prison movies and the intimate activities are disturbing.
To each their own. Not my business what happens in other people's personal relationships.
 
rubberring said:
Dude, I'm not gay. And my boyfriend hates mascara.
Click to expand...

I never said you were gay.
And there was nothing in the conversation to insinuate any incidences of homosexuality.
Doesn't mascara have the possibility of screwing up one's eyesight or something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top