Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Will a "Gay Gene" Refute Evolution?

Pages: (43) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,03:13    Quote You don't believe that because something exists it is "normal" and "natural?" Wouldn't such a stance normalize and naturalize murder, rape, pedophile, necrophilia, AIDS, leprosy, etc.? What I think you're saying in your inscrutable, never-answer-a-question-when-you-can-dodge-it-by-asking-another style, is that you agree with me that "natural" and "normal" are not very useful concepts in the context of sexuality and sex education. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,03:59    Did God design the necrophiliac, homosexual rapist duck? -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,04:18    Quote Thordaddy:  Diseases are caused by DISCRIMINATION? It seems like diseases are AVOIDED BY USING DISCRIMINATION. This is the most laughable and unscientific dogma I've come across in awhile, Mr. Aftershave. Take your liberal talking points to an unscientific forum. OK, you're both bigoted and stupid.  Thanks for clearing that up Susceptibility to diseases (including things like alcohol /drug abuse) is greatly increased for people under severe stress. Sever stress is caused by being the victim of discrimination, social ostracism, and threats of physical violence. Many gays are the victims of discrimination, social ostracism, and threats of physical violence. If I used words with less syllables, would that help you understand? I ask you again - do you thing we should stop teaching racial equality in schools because certain minorities are over-represented in health related issues? Also, please tell us what you define to be the gay "lifestyle".  AFAIK for every confrontational gay who makes the evening news, there are a hundred other non-hetero folks leading quiet, normal lives.  These quite folks are our neighbors and friends.  They obey the laws, pay their taxes on time, worry about the economy, defend their country in the armed services, cheer the local sports teams, cry during sappy movies, love their parents, partners, and children.  Just like every other American. Why in the world should they be ostracized and even killed for their sexuality (remember Matthew Sheppard?) because of bigoted assh*les like you? -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,04:51    It seems like people are conflating several issues here: 1) The extent to which society should tolerate homosexual behavior 2) The origin of homosexual behavior / feeling 3) Whether or not homosexuals are more inclined to commit crime, have STDs, or engage in naughty behavior in general. Points 2) and 3) are purely empirical, and are therefore in the domain of science. There is nothing bigoted about researching these issues, even if the researcher does not assume the liberal's null hypothesis of completely equal behavior across all groups absent discrimination from straight White Chistian males. Point 1), however, is predicated on one's prior philosophy and is hard to shift with evidence, especially the evidence proffered by the social sciences. Religion and political philosophy create a powerful inertia that isn't going to be halted by insults and slander. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,05:54    Ghost: Point 3), while I suppose technically within the domain of science, is probably beyond anyone's current ability to investigate usefully. Too many independent variables too difficult to control for or factor out (and let's omit the 'naughty behavior', which belongs back in your factor 1. Surely homosexuals are going to be more inclined to engage in homosexual behavior). But more specification would be useful. If we designate homosexual behaviors as crimes, is it honest to then turn around and say homosexuals are "more inclined to criminal behavior"? I wouldn't be comfortable calling that a "scientific investigation." Would you? Your first question is strictly a value question, phrased poorly for lack of any baseline. Are we talking here about normative positions ("being homosexual is bad") or about cost/benefit considerations to the society? How would you go about quantifying these things? Your post does make your position clear: Homosexual behavior is bad, it is wrong, it should not be tolerated, queers are diseased naughty criminally-inclined people, it's an insult to disagree with these positions, as would be expected from liberals. NOW, let's all be scientific and objective on this playing field.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,06:24    Quote 1) The extent to which society should tolerate homosexual behavior I'm very curious to know your definition of homosexual behaivour.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,06:26    Quote Your post does make your position clear: Homosexual behavior is bad, it is wrong, it should not be tolerated, queers are diseased naughty criminally-inclined people, it's an insult to disagree with these positions, as would be expected from liberals. NOW, let's all be scientific and objective on this playing field. Dean, you know it's against the rules to hijack rational people's screen names.   Seriously, I think you read much more in the post than was actually there. By "naughty behavior", I meant promiscuity, public indecency, soliciting minors, etc. : in other words, actions that are widely considered naughty independent of sexual orientation. Obviously, no one will agree on an all-inclusive definition; hence a vague phrase meant to elicit different images in different minds. Quote Your first question is strictly a value question, phrased poorly for lack of any baseline. Are we talking here about normative positions ("being homosexual is bad") or about cost/benefit considerations to the society? How would you go about quantifying these things? Cost-benefit, with the presumption that no harm is done to society by tolerating the behavior. I have no interest in bringing the government into the bedroom. But I'm willing to listen to all sides. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,06:44    Chris Hyland wrote: Quote I'm very curious to know your definition of homosexual behaivour. Sex or sexual contact between members of the same gender. Romantic kissing, petting, and well.....you know. Flint wrote: Quote But more specification would be useful. If we designate homosexual behaviors as crimes, is it honest to then turn around and say homosexuals are "more inclined to criminal behavior"? I wouldn't be comfortable calling that a "scientific investigation." Would you? I wasn't designating homosexual behavior as criminal, but starting with the baseline assumption that homosexual acts should not be classified as criminal.   Here's an interesting question: what role should societal condemnation play? Even if a society doesn't illegalize a certain behavior, it is still possible to make life difficult for people doing it (note: I am not saying this is a good thing, just stating a fact). -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,06:57    Quote Sex or sexual contact between members of the same gender. Romantic kissing, petting, and well.....you know. Oh ok, I just thought you might be classing drugs STDs etc as typical homosexual behaivour like some other people on this thread whos name I wont mention. Quote Here's an interesting question: what role should societal condemnation play? Even if a society doesn't illegalize a certain behavior, it is still possible to make life difficult for people doing it (note: I am not saying this is a good thing, just stating a fact). In many cases it is probably more effective than illegalization.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,07:46    Ghost, OK, I considered your questions to be leading questions, which wouldn't even be asked if they did not presume the shape of the answers if not the specifics. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. There's no question that social acceptance of any behavior largely throttles that behavior. But there's also no question but that the specific behaviors rewarded or rejected by any given society (or region) are in constant flux. Just as a typical example, if I wish I can wear my hair down to my waist and work in a corporate suit-and-tie environment and nobody thinks twice about it. Imagine 50 years ago! Granted, social inertia is a considerable obstacle for lots of things, but fashions in morality change. Wasn't long ago when confinement was used as a pretense that the pregnant woman hadn't, like, done anything dirty. Today, marriage is pretty optional and sex taken much more for granted. Perhaps your categories of indecency or promiscuity are undergoing a similar sea change. The point I'm trying to support here is that where there is no harm done, fashions CAN change. And by observation, fashions can change in targeted directions. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if within a generation or two society at large accepts that homosexuality exists, that homosexual couples are pretty common and do what any other couple does -- *provided* some effort is made to bring this about. Conversely, treating homosexuality as a voluntary sin, to be roundly condemned, can push in the other direction. I personally would speculate that the cost to society of tolerating homosexual behavior would be the loss of the leverage of "superiority" that some people need, the loss of a category of people to look down on. Without addressing spirituality generally, I think it's clear that specific religious doctrines tend to be rather judgmental and petty in this way, to meet certain needs. I find your statement about "liberal null hypothesis" and your sarcasm about "straight white Christians" to be disconcerting. What do you mean by this? My guess is that we're talking about a feedback process, where rejection of some behaviors causes the behaviors to be more aggressive, leading to more rejection. How should science investigate social dynamics absent any society? The question "what role should societal rejection play" is qualitatively different from what role it DOES play. I have no doubt the role it does play can and will change. These things swing back and forth. What role it *should* play is entirely arbitrary.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,08:59    Flint wrote: Quote There's no question that social acceptance of any behavior largely throttles that behavior. But there's also no question but that the specific behaviors rewarded or rejected by any given society (or region) are in constant flux. Just as a typical example, if I wish I can wear my hair down to my waist and work in a corporate suit-and-tie environment and nobody thinks twice about it. Imagine 50 years ago! and Quote The point I'm trying to support here is that where there is no harm done, fashions CAN change. Certainly true. And I think that some degree of social change is inevitable provided the change doesn't hurt society. Even when it does, social forces can sometimes reestablish equilibrium (consider the transition between the late '70's and the Reagan era). But what if change is wedded to identity politics? Then it's hard to measure its impact, and politically dangerous to even try. Look at the abuse hurled Thordaddy's way for daring to suggest that a disproportionate number of homosexuals engage in destructive behavior such as casual, unprotected sex. He may well be wrong, but that's an empirical issue. It doesn't necessarily make him a bigot. And if he's correct, then society has every right to question the ethos that produces the behavior. If he's wrong, better to show him why, even if you don't think he's met your burden of proof. I'm interested in the evidence. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,09:40    Ghost: Quote Look at the abuse hurled Thordaddy's way for daring to suggest that a disproportionate number of homosexuals engage in destructive behavior such as casual, unprotected sex. He may well be wrong, but that's an empirical issue. Can we say disingenuous, boys and girls? thordaddy has generally taken a position of religious intolerance, with the usual ramifications - queers are bad, abortions are bad, etc. His assertions about destructive behavior flow from his postulates, not vice versa. Having tried to penetrate that mindset, I've learned: thordaddy is not interested in the evidence. Even if his claims are factually incorrect, he'll make them because they fit his requirements. Which is what people are complaining about. And which DOES make him a bigot. Quote And if he's correct, then society has every right to question the ethos that produces the behavior. If you do say so yourself, right? Sexual activity isn't motivated by an "ethos", it's motivated by biology. It's probably worthwhile from a social perspective to identify and hopefully neutralize any damage caused by that activity. I hope we agree that "casual, unprotected sex" is only "destructive" if it's a vector for preventable disease. In which case, it probably makes more sense to address the disease (which we can cure) rather than sexual motivation (which we can't cure, we hope! We might also argue that casual, unprotected *heterosexual* activity results in unwanted pregnancies, which also can be destructive. But we have a two-pronted attack against this: condoms during sex (also good against disease), and failing any birth control, abortion afterwards. So far, I would argue that these techniques have been LESS effective than they otherwise might have, precisely because of the prevalance of the attitude thordaddy is illustrating. So the issue isn't whether thordaddy's claims meet the burden of proof. The issue is that it's the thordaddies of the nation whose claims become self-fulfilling. He is directly part of the problem; part of the contingent that acts to *ensure* that his accusations become as true as he can make them. Would homosexuals be more sexually responsible, if the nation's thordaddies encouraged rather than attempted to prohibit long-term committed relationships?

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,09:41    Chris Hyland wrote: Quote I'm very curious to know your definition of homosexual behaivour. Ghost of Paley wrote: Quote sexual contact between members of the same gender. Romantic kissing, petting, and well.....you know. Hi Ghost, Quick question – how do you define gender?   Is it just the physical equipment a person is born with?  Are there only two genders, male and female?  What about hermaphrodites?  What gender are they? My point is, the natural world is not limited to our binary constructs like masculine and feminine.  In the natural world nonfatal variations in phenotype expression are not uncommon, and appear across a continuous spectrum.    Similarly, variations in sexual preference appear across a continuous spectrum, from straight to bi to gay, and all shades in between.  Sexuality is determined by a myriad of factors – biological, genetic, environmental.  Those in society who define sexuality solely based on the plumbing between one’s legs, and who demonize those who don’t fit some narrow minded ideal are doing a great injustice to us all. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,10:14    which brings up an interesting point; what if we could change our gender at will? some fish species change sex over time, some are protogynous (many wrasses, for example) and some protandrous (some groupers). how would one classify their sexual behavior, then? if one month a wrasse mates with a female, and the next a male, is that at any point homosexual? what about garden snails?  they're hermaphrodites.  Are they always homosexual whenever they have sex then (heh, i guess that would be more bisexual, come to think of it)? oh, wait it's all about the reproduction aspect, right?   if you can reproduce with the act of having sex, it's not "gay" right? bah! all this crap boils down to one thing: those that don't LIKE homosexual behavior will simply invent excuses to discriminate, just like those who invent excuses to discriminate against race. same mental issue, same pathology, same arguments, same results.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,11:12    Quote Look at the abuse hurled Thordaddy's way for daring to suggest that a disproportionate number of homosexuals engage in destructive behavior... If he's wrong, better to show him why, even if you don't think he's met your burden of proof. I'm interested in the evidence. I'm not sure what conversation you're having. He claims that AIDS, for instance, is overwhelmingly a disease of homosexuals. While I think that's overstating it, I agree that (male) homosexuals are at greater risk than some other groups. That's not my question. My question is: what should the role of public education be in this? Specifically: What is being taught in school that he thinks should not be? What is not being taught that he thinks should be? What should science and scientists say about it that they don't? What should science and scientists not say about it that they do? I'm not getting very far. Sometimes I get the sense he's complaining that science is being inappropriately ideological rather than scientific. Sometimes I get the sense that he's saying it's impossible for science not to be ideological. Sometimes I get the sense he's saying it has nothing to do with science. Sometimes I get the sense that he doesn't know what he's saying, but somehow the country's going to h#ll in a handbasket, and it's all the fault of leftists and homosexuals. Quote I'm interested in the evidence. So, what conversation are you having? You're interested in the evidence for what? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,11:17    sometimes i get the sense he's just a moron. actually, more than sometimes. sometimes i think we need more interesting topics to discuss. sometimes i think it's a complete waste of time to argue with a rock. sometimes i think it would be best to just ignore the ramblings of lunatics. sometimes.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,11:18    Stats The more I wander the more I see the ideological influence upon science. The original intent of the thread was to get a scientific perspective on "homosexuality." I believe Russell claimed "sexual orientations" as a result of evolution. Why would evolution create any "orientation" beyond that used to reproduce and satisfy its fundamental function? Secondly, given the statistics above, in what manner is "homosexuality" normal and natural? Lastly, given both the inherent danger involved in practicing homosexuality and the ambivalent nature of the "behavior," why is such a topic of early child education?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,11:18    fundies who tell you not to be gay or have premarital sex in order to avoid STDs are lying to you. HPV vaccine, anyone? They don't care about STDs. They don't want you to be gay or have premarital sex because their bible tells them it's evil. If they were honest they'd say that to your face. But they aren't, so they pretend to have a secular concern.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,11:22    Quote Hi Ghost, Quick question – how do you define gender?   Is it just the physical equipment a person is born with?  Are there only two genders, male and female?  What about hermaphrodites?  What gender are they? Yes, I remember reading that a certain proportion of babies (3 out of 1000? can't remember) are born with ambiguous genitalia, and need surgery to "correct" the condition. And there are the transexuals of course, which sometime overlap the previous group. But you're trying to build a rule from the exceptions. Most people are pretty clearly male or female. We can't design social norms around the exceptional cases - that would be like architects designing doorways with the NBA center in mind. Quote what if we could change our gender at will? some fish species change sex over time, some are protogynous (many wrasses, for example) and some protandrous (some groupers). Well, if protandrous groupers campaign for equal rights under the law, then I'll worry about it. Man, you guys really are dancing around the issue, ain't ya? -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,11:30    Ghost: Yes, I agree Occam here has gotten derailed. Gender is unambiguous and important enough for us to treat it as purely bimodal for legal purposes, without enough exceptions for that to be troublesome. Which makes me wonder why you chose Occam's response to address? I also agree that the biology of certain fish is of dubious relevance to human society. OK? Meanwhile, Russell focuses directly on the issue and asks very good questions. Do you have answers for them?

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,11:55    Quote I believe Russell claimed "sexual orientations" as a result of evolution. I don't even know what that means. It doesn't sound remotely like a claim I would make. Quote Secondly, given the statistics above, in what manner is "homosexuality" normal and natural? I thought we concluded that "normal" and "natural" are not particularly useful terms in this discussion. Quote Lastly, given both the inherent danger involved in practicing homosexuality and the ambivalent nature of the "behavior," why is such a topic of early child education? You have yet to show us anywhere that it is a topic of early child education. Unless you're counting "Johnny has Two Daddies" as a how-to manual on sodomy techniques. In which case, you need to get a grip. And I'm still puzzled. Are your concerns just about health risks? Are you, in fact, OK with "Johnny has Two Mommies"? If not, why not? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,12:11    Quote Secondly, given the statistics above, in what manner is "homosexuality" normal and natural? How would these stats help us answer that question? Are you saying the fact that 60% of AIDS cases among men in the US  are ascribed to homosexual activity means that that activity is not normal or natural? What are we to make of the fact that 75% of AIDS cases in women are ascribed to heterosexual activity? Does that mean heterosexual activity is abnormal and unnatural - but only for women? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,12:36    Russell, See, you think you can play with the numbers.  You think you can play with the words.  Your attempt is to muddy the waters and keep the issues in a state of ambiguity. Read those stats for the US again. Stats Pay particular notice to the percentage of AIDS cases between men and women. Secondly, the prevalence of AIDS amongst homosexuals isn't what defines homosexuality as "unnatural" or "abnormal."  Science at one time defined homosexuality as a pathology.  You did not know this? If science finds a "gay gene" then we can assume this gene a product of evolution.  Hence, evolution devised "sexual orientations."  This doesn't pass the smell test given ALL the other evidence to consider.   Why would evolution need an "orientation?"   Isn't this tantamount to saying there is some other process to evolution?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,12:44    Quote sometimes i think it's a complete waste of time to argue with a rock. sometimes i think it would be best to just ignore the ramblings of lunatics. sometimes. I have no idea why you guys are arguing with this idiot. In 214 posts he's shown he has no ability to understand an argument. I don't know what your goal is.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,12:52    stevestory, I just noticed your avatar.  You play the part perfectly.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,13:06    Flint: Quote Meanwhile, Russell focuses directly on the issue and asks very good questions. Do you have answers for them? Why not? Quote My question is: what should the role of public education be in this? Specifically: What is being taught in school that he thinks should not be? Can't really answer this since I don't know what the schools are teaching. But I don't believe that certain students should have to be run through the guilt ringer like you see in "white studies" classes. Just the facts, ma'am. Quote What is not being taught that he thinks should be? I think that all the relevant hypotheses for the origin of homo/heterosexuality should be taught, from the purely biological to the socialization model. Quote What should science and scientists say about it that they don't? Social scientists should be allowed to research group behavioral differences if they wish. Some do already, but not enough. For example, homosexuals commit suicide at a higher rate than heterosexuals: true or false? If a difference exists, does biology play a role? What about spousal/partner abuse? I read a study somewhere that indicated that homosexual couples (including lesbians) are more likely to have violent relationships than heterosexual ones. Has this been replicated? Quote What should science and scientists not say about it that they do? That's easy. Don't assume that discrimination is the only explanation for antisocial behavior, or even an explanation at all. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,13:51    Ghost: Excellent ideas, as the mice agreed about putting a bell on the cat. But I would pay VERY careful attention to the experimental designs. I imagine you would too. Offhand, I can't think of any good way to isolate most antisocial behaviors to biology, or even quantify the biological component if any. I understand it's considered very poor form to assume what you're trying to check out, but I confess I could not define some of these terms without building some assumptions into the definitions. 'Antisocial'? 'Abuse'? At the margin, these are straight eye-of-the-beholder things. I agree we should examine all plausible sources of homosexual (or other than straight heterosexual) desires and impulses. So far, the only explanation I've seen unambiguously ruled out is voluntary choice. The majority view on this thread, as I understand it (and I can't make any sense of nearly anything thordaddy says) is that sexual orientation, in and of itself, is socially neutral and unexceptional, *except* insofar as insecure people find excuses to demonize something sufficiently nonconforming as to be directly visible. But when enough people join the Forces of Rejection, this causes the otherwise neutral behavior to become polarizing. And THAT, in turn, tricks us into studying the behavior itself, rather than the REAL culprit, the engineered and unnecessary social reaction to it. But maybe I'm misreading?

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,13:52    Quote ...homosexuals commit suicide at a higher rate than heterosexuals... ..or that discrimination is responsible for higher suicide rates...

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,13:55    Steve, I don't think I am arguing with him. I'm just trying to figure out what the heck he's trying to say. But you're right; that doesn't seem to be getting anywhere either. Call it a useless hobby. Like solving crossword puzzles. Now, if you'll excuse me, back to T-diddy: Quote Your attempt is to muddy the waters and keep the issues in a state of ambiguity. Quite the contrary, I assure you. I'm trying to get you to tell us what the heck you're on about. Honestly, I can't make any sense of it. Quote Read those stats for the US again. Pay particular notice to the percentage of AIDS cases between men and women. Look. Here are the stats in question (as of the end of 2002): Quote Approximately 40,000 new HIV infections occur each year in the United States, about 70 percent among men and 30 percent among women. Of these newly infected people, half are younger than 25 years of age.(3,4) Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4) Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64 percent are black, 18 percent are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4) Now, what's your point? US Men get AIDS more than US women. Right. We knew that. Homosexual behavior is the largest risk factor for men, apparently being about 4 times as risky as heterosexual behavior. Right. Sounds about right. Heterosexual sex is the biggest risk factor for women: apparently being about infinitely more risky than homosexual behavior. I pointed that out to you. What is your point? Quote Secondly, the prevalence of AIDS amongst homosexuals isn't what defines homosexuality as "unnatural" or "abnormal."  Science at one time defined homosexuality as a pathology. Then why did you say: Quote Secondly, given the statistics above, in what manner is "homosexuality" normal and natural? Does that make any sense? I ask you to focus your attention on the four questions I put to you earlier: Quote What is being taught in school that you think should  be? What is  being taught that you think should be? What should science and scientists say about it that they don't? What should science and scientists not say about it that they do? Once you've addressed those questions, I'm also curious to know: what makes you "...believe Russell claimed 'sexual orientations' as a result of evolution" (whatever that means),  And  are you, in fact, OK with "Johnny has Two Mommies"? If not, why not? There you go. A list of discrete, specific, concrete questions. No rhetorical flourishes, no digressions, no "attempts to muddy waters". Can you deal with that? Paley: you come late to the conversation. It's not about the Quote ... relevant hypotheses for the origin of homo/heterosexuality (which I don't really see in a high school curriculum anyway), but what should or should not be taught in public school in the area of AIDS and other STDs. (At least that's what I thought we were discussing. It seems to be something of a moving target with T-diddy.) -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,14:01    Flint: Quote I personally would speculate that the cost to society of tolerating homosexual behavior would be the loss of the leverage of "superiority" that some people need, the loss of a category of people to look down on. Perhaps.....but maybe there's a good reason for the taboo. Most social rules have developed for a reason. Even libertine societies were not equally tolerant of all types of homosexual behavior. I'm not a big fan of wiping out a suite of sexual mores without giving some thought to the possible consequences: Free love brings free diseases, and medicine's defenses can be circumvented through microevolution. Open relationships often lead to jealousy, contempt, and homicide. Get rid of marriage, and you often reap a crop of fatherless kids just looking for trouble. All of our little countercultural experiments have had unintended consequences, often disastrous. Russell: Quote What are we to make of the fact that 75% of AIDS cases in women are ascribed to heterosexual activity? Does that mean heterosexual activity is abnormal and unnatural - but only for women? And how many of these men were living on the down low? This is one reason why it's folly to treat sexual behavior as if it exists in a vacuum. If a man's wife cheats on him with a bisexual man, and hubby gets AIDs, how is that not his problem? And with Cosmo telling women to cheat on their spouses as a step towards self-fulfillment, this possibility becomes less remote. Look at the black community - black women are much more likely to get AIDs than white women. Why is that? Because Black culture encourages the men to screw around more. Every action you take affects another human being. And it's easier to destroy a village than rebuild it. I know that many will find this post provocative, but I can't help it. The truth is, the social conservatives make a lot of sense, and you ignore their warnings at society's peril. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Pages: (43) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard