Homosexuality from a Non-Religious perspective

[_jskains]

jskains stated:
While I do not pretend to know the mind of God, I believe the idea of "homosexuality" as a sin is a response to God wanting the control of "natural man". God said "this is an activity you should not participate in". One who is homosexual would be required by God to ignore his "natural" urges to become more God-like and hence elevate themselves beyond the natural state and above the typical animal on Earth.

Why do you pretend God? There is no evidence for such an entity. Those who invent God have a wide variety of inventions.

“I believe” which you use as if you were stating fact is non-fact.

Your invention God, is, by your own statements, NOT in control.

Notice that you assign human emotion to your invention God. God wants in your construction. No such thing as gods and later God has been established – let alone the precise want factors which you attribute to your (really the doctrine of others) God.

You appear to say God wants to control but is unable to control.
Hence, you invent a WEAK God.

Now, God said nothing. People, men wrote what humans regard as God’s words. So, you’re making all sorts of assumptions here to suit your own dogma. It has been copied by hand many times. It has been translated many times into evolving language and into multiple languages. It is interpreted a wide variety of ways differently by those who claim that their interpretation is correct. You seem to be unaware of that historical reality.

If it’s your position that your God made (created) humans, any attributes of those humans are a result of God’s doing. How absurd for God to make “defect” as you have argued. Why? The defect lies with your invented God NOT with humans who act just as they were programmed to act.

See the absurdity of your God invention? You also invent an unkind, even cruel God. Why does this entity discriminate against some and not others. We could ask the same question with regard to all human illnesses that cause pain and suffering. “Defects” as you call them. What is responsible for the “defects”? It’s your invented God that is responsible.

Unless…you are claiming multiple gods as in times more ancient when many gods were worshiped.

“…become more Godlike.” Your failure to have established your God claim makes this statement merely an assertion absent support.

Should humans ignore other “natural urges”? Should humans ignore the urge to eat food? Should humans ignore the urge to void their bladders? Should humans ignore the urge to put on warm coats to go out into the cold weather?

Your argument is nonsense as you presume to know what “natural urges” we should ignore and which we should yield to.

You see, jskains, you are just making it up as you go absent any honest intellectual inquiry.

Further, when the pressures to defend your positions are on such as they are in this post, you run away. Why?

JAK

Since you want me to respond to you, I'll make it simple.

"You see, jskains, you are just making it up as you go absent any honest intellectual inquiry. "

Instead of having a mature discussion, it goes into personal attacks. No use wasting time on the close minded.

JMS

jskains,

The issues I raised with you stand unaddressed. That’s a statement of fact. My attempt was to open your mind by raising questions and presenting analysis of your statements.

As I allow my comment to stand here along with yours, we can see that you did not respond to the thrust of my analysis.

I await a “mature discussion” of the analysis presented for your consideration. You can refute it with evidence and fact. You can agree with parts and not all. You can quote the substance of my remarks standing in the full context of my remarks in this single post which you left standing.

There are numerous options open for you to participate in “mature discussion” regarding the analysis.

The intention and significance of my comment was addressing directly what I quoted from you, jskains, in your earlier post.

Do you think you could address the analysis?

JAK

No you burned your bridge with me already. You were arrogant and rude. Game over. Next...

JMS

[_jskains]

Postmenopausal women still have a sex drive. This would not be so if postmenopausal sex is some "product of social conversion".

Likewise, pregnant women have sex drives - sometimes even stronger than before.

Both of these assumptions are false. You assume a perfected natural world. Why do you assume even through evolution, the mutuational mechanisms that natural selection favors would even care about when the sex drive turns off? A woman with a fixed sex drive is no less prone to survival than a woman with a complex "on-off" switch.

Your sentences demand "if then" expressions where none need apply.

As for increase sex drives, in pregant women, that is merely from increased blood flow in the pelvic area. Again, nothing in natural selection or evolution demands that some mechanism be put in the female body to intelligently protect the woman from those side-effects.

JMS

[_asbestosman]

Both of these assumptions are false. You assume a perfected natural world. Why do you assume even through evolution, the mutuational mechanisms that natural selection favors would even care about when the sex drive turns off? A woman with a fixed sex drive is no less prone to survival than a woman with a complex "on-off" switch.

Why would evolution develop the switch to turn off reproduction in women in the first place?

A women with a fixed sex drive is more likely to seek the company of a man which can then help her with her grandchildren. This would promote the survival of her genes.

As for increase sex drives, in pregant women, that is merely from increased blood flow in the pelvic area. Again, nothing in natural selection or evolution demands that some mechanism be put in the female body to intelligently protect the woman from those side-effects.

Natural selection would probably pressure development such that women would spend more resources in gather food and preparing for her offspring rather than wasting time and resources on pleasure-only sex.

You theorize that other animals simply haven't figured out how to have sex only for pleasure. Yet many of these other animals engage in playing for pleasure. Dogs do not engage in sex unless the female is in heat. However, dogs will chase balls and tug on sticks just for fun. Dogs are also smart enough to grab food from the table when they think they can get away with it--even if the dog is well fed. Yet the dogs continue to ignore sex when reproduction isn't gonna happen.

It would appear then that dogs have an appetite for food which is triggered by food anytime. They have an appetite for sex only triggered when reproduction is possible. But nature seems different for humans. In humans, we have an appetite for sex regardless of fertility. Men get turned on by the visual image of an adult female even if that female is not ovulating. This is quite a remarkable difference from most of the rest of the animal kingdom. I would think there is certainly more to it than images of pleasure. If it's mere pleasure, then I would imagine that everyone would be bisexal or prefer to stick with themselves at least as much as trying to enjoy with another human being. However, this is not the case. Most of us are only turned on by the opposite sex and most of us find greater enjoyment with another person.

Perhaps nature has selected for humans who will at least satisfy the requirements of reproduction while yet we have learned to take it further. If so, it still leaves unanswered the question as to why we usually do not take it further with the same sex.

[_jskains]

Why would evolution develop the switch to turn off reproduction in women in the first place?

That is what I was saying. There is no need for such a development. A sex drive that is constant could just be that. Trying to say that means anything is what I was countering beastie on. She claimed that the fact women have a sex drive when they can't get pregnant somehow shows sex has more value than pregnancy. I am just saying nature is simple, and the easy explination is there isn't an off switch.

Natural selection would probably pressure development such that women would spend more resources in gather food and preparing for her offspring rather than wasting time and resources on pleasure-only sex.

Ok...

You theorize that other animals simply haven't figured out how to have sex only for pleasure. Yet many of these other animals engage in playing for pleasure. Dogs do not engage in sex unless the female is in heat. However, dogs will chase balls and tug on sticks just for fun. Dogs are also smart enough to grab food from the table when they think they can get away with it--even if the dog is well fed. Yet the dogs continue to ignore sex when reproduction isn't gonna happen.

That is a product of evolution as well. Dogs KNOW when their female counterpart due to their much higher developed sense of smell. The females pump out the scent when they are in heat (we breed Dachshunds) Since humans are still here, I assume their ancestors had that sense too. The enhanced pleasure response easily could be an evolutionary reaction to the human loss of that sense.

However, this is not the case. Most of us are only turned on by the opposite sex and most of us find greater enjoyment with another person.

Yes, that is my point. The pleasure response is to get us to do it as much as we can. Why? We don't have litters. Dogs only go into heat TWICE a year, but can have up to 8 livable puppies. Humans usually only have one. In the wild, MANY human babies died. So we needed to bascially keep the women pregnant ALL the time.... Of course they also only lived 40 years if that. But if they were not CONSTANTLY pregnant, the species would have died much quicker.

Women are NOT supposed to have a period once a month. That is why women have so many reproductive problems. They were designed to stay pregnant until they died. Breast cancer, uteral cancer, are all a result of a system that goes stale. That is why doctors laughed when people protested against drugs to stop menstral cycles. They responded by saying "Wait.. It is UNNATURAL for a women to HAVE a monthly period. So a drug to stop that cycle is actually a GOOD thing".

Now that we have broken nature, women live longer since their system is no longer in constant use, but also have additional issues to deal with.. Matter of a fact, the comment beastie makes is even more false. Why? Women never were SUPPOSED to make it to menapause, so reality is, the fact the sex drive doesn't always die AT menapause could simply be the fact now we have women surviving well over their reproductive years, an unnatural fact in the first place...

Perhaps nature has selected for humans who will at least satisfy the requirements of reproduction while yet we have learned to take it further. If so, it still leaves unanswered the question as to why we usually do not take it further with the same sex.

Nature didn't make diabetes, we did. Nature didn't make overweight people, we did. In many ways, human society is screwing up nature. Humans are a feast/famine based creature. In the wild, we never got a constant source of food. So we ate EVERYTHING we could, which would store in our fat cells for later use... Today, we have food EVERY day, but eat like we are getting ready for a long fast. So we store too much and it never gets used. We are seeing the health response every day. Diabetes and weight issues are getting worse. Heart disease, clogged arteries.. Now KIDS are getting these diseases... That isn't nature making selections, it is humans hijacking nature.

So let me ask this... What benefit does homosexuality have on the human system? Yes, we see homosexuals in the rest of the animal kingdom. We also see a lot of other birth defects. It doesn't mean it was nature getting something correct, rather nature screwing up.

JMS

JMS

[_asbestosman]

So let me ask this... What benefit does homosexuality have on the human system? Yes, we see homosexuals in the rest of the animal kingdom. We also see a lot of other birth defects. It doesn't mean it was nature getting something correct, rather nature screwing up.

Some theorize that males who show no interest in reproducing with females would be a positive factor to tribes because another man can easily take their spot in reproduction, while the homosexuals could help the tribe survive by focusing on other things--like interior decorating ;) But seriously, it could play a positive role for a tribe by allowing those men to spend more time helping other children grow instead of worrying about their own and also contributing to the strain a tribe has in providing for children or even in wasting time vying for females when plenty of males are available. This may also play into why homosexuality appears to be more prevalent among men than women.

Ultimately though I think asking what nature intends is irrelavent to the question about whether we should bother about homosexuality. Nature may have intended us to die at age 40, but I'm not planning to check out of here when the candles declare the big four zero. Being double-jointed may not be what nature intended, but I see no reason to really worry abou it. I rarely care what nature intended when thinking of public policy. I care little that nature probably didn't intend for man to fly in airplanes or drive in automobiles. No, the real question is what harm does homosexual behavior do to society (from a non-religoius POV)? Perhaps it does some harm, but does it harm society on the scale that desert harms society or maybe that moyonnaise harms us? Does it harm us on the scale that theft harms us? Does it harm us the was bachelorhood harms us?

Your question about benefits to a society is also salient in one sense if we put aside the question of nature. Special legal recogniztion of homosexuality as opposed to mere non-illegality of said behavior is an important question--we don't get government recognition for reading books, listening to music, or watching movies. Even if one cannot make the case that homosexuality is something which should be cured or legislated against, yet I think one must make the case that it is ssomething the government should recognize. That question is a tricky one which the poster named Confidential Inforant has often written about on the Mormon Apolegetic and Discussion Board. I think the legal issues there are a bit tricky. However, many see the legal questions are seen as mere justification for unequitable treatment of homosexuals. Perhaps that is indeed the case and the laws should changed to be more fair. Why, for example, does the government recognize the marriages of older couples even when these copules marry well after the age of child bearing?

Are homosexual adoptive parents better than foster homes? I have heard that there is some evidence that this is the case (although I cannot provide a source, so perhaps I am mistaken).

[_truth dancer]

Josh...

A couple of things.

Do you have any support for your theories? I have never read literature that supports your assumptions.

For example, women have not always "stayed pregnant," and it is not in the best interest of our species to do so. Hunter/Gatherers (say for a few million years), could not travel so well if they had ten children under the age of ten.. ya know? ;-) In fact those early nomadic bands, kept their tribe to about 25-50 people.

Humans ARE nature.

Life seems to release that which is not helpful or beneficial to the continuing of a species.

Finally... you may enjoy a book by Jared Diamond, Why Sex if Fun. It addresses many of your topics from a well researched perspective. Another book that may help is, The Evolution of Desire, by David Buss.

~dancer~

[_jskains]

Josh...

A couple of things.

Do you have any support for your theories? I have never read literature that supports your assumptions.

For example, women have not always "stayed pregnant," and it is not in the best interest of our species to do so. Hunter/Gatherers (say for a few million years), could not travel so well if they had ten children under the age of ten.. ya know? ;-) In fact those early nomadic bands, kept their tribe to about 25-50 people.

Humans ARE nature.

Life seems to release that which is not helpful or beneficial to the continuing of a species.

Finally... you may enjoy a book by Jared Diamond, Why Sex if Fun. It addresses many of your topics from a well researched perspective. Another book that may help is, The Evolution of Desire, by David Buss.

~dancer~

The point again is a large percentage of the pregnancies would have failed or the child would have died. Interesingly enough, when women finish pregnancy and begin breastfeeding, the body creates a natural birth control for a time. Doesn't aways work well, but it is there... Then there is the fact that women don't aways get pregnant right away, etc. etc. Then we have to get into exactly WHEN human intelligence outpaced nature.

Do you even dispute that women at one point were much more active in pregnancy and died much younger (men did too)?

I could collect a lot of the material, but it's years of different discussions with folks as well as reading articles on different issues including some of these birth control "breakthroughs". When the pill was annouced that would stop mentral cycles, a lot of these issues were in the articles. Also one of our dog breeder friends is also a gynocologist. She always has interesting things to say to give us an understanding of biology.

In dogs, these issues are valid too. Dogs who are bred once and then never bred again or dogs left uncut and never bred have a HIGH chance of mammary cancer.

JMS

[_truth dancer]

Hi Josh,

Do you even dispute that women at one point were much more active in pregnancy

Yes I dispute this. Today many women are working and playing right up to the day they deliver.

and died much younger (men did too)?

Yes people died younger.. of course. We have come a long way in learning how to stay alive over the last few centuries!

:-)

~dancer~

[_jskains]

Yes I dispute this. Today many women are working and playing right up to the day they deliver.

Sorry, I didn't get this. You dispute this because of how women act today??? That doesn't work in my head right. I am not dicussing women today. We already concluded that women today operate differently than women of yesterday.

Yes people died younger.. of course. We have come a long way in learning how to stay alive over the last few centuries!

Yes, but we are also seeing the reprocussions. We unnaturally extend our lifespan through human invention. Alzheimer's Disease is on the rise and is theorized by some as a reality of human beings living far longer than they were designed to. Hey, I am not complaning, but certainly being honest about what we are doing is the most mature method of approach.

JMS

[_jskains]

I hate to take it one step further, but what is another problem with us hijacking nature? ADHD, mental retardation, autism, etc. etc. A lot of the upticks of some of these things is considered by some a sign of our de-evolution. We now protect what nature would have killed off through natural selection. People with some of these disorders would not have survived naturally and would have been removed from the gene-pool, preventing any offspring. But modern medicine now means a lot of these things are protected.

Take another situation. The starving in Africa. Technically nature would have fixed that problem. Why? Starvation would have weeded out the weak and thinned the population, overall reducing the population to a level that would stop the starvation. The starving in Africa is a result of over-breeding. Generations of irresponsible childbearing that is further promoted by all the "feed the children" programs. We simply feed the overpopulated areas, allowing them to make more children and further the problem. We interfere with nature.

Now before someone gets all freaked, I understand that this is an emotional issue. Certainly no one wants to say "let those kids die!" No one wants to play god and start sterilizing bad genetics... But ultimately we do have to take responsibility and recognize that IS going on.

If homosexual genetics is just that, a chemical resulting from genetics, then I wonder how long homosexuality would last in nature? We know there are cases of that in the wild, but those genetics don't go anywhere, cause they don't mate. And I hate to say this, in some cases like in pack animals, the pack kills them. I don't condone this at all for human society, but I wouldn't use the animal world as a marker of how humans should treat homosexuality. It isn't always pleasant.

JMS