Is America more accepting of gay men than gay women? - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-10-2002, 04:45 AM   #161
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 05:29 PM

"Would it I help if I told them I'm not homosexual?"

"Neither are they - they'd have to be human first."

Here's my two cents; I think Red was referring to the fact that they're rapists, and therefore not human, not because of their homosexuality. I think you will agree that rape is just as abhorrent and evil in heterosexuality as it is in homosexuality.

Ant.
__________________

Anthony is offline  
Old 03-10-2002, 05:50 AM   #162
War Child
 
camiloj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 698
Local Time: 12:29 PM
I hope your version of what Bubba said is the one he meant, Ant.
__________________

camiloj is offline  
Old 03-10-2002, 11:55 AM   #163
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
But the entire theory to evolution (both micro- and macro-) is that genes that hinder propagation dwindle over time, in terms of total populations. Let's say something like infertility is caused by a combination of 5 genes. When those 5 genes are present and the trait is expressed, the infertile either CANNOT pass on those 5 genes or has a very hard time doing so. So, in terms of sheer numbers, those genes cannot compete with genes that do not decrease the sperm count, etc. Certainly, the person isn't bad for having those genes, but it could be said that those genes themselves are "bad", insofar as they impede their own long-term survival.
But, Bubba, this is incorrect! Yes, the said individual with the hypothetical 5 genes will not be able to pass these on to future generations. That is true. However, these "carrier" parents contain parts of these genes. The father could have 3. The mother could have 2. Or any combination less than 5. So they create 1 child with all 5 genes, but, as you know, lots of parents have more than 1 child. These siblings, by sheer chance, may only receive 1-4 of these genes (or, potentially, none), essentially making them "carriers." If they marry someone and have children with someone with the other genes to complete the 5-gene trait, then they can have a child in the future with this expressed trait.

Quote:
And I would think that IF homosexuality is caused by one's genes (granted, a very BIG "if", one that I don't necessarily believe), it is similar to infertility in that - when expressed - it significantly reduces its own chances for survival to the next generation.
Like I said, I'm just theorizing. Scientists can't even tell you what parts of genetics makes someone "straight," let alone gay. I'm merely responding to why your logic on genetics here is incorrect. You can apply this to any number of traits, so think of it as a science lesson.

So, since I need to rehash this to you, let's say, hypothetically, that you have a gay sibling. You, yourself, while not being gay, could contain part of the genetic code for it in your genes. It is an incomplete code, so it does not express itself. You get a wife, who also contains the same incomplete genetic code. You could have a child who is gay. You have more children. None of them are gay, but, between you and your wife, you pass on incomplete pieces of that same code.

It is THIS way that a trait can indirectly pass itself on. Diseases like Nieman-Pick Disease, a congenital disease which kills all victims by age 2, is passed on the same exact way. Obviously, the victim cannot procreate, but both of the parents are carriers. Put together the two, and the trait can express itself onto their children.

THIS is why your genetic logic is incorrect.

Quote:
And I think the fact that homosexuality hinders propagation while left-handedness doesn't is a BIG difference. If my hypothetical example is too different from the actual case, than I suggest that left-handedness is simply too different from homosexuality.
Well, that is certainly your opinion, but it is far more realistic and applicable to real life than your "mad scientist" scenario.

Quote:
Cetainly, the Bible doesn't explain what nature is, but I think it addresses WHY nature is what is, and why it even exists in the first place. The explanation of the mechanisms of the universe is certainly the domain of science, but the explanation of th MOTIVES behind the universe is beyond the scope of science and firmly in the domain of theology.
What the Bible explains is that God created everything, a fact that I do not dispute. But, beyond that, we are in more of a position, through advanced science, to know what God created exactly. Science, to me, does not negate God whatsoever; and, in fact, shows more of the magnificence of His creation due to its complexity.

Quote:
The Bible doesn't cover what makes us male and female, but it does explain why were made male and female - and, honestly, the VAST majority of humans are genuinely male or female.
The "vast" majority should not negate the value of the "small" minority, which is exactly the crux of my argument. We have the technology to identify that minority of God's creation omitted from the Bible through ignorance.

Quote:
Certainly, the Bible also delineated what was clean and unclean, but it loosened the same restrictions in the New Testament. I believe that God did this - set up the impossible standards then gave us a pass - as a metaphor for grace, just as burnt offerings were a precursor to the cross. God set up the standards of perfection because He is God Almighty, can and should demand perfection. It's clear that no man can conform to those demands, so He graciously lowers the restrictions (using the word "graciously" literally).
The Dead Sea Scrolls even dispute this. These earlier texts have less legalism than the later texts that we have been using for about a millennium now.

It wasn't a surprise to me. The prefaces of the Catholic Bible adequately explain the circumstances of these c. 500 B.C. texts--right at the time that the Jewish diaspora was liberated by the Persians and the rabbis forcefully tried to regain control of their nation and the people. What a better way to do so than to say that these secular laws were "God's laws"? With a lowly educated society whose only access to these texts was through the rabbis who read them to them, who would challenge it? Then, with earlier texts lost, people began to believe that these were really "God's laws" all along, and the Jewish leaders could reassert authority unchallenged.

The Dead Sea Scrolls supported a claim I had made in this forum from the start. Even Jesus never refers to these as "God's laws." Often, He refers to them as "Moses' law." A big difference, don't you think?

Quote:
Even if you can make the case that homosexuals can marry (an argument that I clearly disagree with), I don't think monogamy can be overturned at all.
Not at all. I heavily believe that monogamy is in God's plan for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, and, equally, I think that promiscuity is wrong for both.

Quote:
In which case, sure, the other denominations should have the right to define "marriage" according to their consciences. Mormons used to allow polygamous marriages, and I thought they were within their rights to do so. Either way, the state should grant legal protections for couples, etc., and the church should be able to define marriage as they see fit - and *I* will personally remain in a church that only recognizes heterosexual marriages.
I see nothing wrong with this. Churches like that, undoubtedly, will always exist. You should belong to a denomination that you are most comfortable in.

Quote:
Anyway... it appears we have now BOTH our positions across, and ended this discussion amicably. Feel free to continue to weigh in. If not, we'll cross paths in other threads.

Glad we both stuck to talking this through, and I'm glad we can agree to disagree.
Yup...I'm glad we can agree to disagree as well. A discussion that definitely forced me to think yet again.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
melon is offline  
Old 03-10-2002, 11:56 AM   #164
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 12:29 PM
yeah, I agree with Ant, I don't think Bubba was implying that homosexuals are un-human, and neither was the movie
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-10-2002, 12:04 PM   #165
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Sorry to interrupt here, I was wondering if anyone wanted to comment on the notion that sexuality has some level of elasticity?
Once again, it may look like I'm bouncing around here, but there is a lot of genetic theory, with no concrete facts. So, see this as theory, as I see it.

Going back to the 5-gene theoretical model, some traits won't express themselves without all five genes. However, other traits (skin color comes to mind) express themselves differently, depending on how many genes you have. Let's say that a completely black individual (5 genes) procreates with a completely white individual (0 genes), if they have 5 children, they could have 5 children with different levels of skin color. Most likely, that child will be right in the middle (2-3 genes), but they could, theoretically, have a child who has all the genes or none of them.

Sexuality could be the same way: a continuum that expresses itself depending on the number of genes. This is a simplistic explanation on my part, though. I have a feeling that sexuality is a combination of very obscure levels of inheritance, thus making it very difficult to pinpoint why it is the way it is.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
melon is offline  
Old 03-10-2002, 01:28 PM   #166
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
But, Bubba, this is incorrect! Yes, the said individual with the hypothetical 5 genes will not be able to pass these on to future generations. That is true. However, these "carrier" parents contain parts of these genes. The father could have 3. The mother could have 2. Or any combination less than 5. So they create 1 child with all 5 genes, but, as you know, lots of parents have more than 1 child. These siblings, by sheer chance, may only receive 1-4 of these genes (or, potentially, none), essentially making them "carriers." If they marry someone and have children with someone with the other genes to complete the 5-gene trait, then they can have a child in the future with this expressed trait.
I still don't think I'm wrong on this, and I'll explain with an VERY simplified example. Let's again consider the parents who combined have the five genes to cause infertility and make the following (COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC) assumptions to make the numbers easier:

* Globally, parents have an average of four children.

* On average, parents in the situation like the one above have an infertile child every 1 in 4 times.

Now, the parents in our hypethetical scenario have four kids, one of them happens to be infertile. The parents next door (who happen to LACK all five genes) also have four kids, none of them infertile.

Both pairs of parents have four children, so it doesn't look like there's any difference. BUT LOOK AT THE GRANDCHILDREN.

The first pair of parents have three children who each have a total of four kids, for a total of twelve grandchildren. The second pair of parents have four children who each have four kids, for a grand total of SIXTEEN grandkids. The parents with the five genes have only 3/4 the number of grandchildren.

Now, certainly, for such a small case, things happen: one the neighbor's kids could become a celibate priest, dropping the number of grandkids from 16 to 12. But if you compare a POPULATION of couples with the 5-gene combination and a comparably sized population of couples without them, the 5-gene population will a significantly smaller number of grandkids. THAT's what I mean by the gene impeding its own long term survival.

Quote:
What the Bible explains is that God created everything, a fact that I do not dispute. But, beyond that, we are in more of a position, through advanced science, to know what God created exactly. Science, to me, does not negate God whatsoever; and, in fact, shows more of the magnificence of His creation due to its complexity.
I agree Genesis, etc., explains that God created everything, but that might not be the only truth to be gleamed. I believe that the Bible also teaches that God created humans as unique creatures (whether we arrived through evolution or specific creation, we still have a soul, a free will, and the ability to reason). And I also believe that the Bible teaches about the purpose of our sexuality, the God created man and woman to be married, to become "one flesh."

One can find such ideas about our uniqueness and the divine plan of marriage in Genesis (respectively 1:26-27 and 2:7; and 2:20-24). But look the NEW Testament confirms such truths. First, and foremost, God Almighty became human for our sake, proving that we are special in His eyes. Second, God Incarnate re-emphasized the sanctity of marriage - and compared marriage to His relationship to the church. In the case of marriage, I DON'T believe I'm just taking one or two verses out of context; I have complementary evidence in the Old and New Testament, enough to suggest that I'm on to something that was intended to be there.

Quote:
The "vast" majority should not negate the value of the "small" minority, which is exactly the crux of my argument. We have the technology to identify that minority of God's creation omitted from the Bible through ignorance.
(I first of all believe that the population of exceptions from the male-female mold is indeed small rather than just "small" (in quotes) - that at LEAST 95% of all births are definitely male or definitely female; the minority population is thus statistically small.)

Certainly, the minority still counts as individuals. And there may be a divine reason God allowed such deviations - if nothing more, the genetic deviation may demonstrate that, in all ways, nobody's perfect. (But, if that's the case, I believe God merely allowed the deviation raher than FORCED it to happen.) But I don't think the exceptions somehow disprove the purpose of the rule.

Quote:
The Dead Sea Scrolls even dispute this. These earlier texts have less legalism than the later texts that we have been using for about a millennium now.

It wasn't a surprise to me. The prefaces of the Catholic Bible adequately explain the circumstances of these c. 500 B.C. texts--right at the time that the Jewish diaspora was liberated by the Persians and the rabbis forcefully tried to regain control of their nation and the people. What a better way to do so than to say that these secular laws were "God's laws"? With a lowly educated society whose only access to these texts was through the rabbis who read them to them, who would challenge it? Then, with earlier texts lost, people began to believe that these were really "God's laws" all along, and the Jewish leaders could reassert authority unchallenged.

The Dead Sea Scrolls supported a claim I had made in this forum from the start. Even Jesus never refers to these as "God's laws." Often, He refers to them as "Moses' law." A big difference, don't you think?
Even assuming that some of the law was purely fabricated by priests, I still believe that the original Mosaic law (even just the Ten Commandments) would be sufficient to condemn every human compentent enough to know right from wrong, still emphasizing the exacting demands of God Almighty.

And, yes, Christ spoke of the Mosaic law as Moses' law specifically, but I don't believe that was done as a slight. Rather, it was merely done to differentiate Moses and Christ - both God's servants, each emphasizing a different side to the same coin: God's perfect laws of justice and God's grace that allows us mercy.

(Again, law without grace literally damns us all; but grace without law isn't meaningful.)

At any rate, I don't think Christ was condescending about Moses:

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. - John 5:45-46

Beyond that, there's overwhelming evidence of the New Testament's high regard for Moses: The Transfiguration (Matthew 11:1-9, Mark 9:2-9, and Luke 9:28-36).

Clearly, our views on the Bible are different. But I *think* that each of our views are internally consistent. One certainly couldn't reasonably combine our perspectives into a meaningful whole - but each perspective on its own is a reasonable one.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 03-10-2002, 01:30 PM   #167
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
yeah, I agree with Ant, I don't think Bubba was implying that homosexuals are un-human, and neither was the movie
Precisely right.

I was suggesting that the prison rapists were metaphorically inhuman in their brutality, not their sexuality.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-10-2002).]
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 12:11 PM   #168
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,737
Local Time: 12:29 PM
I don't want to get into the argument. I just wanted to point out that if you want to discuss genetics, you will need some very advanced biochemistry and molecular biology as a basis. This is not a knock on the discussion, but sometimes simplifying genetic analyses can be a good way to explain things. And sometimes, a simplification does a disservice to the discussion. Genetics isn't just AaBb / AABb, to give you ratios of whether people can be carriers for gay genes, or will be gay, or will be heterosexual. You have to take things in context of somatic mutations (which I believe melon noted), general recombination (Holliday/Meselson-Radding, DSBR), gene conversion, LTR transposons, site-specific recombination, etc. It's all highly complex stuff that people spend lifetimes researching, and some of us are forced to spend hours studying.

anitram is offline  
Old 03-13-2002, 01:04 AM   #169
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Truly, genetics can be QUITE complicated. But, my point was that genes that cause infertility and homosexuality (AGAIN, I'm not at all sure such things are caused by genetics) will propagate less quickly than those that do not obviously hinder reproduction, regardless of the complexity.

Hell, the entire theory of evolution HINGES on the argument: genes that enable reproduction are far more successful over time (and in large populations) than genes that hinder it.

The reason is this: certainly, even those genes that reproduction aren't expressed they're present. But they are EVENTUALLY expressed, and when they are, they are thus rarely passed on.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 03-13-2002, 04:34 PM   #170
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
The reason is this: certainly, even those genes that reproduction aren't expressed they're present. But they are EVENTUALLY expressed, and when they are, they are thus rarely passed on.
I really don't know how many ways or times to tell you that this statement is wrong. Forget the homosexual context of this argument...there are *many* scientically observable genetic traits that contradict your above statement.

I would say that most genes subject to this statement are passed on far more to others (as carriers) than they are expressed. Since carriers often unknowingly carry these traits that aren't expressed in them (some severe, most not) and live an otherwise normal life, the trait is more than assured a long life in offspring in future generations.

Again, I really think you should pick up a college-level genetics text if you have any interest in furthering your genetics knowledge. Otherwise, I would be very cautious jumping into a genetics debate in the future.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
melon is offline  
Old 03-20-2002, 02:11 AM   #171
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
I really don't know how many ways or times to tell you that this statement is wrong. Forget the homosexual context of this argument...there are *many* scientically observable genetic traits that contradict your above statement.

I would say that most genes subject to this statement are passed on far more to others (as carriers) than they are expressed. Since carriers often unknowingly carry these traits that aren't expressed in them (some severe, most not) and live an otherwise normal life, the trait is more than assured a long life in offspring in future generations.

Again, I really think you should pick up a college-level genetics text if you have any interest in furthering your genetics knowledge. Otherwise, I would be very cautious jumping into a genetics debate in the future.

Melon

Missed the fact that you replied; sorry about that.

I've named two traits (homosexuality and infertility) that may or may not be genetic; if they are genetic, they DO seem to follow this pattern:

1. When expressed, they SEVERELY impede their own propagation.

2. When carried but not expressed, they seem to have no effect on the carrier's ability to reproduce.

So, in some cases, those who have the gene are just as proficient at reproduction as those who don't. And in other cases, they are MUCH less proficient.

As an non-genetic example, let's say you have a bag of nickels and I have a bag of nickels and pennies. Every 10 seconds, we each pull out one coin and throw it onto our own little piles of coins.

(In this case, you would not have the gene at all, and I would; sometimes it's expressed, forcing me to put out only 1 cent, and sometimes it's not expressed, allowing me to put out 5 cents worth.)

After ANY number of turns, how can I possibly have more money on the table than you? And after an arbitrarily large number of turns, how can I NOT have much less than you?

(And this doesn't even account for the fact that the difference is even more pronounced through exponential growth.)

Now, you say there are "many" traits that contradict this behavior.

NAME ONE.

Yes, yes, I'm swimming deep waters that I can't possibly fathom, and you keep reminding me of the fact that I should take college-level genetics to see this fact. But that strikes me as a way of simply avoiding any sort of explanation or any concrete example.

So I ask you again: name one trait that suppresses reproduction when expressed BUT STILL keeps up in terms of the population - and explain HOW THAT HAPPENS.

I may be an idiot, but TRY ME.

...On second thought, forget about it. You will do little more than tell me again that I'm talking about things I cannot possibly understand - and thus refuse any further explanation.

If that is all, I'm done.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-19-2002).]
__________________

Achtung Bubba is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×