Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Only for the money shot
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Pope's speech causes outrage
- Thread starter 9sublime
- Start date
Werbung:
For example, a recent meta-study by Hershberger (2001)[8] compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component. Two additional examples: Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.[9] Also, Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.[10] Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. MZ twin concordance for homosexuality was found to be 30%.
As a counter-example, Bearman and Bruckner (2002), analyzed data from a large longitudinal study of adolescents. They found the data did not support genetic influence:
“ Among [identical] twins, 6.7% are concordant [that is, both express same-sex romantic attraction]. [Fraternal] twin pairs are 7.2% concordant. Full-siblings are 5.5% concordant. Clearly, the observed concordance rates do not correspond to degrees of genetic similarity. None of the comparisons between [identical] twins and others ... are even remotely significant. If same-sex romantic attraction has a genetic component, it is massively overwhelmed by other factors.[6] ”
Their conclusion is that the expression of same-sex attraction requires a social environment: "More plausible is the idea that genetic expression is activated only under strongly circumscribed social structural conditions. In contrast to other theories considered below, we assume that the close connection between gender identity and sexual identity is socially constructed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
Which just goes to show, people whose rational judgement are clouded by froth tend to see only the things they want to see.
Sigh.
Lots of people would also like to screw around, wouldn't you say? Do we make it moral to screw around then?
Duh?
Those that abide by the 1st and 2nd formulation of the categorical imperative, I suppose.
1. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
2. "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."
Understand?
LMAO.
As far as human laws go, the moral laws of the catholic church are, by far, the most consistent. Unlike constitutional or statutory laws, the moral teachings of the church embody well-crafted rational arguments stated in the various encyclicals.
Which is why I prompted you to show exactly where the logical defect in humanae vitae is. No such luck I'm afraid. Apparently, I am speaking to a gay activist whose entire line of reasoning consists of meaningless rhetoric not fit for logical rigor.
One would expect that a logical criticism should come from a thorough understanding of what one is criticizing in the first place.
Otherwise, your criticism is merely an opinion with neither factual nor logical basis.
Now, if you are suggesting that you have no idea as to the rational basis of the pope's pronouncements, can you really make a rational judgement regarding such pronouncements?
Duh?
LMAO.
Catholic encyclicals are composed after years of consultation, research and arguments. Humanae vitae is the product of such a process. It is not attributable to a single person.
The current pope is merely stating an encyclical which was composed long before he became pope. It is not a personal opinion concocted while he was relieving himself prior to that speech -- the way I assume you compose the arguments you post here.
More meaningless froth.
Can you think of any sovereign political association that has not, at one point in time, been responsible for human rights attrocities? That you single out the church, while conveniently ignoring all others, speaks clearly of your bigotry.
Sock-sex? As long as the sock is made of only one kind of fiber, it's okay, but the Bible says you can't used clothes made of more than one kind of fiber.
Sock-sex? Man, that is twisted!
Was there even a doubt?
You mean wearing a condom protects the owner of the a$$ you are taking liberties with???
And i suppose your homosexual mumbo-jumbo has any real contribution to this discussion, hmmm? Aside, of course, from inciting anger at the pope that is totally unmerited?
What I stated was from humanae vitae. It is a teaching for anyone who would care to use their rational faculties in determining the moral worth of their own actions. The fact that you haven't read it is enough proof tha nobody is trying to force you anything.
Mare Tranquillity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,477
Wikipedia? "Biology and sexual orientation is research into possible biological influences on the development of human sexual orientation. No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure."
"Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%.[21][22] This is now "one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation."[23] To explain this finding, it has been proposed that male fetuses provoke a maternal immune reaction that becomes stronger with each successive male fetus. Male fetuses produce HY antigens which are "almost certainly involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates." It is this antigen which maternal H-Y antibodies are proposed to both react to and 'remember'. Successive male fetuses are then attacked by H-Y antibodies which somehow decrease the ability of H-Y antigens to perform their usual function in brain masculinisation.[21]"
"Pheromone studies
Recent research conducted in Sweden[26] has suggested that gay and straight men respond differently to two odors that are believed to be involved in sexual arousal. The research showed that when both heterosexual women (lesbians were included in the study, but the results regarding them were "somewhat confused") and gay men are exposed to a testosterone derivative found in men's sweat, a region in the hypothalamus is activated. Heterosexual men, on the other hand, have a similar response to an estrogen-like compound found in women's urine.[27] The conclusion, that sexual attraction, whether same-sex or opposite-sex oriented, operates similarly on a biological level..."
Anybody can post a bunch of stuff off of Wiki, the section you posted is very large and has a lot more to say than you posted. See my contributions above.
Where in the Bible does it say that you can't have anal sex with you wife, Nums? You never got a blowjob with a prostate massage? Neither you nor the Pope are in a position to judge, I don't tell you how to run your sex life, why should you tell me--or anyone--how to run theirs?
Love the histrionics, Nums! Your continual use of "Duh" makes you sound as erudite as Homer Simpson.
Yes, that's very clearly a demand for equality in your dealings with your fellows, I'm not sure why you have to have extra "categorical imperative"s when Jesus' words were so straight forward.
So you're saying that the two Catholic Saints Serge and Bacchus were not married?
For a smart guy you learn slowly, I'm not gay, never have been, I'm a transsexual--look it up on Wiki.
Get a grip.
It could very well be that environmental factors play an important role in the causes of homosexuality. You are clinging to the idea that it is entirely genetic when, the truth of the matter is, no single factor has been proven to cause homosexuality.
Now, kindly spare the rest of us your gay rhetoric nonsense. It is old.
And ultimately, a statement of FACT.
I'm sorry but you are getting further and further from the point.
Granted that there is a genetic corelation. Does that mean we change our laws to accomodate all human behavior having the same corelation?
Murderous rage, for instance. Do we make it moral just because there is some genetic predisposition for it?
Hello?
In all the subjective justifications for all our actions, morality resides in those that are OBJECTIVE -- that is, something that can be stated as a good in itself.
Now, if you have a compelling urge for human a$$, nobody is saying you can't do anything about it. Its just not moral.
Capice?
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Good in itself?
Grow up.
The human species has been hugely successful with homosexuality.
There will soon be too many people for the planet to support if population growth continues at the going rate.
So your and the pope's prognostications on the subject are just ridiculous.
Imagine how bad the situation would be if some people weren't gay.
It is clear that homosexuality benefits the gene pool and that is more than can be said for you.
Which is why you and your views will become extinct and homosexuality won't.
Grow up.
The human species has been hugely successful with homosexuality.
There will soon be too many people for the planet to support if population growth continues at the going rate.
So your and the pope's prognostications on the subject are just ridiculous.
Imagine how bad the situation would be if some people weren't gay.
It is clear that homosexuality benefits the gene pool and that is more than can be said for you.
Which is why you and your views will become extinct and homosexuality won't.
Is this post meant to exclude environmental factors in forming sexual orientation?
Please!
Now, you are trying to suggest the bible is the ONLY source of moral authority?
As far as the catholic church is concerned, it is the conscience of the individual that ultimately is the arbiter of moral worth. Church teachings are there merely to guide an individual's conscience.
I'm glad you approve. Although, one could hardly imagine you protesting -- after all the nonsense you have dished out.
The categorical imperative is merely a logical formulation of the commandment of love. They are the SAME thing, stated in different ways.
And where did I say that, hmmm?
I didn't mean an activist that is gay. I meant an activist for the gay cause.
Quite alright if you didn't get that the first time. This gay activism nonsense is a hodge-podge of confused rhetoric anyway.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
In case you missed it first time
The human species has been hugely successful with homosexuality.
There will soon be too many people for the planet to support if population growth continues at the going rate.
So your and the pope's prognostications on the subject are just ridiculous.
Imagine how bad the situation would be if some people weren't gay.
It is clear that homosexuality benefits the gene pool and that is more than can be said for you.
Which is why you and your views will become extinct and homosexuality won't.
The human species has been hugely successful with homosexuality.
There will soon be too many people for the planet to support if population growth continues at the going rate.
So your and the pope's prognostications on the subject are just ridiculous.
Imagine how bad the situation would be if some people weren't gay.
It is clear that homosexuality benefits the gene pool and that is more than can be said for you.
Which is why you and your views will become extinct and homosexuality won't.
And I suppose you will show how humanity's success is attributed to homosexuality, hmmm?
I won't hold my breath if that's ok with you.
What impeccably STUPID logic.
There is a population growth problem so we need to hump each other's a$$ more.
I wonder what orifice in your anatomy that came from?
And here, you are still selling your own particular brand of stupid to the rest of us.
Unbelieveable!
.
I'd imagine -- less infections of the blood, eliminate one vector by which aids spreads. Shall I go on?
It benefits the gene pool? You mean practicing gays have a way to pass on their genes?
Hopefully, morons would become extinct first.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
More insults.
No substance.
Evolution is not about the survival of the individual but rather the survival of the gene pool and there are lots of strategies for achieveing that that do not involve reproduction.
Homosexuality is one, infertility is another.
But you clearly have as much understanding of evolution as you do of predicate calculus.
The evidence is overwhelmingly against you.
Population growth is actually threatening the human species and if anything we should want more gay people.
This demontsrates the stupidity of your and the pope's views.
Why don't you spend some of your angry energy looking into evolution.
You probably wouldn't make so many silly observations if you did.
Start with the great Richard Dawkins book 'The selfish gene'
No substance.
Evolution is not about the survival of the individual but rather the survival of the gene pool and there are lots of strategies for achieveing that that do not involve reproduction.
Homosexuality is one, infertility is another.
But you clearly have as much understanding of evolution as you do of predicate calculus.
The evidence is overwhelmingly against you.
Population growth is actually threatening the human species and if anything we should want more gay people.
This demontsrates the stupidity of your and the pope's views.
Why don't you spend some of your angry energy looking into evolution.
You probably wouldn't make so many silly observations if you did.
Start with the great Richard Dawkins book 'The selfish gene'
Quite right. You have provided no intellectual substance.
Two major mechanisms drive evolution. The first is natural selection, a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce, so that more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits.[1][2] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.[3] The second major mechanism is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role probability plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce. Though the changes produced in any one generation by drift and selection are small, differences accumulate with each subsequent generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms.
Again, how exactly is homosexuality a product of evolution when the behavior itself cannot be passed on to the next generation?
What you probably meant by evolution is this:
Lamarckism (or Lamarckian evolution) is the once widely accepted idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as based on heritability of acquired characteristics or "soft inheritance"). It is named for the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories and is often incorrectly cited as the founder of soft inheritance. It proposed that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptive changes and pass them on to offspring.
After publication of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, the importance of individual efforts in the generation of adaptation was considerably diminished. Later, Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and the general abandonment of the Lamarckian theory of evolution in biology.
Which would further cement your status as the forum's resident *****, arguing an entirely obsolete biological theory.
Oh, there is no such thing as predicate calculus, *****. You'd probably know that if you had gone to college in the first place. As it stands, you're claim at competence on an entirely non-existent subject would be understandable.
Eh?
The number of morons are overwhelming indeed. Whether any valid evidence can be translated from the number of morons is another matter entirely. After all, logic isn't a democracy.
Why should I want more gay people, hmmm?
It is enough that heterosexual couples learn and commit to planned parenthood for a more sustainable population growth.
No need for more silly a$$-humping that leads only to the introduction of fecal matter into one's bloodstream.
And if you find yourself unable to cope with another pregnancy, then your sock may come in handy.
It demonstrates nothing but the stupidity of YOUR views.
I have. Maybe you should take your advice yourself, instead of christian bashing. Maybe itll take your mind off your sock.
Do you promise it will sound as stupid as you?
Werbung:
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
You do like writing a lot to say very little don't you.
The success of the human species is inarguable.
It happened with the help of homosexuality. And as homosexuality happens in many species you should accept that it is natural.
You don't understand evolution even though it is a beautifully simple scientific fact.
You are making a fool of yourself.
Again
The success of the human species is inarguable.
It happened with the help of homosexuality. And as homosexuality happens in many species you should accept that it is natural.
You don't understand evolution even though it is a beautifully simple scientific fact.
You are making a fool of yourself.
Again