Board Thread:Watercooler 2.0/@comment-6908728-20131117224425

Inoroth this is the part of your post I am responding to:

"RE: 'God Hates Fags' -- I thought I had mentioned this earlier, but if I did not, here it is -- there is a difference between hating homosexuals and disagreeing with the morality of homosexuality. I see no solid or convincing biblical argument for condoning homosexuality, and I do not support or agree with that lifestyle (that said, Fan and I get along fine here, so it's not that I hate homosexuals, or even that I think all homosexuals go to hell -- thanks be to God's Mercy and Grace). While I find it interesting that so many Christians condone homosexuality as 'just another lifestyle', what I find all the more interesting is the acceptance of homosexuality by Humanists, under the argument that it's simply 'genetics', because from a completely Humanistic and Darwinistic viewpoint, if homosexuality is genetic, then logically it should have been weened out of our genes because of the simple fact that homosexuals do not have biological children (accepting 'Bi' people would make sense, however). "

My response:

First, there’s no biblical evidence for evolution or that the earth is older than 6,000 years either.

Now. Let us dissect your post, particularly your assertion that Humanists [And Darwinists] describe homosexuality as ‘simply genetics’. This is simply wrong and you’d be hard pressed to find any such rational supporter of Humanism or Darwinism saying otherwise. Scientific studies have suggested that there is not one reason but many for homosexuality.

“Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences”

- Academy of Pediatrics,

The Psychological Association says, “there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation”

Further, if it was simply genetic, why do we have identical twins that have different sexualities? Added to this, even if it were ‘just’ genetics, there is not a ‘gay gene’ that can be switched on and off. There is likely a multitude of genes that each make a person seem more homosexual and when a certain amount of them are present make that person attracted to member of the same sex. Look for a study by Rahman and Wilson in order to read more about this.

What you’re doing by making such a ridiculous comment as “Humanists say its simply genetics” is proliferating a lie, please do not make such overarching comments when you have clearly done no research whatsoever into what Humanists actually say.

Next; I will throw you a bone and we’ll go down the genetic route. You’re now assuming that homosexuality is an undesirable trait amongst Human Beings (and, indeed the numerous other animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour), why is that?

We can look at “antagonistic selection” - where traits useless to one sex exists simply because its useful to the other. Nipples being an example.

Rahman and Wilson said that a similar process may well work with regards homosexuals. For example we’ve all heard women say something like “I really liked that guy, then I found out he was gay!” - well, Rahman and Wilson suggest that genes that may promote homosexuality are extremely desirable to women, they actually said something like gay men are “less aggressive and psychopathic than the typical male” and whilst this certainly isn’t the case in every situation (I know some hardass gays), in many cases these genes may make them more desirable to females.

What they go on to say is that sometimes so many of these genes are present that it ends up with them being attracted to members of the same sex, which is an acceptable trade-off in the long term aims of other genes.

So, homosexuality isn’t a “weak gene” that would be weened out if possible. It is a complex mix of genetics, biology, environments in the womb, etc and is not at all “simply genetics”.

I’m not even going to challenge you on your “it’s the wrong lifestyle” statement because someone who says anything like that is generally so far gone it’s not worth the effort. Besides, you get your “morality” from a book that accepts slavery, advocates the sacrifice of your own children, encourages gang rape etc etc.

PS: I'm not suggesting you're a homophobe or anything of the sort. I'm more interested in debunking your false remarks about what Humanists say. Despite this, please tread carefully.  