RE: What do the atheists get right? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Kirata -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 2:58:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

When I think I know it all, I bet I'll agree with you. Until then, I'll stay open-minded and give others a chance...

Some atheists get things right, others not so much. The only reason your bigoted nonsense didn't draw the thrashing it deserves is because we've already been there, earlier in the thread. Do at least try to be more original next time.

K.




PeonForHer -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 3:02:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
I've never heard a convincing--or, for that matter, any--explanation of why someone would choose an orientation that for much of history has meant being oppressed, sometimes violently.


Yep. That one has had me scratching my own head for years.



Kirata -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 3:12:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I've never heard a convincing--or, for that matter, any--explanation of why someone would choose an orientation that for much of history has meant being oppressed, sometimes violently.

Yep. That one has had me scratching my own head for years.

Actually, the idea that someone's sexual behavior "defines" them in some way is a relatively new notion. Moreover, it isn't the case that the only alternative to a genetically determined sexual preference is necessarily a free and uninfluenced "choice." There are social and environment factors at play in the outcome. That's why I posted the previous link for consideration.

K.




GotSteel -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 5:03:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
(a) The Medical Daily source reads more as an opinion piece than a news story. A quick bit of Googling revealed that the author is a reporter rather than a scientist. And it's filed under "Policy/Biz" rather than "Science Tech," for what that's worth.


It very much is, it does contain Michael Bailey's quote regarding his research which is largely the meaningful part. Though the article does also mention "environment" which is a reference to other research which found that factors in utero may contribute and not anything having to do with choice which sometimes confuses people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb
Rice and his co-workers were more intrigued by studies showing that male and female fetuses respond differently to the hormones that surround them, even when one hormone is temporarily higher. In their study, published online today in The Quarterly Review of Biology, the authors propose that differences in sensitivity to sex hormones result from "epigenetic" changes. These are changes that affect not the structure of a gene but when, if, and how much of it is activated—by chemically altering a gene's promoter region or "on" switch, for example. Epigenetic changes at key points in the pathway through which testosterone exerts its effects on the fetus could blunt or enhance the hormone's activity as needed, the authors suggest.

Although epigenetic changes are usually temporary, they involve alterations in the proteins that bind together the long strands of DNA. Thus, they can sometimes be handed down to offspring. According to the hypothesis, homosexuality may be a carry-over from one's parents' own prenatal resistance to the hormones of the opposite sex. The "epi-marks" that adjusted parental genes to resist excess testosterone, for example, may alter gene activation in areas of the child's brain involved in sexual attraction and preference. "These epigenetic changes protect mom and dad during their own early development," Rice says. The initial benefit to the parents may explain why the trait of homosexuality persists throughout evolution, he says.




PeonForHer -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 5:06:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Actually, the idea that someone's sexual behavior "defines" them in some way is a relatively new notion. Moreover, it isn't the case that the only alternative to a genetically determined sexual preference is necessarily a free and uninfluenced "choice." There are social and environment factors at play in the outcome. That's why I posted the previous link for consideration.



It's an interesting article, K, not least because, for once, it's about research done by social scientists. It wouldn't surprise me at all that, in times long past and in places far away (etc), sexual behaviour just didn't have the same status as a 'defining' factor of any given individual. I've long thought that what we have now is simply the flip side of the repression of the Victorian years in pariticular. Maybe it'll take another century or more before we all get over that long-term hang up over it all.

I'm suddenly reminded of a spoof news article I once read in the satirical magazine here, Private Eye. It came out soon after research had hinted that Richard the Lionheart might have been gay. "Leading Homosexual was Closet Crusader Shock" was the headline.

Yep. There's something of a point there: who cares if he was gay or if he was straight? It's not going to make a great deal of difference to Richard's importance in history. But I don't suppose we're really there, yet. Mostly, if someone says 'Who cares?', one still suspects that the cry is just a mask for the view, 'Be quiet! I don't want to hear about gayness!'.



dcnovice -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 7:24:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

A few thoughts on the "choosing to be gay" subplot from an actual gay guy:

You might find this interesting.

K.



Your link brought me back to the same post.



chatterbox24 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 7:37:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

A few thoughts on the "choosing to be gay" subplot from an actual gay guy:

You might find this interesting.

K, that link only take us back to the thread.


Oops, my bad. Here.

K.






dcnovice -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 8:06:55 AM)

quote:

You might find this interesting.

Found the link later in the thread. It was interesting.

Also interesting was Googling the author. These paragraphs in his Wikipedia profile caught my eye:

In 2003, he announced that for religious reasons he had stopped having sex with men, and that he was shedding the label gay, preferring not to label his sexuality.[4] He has always been a devout Jew, and says that one reason he changed was because "Gay sex is just inconsistent with traditional religious life." To reflect his change in sexual identity, and to honor his late grandfather, Julius Benkof, David Bianco changed his name to David Benkof.[2] He identifies as bisexual, but abstains from having sex with men.[2]

He has since become a strong opponent of same-sex marriage.[5] In response to arguments for gay marriages, he wrote "This reasoning is not only flawed, it insults the millions of Americans whose traditional faiths call on us to defend marriage as a central institution in society defined as a union between a man and a woman."[6] Benkof has made it clear that his objection to same-sex relationships is based in part on his personal religious beliefs, stating, "I happen to believe that God has been clear to the Jewish people that we should be pursuing opposite-sex relationships, and particularly not having intercourse between two males."[7]

This doesn't necessarily negate his reporting, of course, but he's definitely an author with an agenda. It's interesting indeed that the Daily Caller's bio blurb presents him as a garden-variety gay writer, which is misleading at best. That highlights an intriguing irony about the piece: While it seems to argue against the idea of an innate gay identity, the DC's selection of author and its headline rely on the (former) sexual identity of the author and the sources he cites. "You can believe this," is the subtext, "because it's a gay author quoting gay scholars." So much for the notion that we're not defined by our sexual identity!

The comments following the essay were also quite illuminating.



vincentML -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 10:17:42 AM)

quote:

(d) I've never heard a convincing--or, for that matter, any--explanation of why someone would choose an orientation that for much of history has meant being oppressed, sometimes violently.

I wonder if you would apply the same explanation to heterosexual cross-dressing men? Are they born with the fetish? Did they somehow acquire it as part of their sexual motif during development, or did they (unlikely) make a choice? It seems to me if you claim 'a born that way' for homosexuals you have to defend the same claim for hetero x-dressers, but no one has to my knowledge. In fact, one might expect that every fetish should be considered inherited. How is it that homosexuals claim a status that is not recognized for any other sexual preference except straight?



Greta75 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 10:22:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
(b) I don't think I've ever met anyone--gay, straight, or anywhere in between--who described his or her orientation as a choice. Mine certainly wasn't.


While I believe being gay is inborn and not a choice. I also believe having romantic love for your own flesh and blood, whether sister brother, mother son, or father daughter is also not a choice. Pedophilia is also not a choice. It is choice whether you wish to act upon your natural orientation of preferences, but it isn't a choice that, that's what you feel attracted to.

End of the day, society just need to decide, for example, gay people, does it harm anybody IF they had sex with their own gender? No it doesn't! So let them be gay, who cares!

Infact, I don't know why incest is illegal as well, because if it's consensual, and they accept the risks of possibly having deformed babies or whatever, I mean, women have babies at 50 yr old accept the same risks of having a down syndrome baby, ya know what I mean? So technically, that should be allowed and legal too if gays are allowed and legal.

Now Pedophilia or beastility, should be illegal, because there is no way to know for sure if a baby or an animal can give consent.

As simple as that.



vincentML -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 10:23:17 AM)

quote:

Being born gay isn't a choice, sexual attraction is an instinct, one of our more potent ones.


Instinct is a very strong word as it precludes any learning and enculturation. I wonder likewise if procreation is in fact an "instinct" or perhaps instead a learned imperative.



vincentML -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 10:29:02 AM)

quote:

Pedophilia is also not a choice. It is choice whether you wish to act upon your natural orientation of preferences, but it isn't a choice that, that's what you feel attracted to.

I quite agree, it is difficult to think that pedophilia is a choice but that does not make it a genetic characteristic. Maybe, the obsession being so overwhelming, the acting out is not a choice either.



chatterbox24 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 10:49:12 AM)

[sm=spanking.gif][sm=spanking.gif]Oh good, now I can marry my brother and no one would care.[:D]

Now see, I act out all the time, is it a choice or not? Can I control it? I wonder.

Since VincentML is above me, I will do this again. Accept this [sm=lol.gif]

[sm=spanking.gif]



Moderator3 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 10:53:35 AM)

It might be best to get off the topics of pedophilia and bestiality.

Thank you.



thompsonx -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 1:23:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moderator3

It might be best to get off the topics of pedophilia and bestiality.

Thank you.


baa baa baaaaaad[:)]



Moderator3 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 1:30:50 PM)

thomsonx = [sm=stickineye.gif] Be careful now [sm=shame.gif] I enjoy dishing out pain. [sm=trident.gif]



vincentML -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 2:33:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

[sm=spanking.gif][sm=spanking.gif]Oh good, now I can marry my brother and no one would care.[:D]

Now see, I act out all the time, is it a choice or not? Can I control it? I wonder.

Since VincentML is above me, I will do this again. Accept this [sm=lol.gif]

[sm=spanking.gif]

You should not, I think, make light of people who suffer compulsions that lead them to destructive or undignified behaviors in their lives, people who are tormented because they cannot withhold behaviors that are punishable by Law perhaps and yet find they are repeat offenders. Whether these compulsions are genetic, epigenetic, or developmental is open to question. And it may be that they cannot help themselves so there is a serious question of responsibility despite they know the moral restrictions and can tell right from wrong. Jeffrey Dahlmer comes to mind. I doubt a case can be made that Jeffrey did not have an overwhelming compulsion that drove him to commit hideous acts beyond his control. Not saying he should not have been jailed for life, for the safety of the community. Just raising the issue of compulsion and responsibility. There may be cases of behavior where Free Will was absent.



chatterbox24 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 2:57:51 PM)

Now what did you just say?
That was a mouthful. I'm just playin!
I really don't make light of people's afflictions. Self control can be an extremely difficult quality to possess.



vincentML -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/16/2014 3:20:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

Now what did you just say?
That was a mouthful. I'm just playin!
I really don't make light of people's afflictions. Self control can be an extremely difficult quality to possess.

Wasn't sure you recognized that. Glad you do.[:)]



chatterbox24 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/17/2014 6:09:12 AM)

I watched this, and I am not sure what you wanted to make clear by it?
My depliction of the film was although life had not went as planned, went terribly off track with suffering, she was thrown in with her family and as annoying as it was and painful she had quite a meaningful story to tell. In the end she has her bungalow back as she had dreamed but in the end she is alone.
how did you deplict the story?
quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

chatterbox, here's a link to a film that answers you clearly:

http://www.primewire.ag/watch-19856-God-Said-Ha




Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875