First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Christian & Islamic views of Homosexuality
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/09

Allhailodin wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

Also, just because something natural occurs in a large number of species does not mean that it naturally occurs for all species. Besides, fifteen hundred isn’t really a large number considering that there are 1.8 million known species in existence. (Heilprin, John. "Genetic 'Barcodes' Used to Identify Species." MSNBC. 14 Sept. 2007. Associated Press. 2 Jan. 20)


Taken from the wiki page


No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue


Also taken from the page.


Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual, bisexual and transgender behavior in non-human animals. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting. Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species


So it's been observed in 1500 species, the number of species that also does it is probably much much higher. So if it occurs naturally in species in nature, it makes sense, that it would appear in man, who was also a part of nature at one point, it occurs naturally in animals, so us being animals ourselves have it too. We too are part of the animal kingdom like all the other species that have homosexual and bisexual members.


Maybe, but that does not mean it’s necessarily (as I believe,) a pre-born factor. It’s just as likely that there’s something else contributing to these animals as well as the human population-such as, for example-social evolution which can and does actually cause hereditary variations. In cultures where people spend a lot of time in the sun, for example, people develop more skin pigments. In cultures where manual labor is neccesary for existence, people develop a naturally powerful phenotype. That's why you see so many Red necks in the panhandle of Texas who're huge. It's social evolution which influences the circumstances surrounding the life of an organism or group there of and causing it to react biologically. So, yes, to your question: I do believe social evolution caused biological evolution-and it's done so in animals as well.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/8/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

Also, just because something natural occurs in a large number of species does not mean that it naturally occurs for all species. Besides, fifteen hundred isn’t really a large number considering that there are 1.8 million known species in existence. (Heilprin, John. "Genetic 'Barcodes' Used to Identify Species." MSNBC. 14 Sept. 2007. Associated Press. 2 Jan. 20)


Taken from the wiki page


No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue


Also taken from the page.


Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual, bisexual and transgender behavior in non-human animals. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting. Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species


So it's been observed in 1500 species, the number of species that also does it is probably much much higher. So if it occurs naturally in species in nature, it makes sense, that it would appear in man, who was also a part of nature at one point, it occurs naturally in animals, so us being animals ourselves have it too. We too are part of the animal kingdom like all the other species that have homosexual and bisexual members.


Maybe, but that does not mean it’s necessarily (as I believe,) a pre-born factor. It’s just as likely that there’s something else contributing to these animals as well as the human population-such as, for example-social evolution which can and does actually cause hereditary variations. In cultures where people spend a lot of time in the sun, for example, people develop more skin pigments. In cultures where manual labor is neccesary for existence, people develop a naturally powerful phenotype. That's why you see so many Red necks in the panhandle of Texas who're huge. It's social evolution which influences the circumstances surrounding the life of an organism or group there of and causing it to react biologically. So, yes, to your question: I do believe social evolution caused biological evolution-and it's done so in animals as well.


Well then explain how homosexual behavior has also been found in non-social animals, solitary animals aren't capable of social evolution because they aren't social.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior <---- some of these species aren't social, thus not capable of social evolution. So how are they capable of being homosexual then ?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/09 , edited 6/8/09

Allhailodin wrote:
Well then explain how homosexual behavior has also been found in non-social animals, solitary animals aren't capable of social evolution because they aren't social.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior <---- some of these species aren't social, thus not capable of social evolution. So how are they capable of being homosexual then ?


Solitary animals are capable of social evolution because they do have to interact and circumstances surrounding their interactions change causing them to react accordingly. Should the animals, for example, be having trouble locating one another they may begin to evolve in such a way that they develop certain tracking methods or abilities: learning to track by certain hormonal scents, or making noises outside of the norm when looking for a mate.

But anyway, I support the cognitive psychological theory. I think that, for example, if we lived in a society where we were taught to believe that members of our own sex were attractive nearly all of us would be homosexual. During the exploration ages, for example, the Europeans were shocked when they discovered a south American Island tribe that consider grotesque obesity to be beautiful. This was not an evolutionary trait, it was a cognitive trait-and I think our attraction to one another is as well. I think that this is a higher thing than mere primitive impulse and I do not think it can be accurately compared to animal homosexuality.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/8/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:
Well then explain how homosexual behavior has also been found in non-social animals, solitary animals aren't capable of social evolution because they aren't social.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior <---- some of these species aren't social, thus not capable of social evolution. So how are they capable of being homosexual then ?


Solitary animals are capable of social evolution because they do have to interact and circumstances surrounding their interactions change causing them to react accordingly. Should the animals, for example, be having trouble locating one another they may begin to evolve in such a way that they develop certain tracking methods or abilities: learning to track by certain hormonal scents, or making noises outside of the norm when looking for a mate.

But anyway, I support the cognitive psychological theory. I think that, for example, if we lived in a society where we were taught to believe that members of our own sex were attractive nearly all of us would be homosexual. During the exploration ages, for example, the Europeans were shocked when they discovered a south American Island tribe that consider grotesque obesity to be beautiful. This was not an evolutionary trait, it was a cognitive trait-and I think our attraction to one another is as well. I think that this is a higher thing than mere primitive impulse and I do not think it can be accurately compared to animal homosexuality.


Social evolution :


Social evolution is a subdiscipline of evolutionary biology that is concerned with social behaviours, i.e. those that have fitness consequences for individuals other than the actor. Social behaviours can be categorized according to the fitness consequences they entail for the actor and recipient. A behaviour that increases the direct fitness of the actor is mutually beneficial if the recipient also benefits, and selfish if the recipient suffers a loss. A behaviour that reduces the fitness of the actor is altruistic if the recipient benefits, and spiteful if the recipient suffers a loss.

This classification was proposed by W. D. Hamilton. He proposes that natural selection favours mutually beneficial or selfish behaviours. Hamilton's insight was to show how kin selection could explain altruism and spite.



Humans are animals, so you can use animal homosexuality when talking about humans, besides, animals are more capable then simply running off of primitive impulses, animals are capable of thought and reason, some of them are at least, so you can compare animal homosexuality to human homosexuality, after all humans are still animals, we're not higher then animals because we are animals. All we have is a more advanced language ability and more advanced reasoning ability, but some non-human animals have more advanced memory capabilities then we do, besides, lots of animals are capable of reason. Not just humans. Reason = problem solving abilities, lots of animals have that.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/09 , edited 6/8/09

Allhailodin wrote:

Social evolution :

Social evolution is a subdiscipline of evolutionary biology that is concerned with social behaviours, i.e. those that have fitness consequences for individuals other than the actor. Social behaviours can be categorized according to the fitness consequences they entail for the actor and recipient. A behaviour that increases the direct fitness of the actor is mutually beneficial if the recipient also benefits, and selfish if the recipient suffers a loss. A behaviour that reduces the fitness of the actor is altruistic if the recipient benefits, and spiteful if the recipient suffers a loss.

This classification was proposed by W. D. Hamilton. He proposes that natural selection favours mutually beneficial or selfish behaviours. Hamilton's insight was to show how kin selection could explain altruism and spite.


Right, and animals that are typically solitary but not asexual are not excluded from that definition because even if their socializing is atypical and uncommon, it is still necessary for reproduction because they cannot create offspring without a partner.


Humans are animals, so you can use animal homosexuality when talking about humans, besides, animals are more capable then simply running off of primitive impulses, animals are capable of thought and reason, some of them are at least, so you can compare animal homosexuality to human homosexuality, after all humans are still animals, we're not higher then animals because we are animals. All we have is a more advanced language ability and more advanced reasoning ability, but some non-human animals have more advanced memory capabilities then we do, besides, lots of animals are capable of reason. Not just humans. Reason = problem solving abilities, lots of animals have that.



There is more to human sentience than mere problem solving abilities. A cat, for example, has a problem solving ability of its own. But it does not have the same level of awareness that people do.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/8/09 , edited 6/8/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

Right, and animals that are typically solitary but not asexual are not excluded from that definition because even if their socializing is atypical and uncommon, it is still necessary for reproduction because they cannot create offspring without a partner.


Ah, but that's where your wrong, while this is true for most animals, it is not true for all animals. Not all animals need a male and a female to reproduce. Some animals can reproduce through parthenogenesis, which is a form of asexual reproduction, so they don't require a male to reproduce. But the offspring produced by parthenogenesis are always female in species that use the XY sex-determination system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis


There is more to human sentience than mere problem solving abilities. A cat, for example, has a problem solving ability of its own. But it does not have the same level of awareness that people do.


Actually all of the Great apes (bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, and humans) are self aware, as well as bottlenose dolphins, Orcas, elephants, and European Magpies. All of these species are self aware, Although young human children under 18 months are not self aware, they tend to fail the self awareness test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_apes
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/09

Allhailodin wrote:

Ah, but that's where your wrong, while this is true for most animals, it is not true for all animals. Not all animals need a male and a female to reproduce. Some animals can reproduce through parthenogenesis, which is a form of asexual reproduction, so they don't require a male to reproduce. But the offspring produced by parthenogenesis are always female in species that use the XY sex-determination system.


What are you talking about? I never said that all organisms require a mate to reproduce. In fact, I made a specific exception by saying, “but don’t reproduce asexually.” You must’ve misread what I wrote. In one of your previous posts you highlighted that no species has been observed not to display homosexuality within its members except asexual organisms; therefore, it’s already an understood postulate of the conversation that asexual organisms are being excluded. Never the less, I made a specific exception relating to asexual organism and thus fail to see where exactly I’m wrong.



Actually all of the Great apes (bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, and humans) are self aware, as well as bottlenose dolphins, Orcas, elephants, and European Magpies. All of these species are self aware, Although young human children under 18 months are not self aware, they tend to fail the self awareness test.


Again, I’m not saying animals don’t have awareness or cognitive abilities. I’m only saying that human sentience is unique and on a complex, higher level than the sentience of other animals. Consider studies concerning bartering amongst greater apes such as the chimpanzees-our closet know relative. We discovered that chimps do trade. They’ll groom for food items, for example. However, because they do not have the subjective comprehension of humans, they’re unable to comprehend concepts such as reputation.

For example, if I were to tell you: “Bob didn’t fully pay me for that kidney I sold him,” you’ll be able to understand “well, Bob’s not to be trusted with organ sales.” Chimps are unable to comprehend this. Eventually a Pavlovian process does take place but the chimpanzees still lack the ability to think subjectively.

They simply see: A causes B and then act on rather or not they cause B. Humans, on the other hand, are able to ask “why does A cause B” while animals are not.

Also, under the postulate of the cognitive theory people are characterized and learn based on their thoughts in reaction to biological and physical stimulations. This is the theory that I support, but it does not extend to animals. Read “Understanding Psychology,” by Robert S Feldman.

In addition, there IS the metaphysical aspect. Buddhist monks, for example, have discovered a method by which they can literally produce heat through intense thought/meditation. Another Buddhist monk managed to-during a documented scientific experiment-manipulate the PH level of a pool by thinking at it. Nobody knows how they do this, but we are studying it. This aspect has not been observed in any other species.


Studies with plants show that humans are also able to effect the world around them by simply thinking. One example involve locking flowers in a compartment and then having scientists imagine themselves eating these flowers in a separate room where no physical interaction can take place. The study concluded that the thoughts of the scientists actually caused the plants to reduce defensive hormones.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090608095044.htm
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20041129182724data_trunc_sys.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080323210220.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325132159.htm
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/8/09 , edited 6/8/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Again, I’m not saying animals don’t have awareness or cognitive abilities. I’m only saying that human sentience is unique and on a complex, higher level than the sentience of other animals. Consider studies concerning bartering amongst greater apes such as the chimpanzees-our closet know relative. We discovered that chimps do trade. They’ll groom for food items, for example. However, because they do not have the subjective comprehension of humans, they’re unable to comprehend concepts such as reputation.

For example, if I were to tell you: “Bob didn’t fully pay me for that kidney I sold him,” you’ll be able to understand “well, Bob’s not to be trusted with organ sales.” Chimps are unable to comprehend this. Eventually a Pavlovian process does take place but the chimpanzees still lack the ability to think subjectively.

They simply see: A causes B and then act on rather or not they cause B. Humans, on the other hand, are able to ask “why does A cause B” while animals are not.


Yeap, That's because modern humans are more intelligent and evolved than other species on this planet. But some other animals are superior to us in some mental abilities. What we lack they have. Chimps for example are able to remember all 6 numbers from 1 - 6 and all their positions on a screen when a computer screen briefly displays them in sequence, humans are not, humans can only remember 2 or 3 of the numbers positions. Chimps are superior to us at certain types of memory.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080509-memory-video-ap.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203094823.htm

Says we lost that ability to gain advanced language abilities.


Also, under the postulate of the cognitive theory people are characterized and learn based on their thoughts in reaction to biological and physical stimulations. This is the theory that I support, but it does not extend to animals. Read “Understanding Psychology,” by Robert S Feldman.

In addition, there IS the metaphysical aspect. Buddhist monks, for example, have discovered a method by which they can literally produce heat through intense thought/meditation. Another Buddhist monk managed to-during a documented scientific experiment-manipulate the PH level of a pool by thinking at it. Nobody knows how they do this, but we are studying it. This aspect has not been observed in any other species.


Thinking is just the triggering of various chemical synapse in your brain, sending neurotransmitters from axon to dendrite, don't really see how that can alter the chemical composition of an external body of water,



Studies with plants show that humans are also able to effect the world around them by simply thinking. One example involve locking flowers in a compartment and then having scientists imagine themselves eating these flowers in a separate room where no physical interaction can take place. The study concluded that the thoughts of the scientists actually caused the plants to reduce defensive hormones.


Yet we still can't throw cars or slam people into walls with our minds.



Interesting links.
Posted 6/8/09
well i am not really sure to be honest with you, I have a cousin that is gay and has been gay as long as i can remember. He never liked playing sports or playing with other boys when he was a kid, he would rather play with dolls such as barbies and play with my female cousins. When my over zealot aunt and uncle finally found out he was gay because he came out the closet when he was 16 the wanted to disown but that's another issue I don't want to talk about. Then we i went to a vocational school to learn a computer trade for 6 months I hung out with out another guy that was gay but he actually choose to be gay because of the guy he was dating and he admitted to that as well. I found that to be inserting because now he is married and has a kid with a women because the broke up 2 months after i left. I mean agian i don't really know i just know that every body is different and learned that through my own life experiences.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/09

Allhailodin wrote

Yeap, That's because modern humans are more intelligent and evolved than other species on this planet. But some other animals are superior to us in some mental abilities. What we lack they have. Chimps for example are able to remember all 6 numbers from 1 - 6 and all their positions on a screen when a computer screen briefly displays them in sequence, humans are not, humans can only remember 2 or 3 of the numbers positions. Chimps are superior to us at certain types of memory.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080509-memory-video-ap.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203094823.htm

Says we lost that ability to gain advanced language abilities.


Memory is a more basic component than language abilities so it was still an upgrade. Our ability to memorize six diget numbers also has nothing to do with our sexual orientation so I don't think that my cognitive theory has been debunked.


Thinking is just the triggering of various chemical synapse in your brain, sending neurotransmitters from axon to dendrite, don't really see how that can alter the chemical composition of an external body of water,

That does seem highly likely, but it’s not fact. There is still an element to human sentience that scientists do not –yet- understand. What you described is the very most basic description, but it gets more complex than that. You see, thoughts are metaphysical: they’re made out of the same sort of thing as dreams. They behave kinetically in many ways but are largely considered to be limited in their ability to interact with the exterior world as you point out. They do not seem to have any privileged location in space or the physical universe.

Something falls in the kitchen. It breaks. The vibrations travel through a medium, most likely the air, and reach my ears. Those vibrations are channeled to your brain and translated to something you can identify-a sound. Neurons are triggered and electrochemical signals are sent streaming through your body. Chemical energy is converted into kinetic energy and you move to investigate the sound.

At first glance that might appear to be an accurate description of a basic process, but it leaves out one specific event. You don’t just get up and move to investigate you –choose- to get up and investigate. You consider, not entirely systematically, rather or not you want to see what happened. You –think- about what’s going on and then mentally make a decision influences by whatever motives.

So, wait, hang on! Thoughts are imaginary concepts. They’re not physical. They do not posses physical energy and have no location in space. So, what we’re still trying to figure out is: how exactly does an immaterial, a metaphysical concept like a thought, interact with a physical catalyst within the brain? Considering that these metaphysical concepts can in fact interact with a metaphysical catalyst in the brain-triggering that neuron to fire and send you flying into action on a whim not a mechanical impulse-why shouldn’t they be able to interact with OTHER physical impulses.

Did you know that the United States Military actually spends money researching ESP, mind reading, and triggering physical reactions with mere thoughts? That’s because there is evidence that these very things do exist, we’re just not exactly sure how. “God and the New Physics,” by Paul Davies discusses the metaphysical aspect of the human mind, it’s an intriguing read. I know it has god in the title, but I promise you the writer is not an evangelical. He’s an agnostic, and that’s why I trust his opinion more than Stephen Hawking’s or any of the numerous Christian ‘scientists,’ writers.



[
Interesting links.


Glad you like 'em.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/8/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


That does seem highly likely, but it’s not fact. There is still an element to human sentience that scientists do not –yet- understand. What you described is the very most basic description, but it gets more complex than that. You see, thoughts are metaphysical: they’re made out of the same sort of thing as dreams. They behave kinetically in many ways but are largely considered to be limited in their ability to interact with the exterior world as you point out. They do not seem to have any privileged location in space or the physical universe.

Something falls in the kitchen. It breaks. The vibrations travel through a medium, most likely the air, and reach my ears. Those vibrations are channeled to your brain and translated to something you can identify-a sound. Neurons are triggered and electrochemical signals are sent streaming through your body. Chemical energy is converted into kinetic energy and you move to investigate the sound.

At first glance that might appear to be an accurate description of a basic process, but it leaves out one specific event. You don’t just get up and move to investigate you –choose- to get up and investigate. You consider, not entirely systematically, rather or not you want to see what happened. You –think- about what’s going on and then mentally make a decision influences by whatever motives.

So, wait, hang on! Thoughts are imaginary concepts. They’re not physical. They do not posses physical energy and have no location in space. So, what we’re still trying to figure out is: how exactly does an immaterial, a metaphysical concept like a thought, interact with a physical catalyst within the brain? Considering that these metaphysical concepts can in fact interact with a metaphysical catalyst in the brain-triggering that neuron to fire and send you flying into action on a whim not a mechanical impulse-why shouldn’t they be able to interact with OTHER physical impulses.


Choice is not unique to humans, if you had a cat in another room the cat will "choose" to go investigate the source of the sound too, it does to because it becomes curious, the very same reason a person chooses to go investigate the sound, it becomes curious. A money will choose to climb a tree to eat a fruit, doesn't have to, instead it could go do something else, it "chooses" to

Making the decision to go investigate the source of the sound is not a metaphysical thing, its a neurological process, all animals do it, axon terminal send neurotransmitters from one axon terminal to another across a gap called a synapse, the axon on the reciving end turns the neurotransmitters into an electrochemical signal that travels down the axon and sets sent to a dendrite, which sends it to another cell through the same process. That's how decisions are name. That's what thoughts are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurons


Did you know that the United States Military actually spends money researching ESP, mind reading, and triggering physical reactions with mere thoughts? That’s because there is evidence that these very things do exist, we’re just not exactly sure how. “God and the New Physics,” by Paul Davies discusses the metaphysical aspect of the human mind, it’s an intriguing read. I know it has god in the title, but I promise you the writer is not an evangelical. He’s an agnostic, and that’s why I trust his opinion more than Stephen Hawking’s or any of the numerous Christian ‘scientists,’ writers.


The united states military spends money on all kinds of useless programs like that, that's what our government is best at. Wasting money on pointless things.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 6/9/09
You guys are so nerdy lol
Posted 6/9/09
All of you people have interesting views, and many homosexuals (including meh) are thankful for all of them. If everybody took every word of their religion seriously and didn't give thought to it...where would it put us homosexuals? Probably in jail or worse.
I won't hate anybody for not supporting gays because of their religion cause everybody has their own opinions and that can never be changed. Also, some people are more religious than others and that's okay because it is not their fault. As I am not religious, I still think people should follow their own religions as best as they can but not to take the LITERAL meaning of religious text.

:]
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 6/9/09 , edited 6/9/09
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

What if a guy has never had sex with woman and therefore, x = with womankind.
Secondly, this guy has only had sex with men, therefore, y = with mankind.
Since x != y, and follows "not lie with mankind, as with womankind", he's saved!

Although this means that bisexuals are definitely going to burn in hell.

4202 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 6/9/09
in my country gay couples can get married in church
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.