FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » I'd just like to observe... (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: I'd just like to observe...
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
I was under the impression that when the First Presidency -- or any Mormon with priesthood authority -- communed with God, they did so in a more direct way than Biblical interpretation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:

It's interesting you chose to comment on only one side of an exchange in which both parties chose to simply assert opposite conclusions without making argument or citing supporting evidence.

That's because KoM put forth the assertion that God consistently returns a result of "zero" when his presence or influence is tested for.

Clearly KoM cannot prove this point with 100% certainty, as he cannot show EVERY single example of where such a test has taken place.

Your side of the exchange, could have been clearly and conclusively demonstrated with just a single, solid piece of evidence showing that God does, for a fact, exist. Yet your response was simply, "No."

Surely you can see that saying, "No, you're wrong" is no argument, especially when it should be trivially easy to show some undeniable evidence for the existence of an omnipresent, omnipotent, immortal being.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Surely you can see that saying, "No, you're wrong" is no argumen
Considering I just said - in the sentence you quoted - that neither one of us made an argument, I'm not sure why you posted this in response to me.

Did you think I was under the impression I had made an argument? My whole point was I didn't, because KoM's post doesn't deserve one.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Your problem seems to be more with fanatical Republicans than fanatical Christians...
I've hit some liberal talking points, but really I'm not trying to be partisan, here. If God does indeed have valuable information that He could share with people about vitally important political issues, that the First Presidency chooses only to share information about His opinion of gay marriage in California is baffling to me.
And from a unbeliever's (no offense intended) stand point, it could have been equally baffling to wonder why God went through epics lengths to smuggle one family out of Jerusalem, just prior to a war, and sail them to the Americas. And this, knowing full well that their descendants would just end up killing each other and all ties with God would be lost. But the effort was nonetheless important. From where I'm standing it may have been the most important thing ever done save Jesus' atonement.

Would you agree Tom that the question of homosexuality and gender roles is far less charted than whether we ought to fight wars, or fiscal responsibility? I don't know anybody who says with complete ignorance, "I sure wish I understood why people get involved in pointless conflicts." But I know MANY people who do not know what to think about homosexuality and it's rise to prominence in American society.

As I've confessed before I myself have alot of difficulty considering this subject. I really wish I could speak with one of the members of the first presidency, or that they would write a sermon outlining their thinking on this matter. The fact they have issued this directive already makes me wonder if there is something about this issue I don't understand.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But the effort was nonetheless important.
Don't get me started on the many, many ways in which an omnipotent or semi-omnipotent God fails to live up to His potential. [Smile]

quote:
Would you agree Tom that the question of homosexuality and gender roles is far less charted than whether we ought to fight wars, or fiscal responsibility?
No, I wouldn't. We all claim to be fans of fiscal responsibility and enemies of war, but rarely demonstrate either in practice; there is always a justification for the alternative.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
Dag: I was under the impression that you were "interested in my choice", as you said you were, so I explained it for you. I'm sorry if I misunderstood that part too.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Earendil18
Member
Member # 3180

 - posted      Profile for Earendil18   Email Earendil18         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure if I'm an unbeliever [Smile] Maybe asking too many darn questions.


quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
...and it's rise to prominence in American society.

What if it's more or less the same ratio of folks that it's always been throughout the history of the human race?

It's not just American society. It's all around the world, and it's been with the human race for a very long time.

It seems to me the only reason it is perceived as having "risen" is due to the fact that only in the last century or so have we truly begun to examine ourselves as human beings, and try and figure out how we tick using the sciences. It's more noticeable now because there are more eyes and ears.

And yet in all these last hundred years has the ratio of alternative sexualities-to-overall population fluctuated that much? Is there a larger percentage, or just a larger population? I'm honestly not sure, this would be intriguing to look into.

Rest assured though, if it's human nature, it's been going on for a long time. The only difference is before it was under the table, and not as "prominently" visible, except in certain ancient societies. The Hite Report on Male Sexuality is very enlightening on just how much goes on when the church or parents aren't looking.

It could be nature's built in population controller and there's too many of us so there's "more" homosexuality. But where did that come from? Hmm, not much on that theory so far.

I've heard it's due to a breakdown between the parent of the same-sex due to a variety of environmental factors as well as the temperament of the child and the parent of the same sex. That study however did say, it isn't a choice. I'm not sure it also accounts for the thousands of other children who have cruddy relationships with their parents, and are straight.

In some cases I've heard it's child abuse that causes it but that doesn't explain the thousands of other children who are abused and while traumatized, are not homosexual.

Death of the father as a cause, perhaps, but again, our fathers are dying everywhere, why are such a small percentage homosexual?

It seems to me like there's something more going on, that isn't nefarious, but just isn't understood yet. Obviously in nature, 100% homosexuality wouldn't have worked or we wouldn't be here. However, what if 5% performs a certain function? A social or biological function?

I think it goes back to genes, personality, temperament, and the womb for the homosexual preclusion. Hence, why, if you ask just about every gay man, he will say "yes, I did feel different from other boys". However, trying to share such things is like trying to share how wonderful it is when you're touched by God et al. So "believers" and "unbelievers" both crook an eyebrow at each other in disbelief. "It's some other reason!"

quote:

Originally posted by docmagik:

So it's not about the homosexual--it's about the child. I hope that even if you don't agree with that (and I don't expect a lot of you to) you can at least see how it doesn't neccessarily imply that a homosexual is inherently a bad parent, and why the issue of marriage is one they speak out on.

Seeing how my parents present lives are affected by their parents' terrible addictions, neuroses, and poor relationships with their children, I still perceive that if it were about the child, two loving fathers would be preferable to inexperienced, immature, and/or incapable parents who just happen to have the required plumbing.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Dag: I was under the impression that you were "interested in my choice", as you said you were, so I explained it for you. I'm sorry if I misunderstood that part too.
The part I commented on wasn't about your choice to respond initially, but a question that seemed to indicate you hadn't read my previous post.

[ July 02, 2008, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Tom:
quote:
Don't get me started on the many, many ways in which an omnipotent or semi-omnipotent God fails to live up to His potential.
Alright I won't ask a mere human being what kind of a job he/she thinks God is doing. I'm sure God gets bad report cards from his creation all the time. Miles, and Moccasins, and all that.

quote:
No, I wouldn't. We all claim to be fans of fiscal responsibility and enemies of war, but rarely demonstrate either in practice; there is always a justification for the alternative.
Fair enough, but that does not mean we KNOW better when it comes to homosexuality. The fact we can't seem to peg down lessons as old as humanity seems to demonstrate why greater clarity on other subjects is not available.

There is also a snag in this whole God being actively involved in telling us what he thinks on almost everything, all the time. Let's say he started doing it now, we'd complain that he didn't do it in previous years when we could have also used it, Vietnam War, Great Depression, Black Plague, WWII. If he had done so all along, we'd still have wars and contentions, only now it would be people doing it knowing full well they are in open rebellion with God, or the Satan complex. Besides that, we wouldn't really be living, we'd just be working out God's agenda constantly without any real freedom to decide what we would want to do with our time on earth.

Earendil18: I'm condensing your thoughts,
quote:
What if it's more or less the same ratio of folks that it's always been throughout the history of the human race?
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't? I've considered many if not all of those ideas before. What if sexuality isn't 100% hetero or 100% homo? What if there is a choice in many if not most cases? What if the reason we are seeing more and more homosexuality is because as it becomes more the norm more teenagers feel safe selecting it as their own? Folks who could go either way just happen to find as males or females they bond more readily to others of their own sex as that is how their friendships have been growing up.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM, your being able to understand why my belief in God makes sense to me would require a fundamental shift in how you think of God. Or rather, a fundamental shift in how you think I think of God. I don't think you particularly want to make that shift and I don't feel any particular need to try and make you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It could be nature's built in population controller and there's too many of us so there's "more" homosexuality.
This could not happen without the intervention of an external designer. There is no way for evolution to produce an effect which disadvantages the individual carrier of the behaviour in question. There is also no way for evolution to prepare for a condition (huge world populations) which has never happened yet. If you are able to demonstrate such an effect, it would be the first good evidence for intelligent design.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
KoM, your being able to understand why my belief in God makes sense to me would require a fundamental shift in how you think of God. Or rather, a fundamental shift in how you think I think of God. I don't think you particularly want to make that shift and I don't feel any particular need to try and make you.

Well then, why are we even having this conversation?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
It wouldn't happen in the way described, but evolution certainly can produce effects that disadvantage the individual carrier of the behavior in question. This has been abundantly studied. First, all that is required for evolutionary pressures to work is for the genes of an individual to be furthered. The (relatively unique) genes of an individual are also carried by its closest relatives.

This is a good evolutionary explanation for communal parenting in some animal species, and possibly for homosexuality. An excellent example is worker individuals in many insect species, that can never, ever pass on their genes directly, and who are significantly disadvantaged versus their sexed relatives in many ways. They do, however, significantly increase the likelihood of their genes carrying on.

There could even be a situation vaguely like the mechanism described. It wouldn't be a trigger based on 'too many of us', but it could simply be that in larger populations there is a higher proportion of homosexuality due to simple interactions of the probabilities of that gene complex and heterosexual ones. I suspect that is not the case, however, and the increased notice of homosexuality is almost entirely due to shifts in social norms.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, you shifted our conversation. It was about the purpose of faith communities. I don't feel the need to convince you of anything, but I do like to clean up the misconceptions you toss out there. Sort of "spot cleaning."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Let's say he started doing it now, we'd complain that he didn't do it in previous years when we could have also used it...
Yes. You're exactly right.
Why don't you complain about it? Or do you really believe that the homosexuality thing is a more useful piece of info than, say, the causes of the Black Death?

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
There is no way for evolution to produce an effect which disadvantages the individual carrier of the behaviour in question.

Heterozygote advantage (think sickle cell, cyctic fibrosis).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why don't you complain about it? Or do you really believe that the homosexuality thing is a more useful piece of info than, say, the causes of the Black Death?
You have to address this issue in terms of internal consistency rather than external consistency. It's common sense to say that saving countless lives is objectively more important, but the LDS church (as well as many others) has a whole other domain of "eternal" consequences to be considered. It may very well be less important that a lot of people are dying prematurely than normalizing a "non traditional" marriage relationship which may (somehow - don't ask me how) discourage the development of properly configured families which can execute God's plan and ensure that the maximum number of individuals can reach the highest levels of exaltation. In the grand eternal scheme of things, mortal death and human suffering are just not as important as they are to you and I.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It's common sense to say that saving countless lives is objectively more important, but the LDS church (as well as many others) has a whole other domain of "eternal" consequences to be considered.
*nod* Which is what I said is the demonstrable harm done by religion.

And, of course, if the argument is that preventing homosexual marriage in California is more vital to God's long-term plan than preventing millions from dying of the Black Death (because death after all is just a temporary thing), then it is not incorrect to say that God's priorities lie with the former.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
There is no way for evolution to produce an effect which disadvantages the individual carrier of the behaviour in question.

Heterozygote advantage (think sickle cell, cyctic fibrosis).
I rephrase. "Causes a net disadvantage to the set of individuals carrying that gene". Sickle-cell anemia is a disadvantage for the 1% that get two copies, but a strongish advantage for the 9% that get only one copy, so on net the carriers are advantaged. The same for the kin selection that fugu was talking about.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
Dicty sacrifice for the sake of the community. Though this is not a genetic thing, it's a chemical response to environmental stimulus. There is some evidence that in utero environment is tied to male homosexual behavior- specifically, a later son is more likely to be gay then the first son. This kinda fits with population control (except that modern days families tend to be smaller so then you would expect to see less homosexual behavior then in the past).
Of course, I am not convinced that we have more gay people now then in the past. From stories about ancient Rome and China, I think it is entirely possible that there is less homosexual behavior now then in those times (though I don't know enough about that time period).

Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I think it is pretty tricky to try to compare historical numbers of homosexuals beyond the last century or so. Romantic relationships of any kind were viewed differently during different times and in different cultures. Would a greek soldier who had a wife and children and sex with boys self-identify as gay today?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
I think that the big difference now is actually our view of marriage. We see it as about love, whereas in the past marriage was more of a business arrangement for the production of children. It didn't matter if you loved or desired your spouse, you did your duty. Now though, we want more in our marital relationships- we want love and desire and romance.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Dicty? Is that a species of animal? I need a bit more information if I'm to respond meaningfully.

As for marriage, I think perhaps this reflects our increasing wealth. Love, in some sense, is a luxury; being fantastically wealthy by every historical standard, we can afford more of every luxury including this one.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
In fact, if the church is trying to discourage homosexual relationships, they may very well have better results from loving, supportive persuasion than by trying to outlaw it.
In my estimation the LDS can do nothing overall to discourage America from slowly evolving into a society that is tolerant of homosexuals.

But they can definitely make themselves look bad trying.

imo i think the most important thing to do now is make a betting pool guessing how many years from now the lds has a Sudden Revelation from God that Suddenly Reveals that homosexuality is now totally okay with God.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Don't hold your breath.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
Dicty is a shortening for a uni/multi cellular organism which I am too lazy to try to spell properly right now. When the unicellular version runs out of food, it sends out signals and the dicty around it respond by creating fruiting bodies. Some dicty get stuck on the bottom, some on the top. The ones on the top get to become the fruiting body and potentially get to new food. The ones on the bottom are dead. I don't study dicty, but I think they are pretty cool. Some of my fellow grad students were doing research on how they know the right number of dicty to make a good sized stalk. If you have it too short, they won't make it to a new food source, but if it is too tall, it will topple over and they all die. Signaling pathways are obviously very important to them.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Epictetus
Member
Member # 6235

 - posted      Profile for Epictetus   Email Epictetus         Edit/Delete Post 
<edit>
quote:
Don't hold your breath.
Who needs to? Just set an interest rate for the payouts. [Razz]
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
i am holding my breath. right now! if I can only hold out for about thirty years.

here is the closest approximation to a holding-breath-smiley available! [Blushing]

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmm. How would you define the payoff conditions for such a pool? It seems to me that there are several possible such revelations:

1. Practising homosexuals need not be disfellowshipped.
2. Practising homosexuals (PH for short) may hold the priesthood. (Maybe this is the same as number 1? Not sure about the internal details of the LDS, here.)
3. PH may have temple recommends.
4. PH may become bishops, hold position X in the wards, and otherwise rise in the hierarchy. (I would guess that this is strongly correlated with 1.)
5. The LDS church will solemnise (seal?) gay marriages. Probably this is the strongest possible form of recognition. I would not bet on this happening for a good fifty years, where number 1 might occur within a decade or two.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Don't hold your breath.

There was a time when one might have said the same thing about ending polygamy or giving blacks the priesthood.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Dicty is a shortening for a uni/multi cellular organism which I am too lazy to try to spell properly right now. When the unicellular version runs out of food, it sends out signals and the dicty around it respond by creating fruiting bodies. Some dicty get stuck on the bottom, some on the top. The ones on the top get to become the fruiting body and potentially get to new food. The ones on the bottom are dead. I don't study dicty, but I think they are pretty cool. Some of my fellow grad students were doing research on how they know the right number of dicty to make a good sized stalk. If you have it too short, they won't make it to a new food source, but if it is too tall, it will topple over and they all die. Signaling pathways are obviously very important to them.

Ah - slime molds? Or a different organism with a similar behaviour? At any rate I don't think this contradicts my reformulation of my initial statement, in that the set of individuals with the genes for this is clearly advantaged by having them, compared to individuals that don't. Those individuals that don't join the stalk have a 100% chance (or maybe it's 95%) of dying, as opposed to a 90% chance (or whatever it is) within the stalk. So there is no sacrifice to benefit the community, rather there is forming a community to better your personal odds, even if they don't become all that good. If the odds didn't get better from joining the stalk, then evolution could not produce that behaviour.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
5. The LDS church will solemnise (seal?) gay marriages. Probably this is the strongest possible form of recognition. I would not bet on this happening for a good fifty years, where number 1 might occur within a decade or two.
I think this is actually least likely. They believe that spirits are gendered and that opposite genders will be required to create worlds and what not in the Celestial Kingdom. It's much more likely that the sinful nature of homosexuality would be revoked and that gays would be allowed to hold the priesthood (something every adult male in good standing can do) than that temple marriages would be performed for gay people as temple marriages are considered to be eternal marriages of spirit (where gender matters) not just extra fancy marriages of physical bodies.

A likely earlier step than either of these is that active gays will be treated the way that blacks were a few decades ago - welcomed as members of the church but not able to hold the priesthood.

[ July 02, 2008, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with MattP.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
That's a perfect example of a post I made a few days ago, explaining why supernaturally-based beliefs are so frustrating to me. The LDS church is physically unable to ever accept gay marriage, no matter how many of the members decide that it's probably not so bad, because there's a supernatural law which makes it impossible.

I imagine it's probably frustrating to the members of the Church who kind of wish it would change too.

I suppose God can always decide at some point in the future that the rules can change... somehow. [Frown]

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Earendil18
Member
Member # 3180

 - posted      Profile for Earendil18   Email Earendil18         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Dicty sacrifice for the sake of the community. Though this is not a genetic thing, it's a chemical response to environmental stimulus. There is some evidence that in utero environment is tied to male homosexual behavior- specifically, a later son is more likely to be gay then the first son. This kinda fits with population control (except that modern days families tend to be smaller so then you would expect to see less homosexual behavior then in the past).
Of course, I am not convinced that we have more gay people now then in the past. From stories about ancient Rome and China, I think it is entirely possible that there is less homosexual behavior now then in those times (though I don't know enough about that time period).

There's also been studies citing higher fertility in the females of families with at least one gay male in that generation.

I think we cite the historical aspects because of all the "it's unnatural" arguments thrown around. I could be wrong though.

Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
Dicty are slime molds. But the idea is that homosexual activity is triggered by some external stimulus (such as overpopulation). If you assume a chemical response instead of a genetic, this is somewhat analogous to slime molds. Population is too high, some signal goes out which some percent of the population detects. They respond by not mating. This increases everyone's chance of survival and the odds of you being the one who does not mate could be less then the odds of you dying in the overpopulation mess. Not having enough supplies for survival is not an unusual situation in nature so developing an evolutionary response is not that surprising either.
Of course, I don't actually think this explains homosexuality, but I don't think it would be an impossible situation to arise using natural laws.

Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think the situations are analogous. In the case of the slime molds, the unit doing the response doesn't know whether or not it will survive, but it knows it is improving its personal odds. But in the case of homosexuality, the unit knows that it will not survive. For this to improve the odds of your genes is quite difficult! Not impossible, kin selection and all that, but difficult. What's more, there seems to be an obvious advantage to cheating, in this case, that didn't exist for the slime molds. A slime mold which cheats is just going to be sitting in its resource-poor area; this is not an improvement. A potential homosexual who cheats, on the other hand, will have extra children, even if they are perhaps poorly fed. A starving child is a vast improvement over no child!

Still, the hypothesis seems testable. Homosexuality develops during teenage years. Are there more homosexuals among people who grew up in cities, compared to those who grew up in rural areas? Of course you need to control for the cultural factor, here - you can't just look at where the population of gays is highest at the moment, that just tells you about self-selection.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:
In my estimation the LDS can do nothing overall to discourage America from slowly evolving into a society that is tolerant of homosexuals.
From a statistical point of view, observing current data, I must agree.
--------------------------------------
One year after MASS legalized gay marriage, 62% of polled residents supported gay marriage (this was back in 2005). After one year of gay marriage being legalized, 84% of folks in MASS believed that gay marriage had a positive or neutral effect on the quality of life. 82% felt that gay marriage had a positive or neutral effect on traditional heterosexual marriage.

source: http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/a/MassOneYear.htm
-------------------------------------

Looking at positions on gay marriage in CA, there is a clear trend that support of gay marriage is inversely proportional to age. According to the Field Poll, as of May 28, 2008, 68% of Californians age 18-29 support gay marriage; 58% of those age 30-39 support it; and 51% of folks 40-49 support it. Thus, even should an amendment prohibiting gay marriage pass now in 2008, it appears nearly inevitable that it will only be overturned or replaced with a new amendment legalizing gay marriage within a decade. (In my opinion, much less than a decade.)

Even more likely, by my estimation, is that CA will NOT succeed in passing an amendment prohibiting gay marriage at the ballot box in November. According to the same Field Poll, an estimated 51% of Californians support gay marriage, with only 42% opposing, and 7% undecided. Those numbers are for personal feelings. With regard to political positions, an even higher 54% of Californians are AGAINST and amendment prohibiting gay marriage, and only 40% support it, with 6% undecided. The only way I see such an amendment passing is if proponents of the amendment do a better job at rallying supporters to the ballot boxes.

If I were to have to wager on the outcome in November, I would bet that no matter the efforts of amendment supporters, it will not pass.

sources:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080528-9999-1n28field.html
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/970055.html

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
But my point is not to show that the hypothesis is correct, merely that it does not violate natural laws. What other critters are aware of their potential to survive? This hypothetical system is going to have evolved in lower level species (most likely). So, while we might cheat, the system would be a remnant from those creatures that would not know enough to cheat (who ran into low nutrient situations).

I personally think this hypothesis is wrong and the known data supports a gender advantage. Having the mutation made girls have lots of babies, the boys gay. Far simpler explanation.

Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Antnie? Antnie! I called you but just got a busy signal. Call me on my old cell number.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But my point is not to show that the hypothesis is correct, merely that it does not violate natural laws. What other critters are aware of their potential to survive? This hypothetical system is going to have evolved in lower level species (most likely). So, while we might cheat, the system would be a remnant from those creatures that would not know enough to cheat (who ran into low nutrient situations).
No, no, I'm using 'knows' in the anthropomorphising sense here. No sentience is required! It's just more convenient to explain in terms of intelligent plans than to say "slime mold units who had genes for cheating had no advantage over those who didn't, while in your hypothesised gay responders to chemicals, there is an overwhelming advantage to cheaters, and those who didn't respond to the signal are therefore at an advantage over those who do."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Don't hold your breath.

There was a time when one might have said the same thing about ending polygamy or giving blacks the priesthood.
Ending polygamy I'll grant you, blacks and the priesthood not so much. Barring a complete confession that the apostle Paul's epistles dealing with homosexuality are mistranslated, I simply cannot see the LDS church softening it's stance on homosexuality. How they could explain the passages in the D&C dealing with heterosexuality is also something I cannot see them revising.

I would seriously consider leaving the church if they modified their stance on homosexuality to the point they openly embraced it. Not because I have anything against homosexuality per se but because that topic is not something I see as negotiable as far as Mormon doctrine is concerned.

Tom: Were God to suddenly at an unprecedented level direct the affairs of human kind of course I'd wonder why now. You say it is demonstrably harmful that religion does not think death is the worst thing that can happen to somebody, but surely you believe that same thing. Do you really think death is worse than a I life lead enduring perpetual chronic abuse? Or take yourself, if you could chose to die as a child or live a life spent committing horrible atrocities that torment millions of people would you chose to live? I wouldn't personally.

But beyond that, I can see how one might suppose that because we believe in an afterlife than human life must not be as valuable to us as to an atheist. But couldn't we also then argue that placing an severely extraflated (yes I made that word up) value on human life also causes demonstrable harm? Are there no things more valuable than mere living?

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
But the dicty that make the fruiting body get a signal that tells them they are going to be stalks so they "know" that they will not be reproducing either. To be a stalk requires changes in protein expression, so one might cheat by receiving the signal to be a stalk and ignoring it and trying to climb up to the top and be a fruiting body or perhaps by sitting around, hoping to survive long enough to eat the dead stalk.

ETA- but home from work now so no more genetics for me. So, I probably won't reply to anything in this thread until work tomorrow.

Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I would seriously consider leaving the church if they modified their stance on homosexuality to the point they openly embraced it. Not because I have anything against homosexuality per se but because that topic is not something I see as negotiable as far as Mormon doctrine is concerned.
There an infinite number of explanations for any given set of data. Should the church wish to change in this way (whether it's really God or mere men doing the changing), then some way can be found to justify it. There are already refutations available for Paul's writings based on nuances of language and cultural context. They aren't convincing to people who disagree with them, but how is that different from any of the interpretations of scripture which are unique to Mormonism?

People leave the church for apparent contradictions all the time. I imagine there was a bump in that activity recently over this gay marriage issue.

I don't think Celestial marriage is likely to ever happen, but I don't think it's a stretch that some day the church may recognize civil marriages "for time" between gays the same way it now recognizes civil marriages between heterosexuals. It would certainly strengthen families and improve the situation for the children of those unions if the resource of the church were available to them.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But couldn't we also then argue that placing an severely extraflated (yes I made that word up) value on human life also causes demonstrable harm?
The argument is about demonstrable harm, not about the primacy of human life. There is more demonstrable harm to taking a life than allowing two men to share their bedroom, a medical plan, and a tax form, yet there seems to be an inordinate focus on the latter for some religious groups based on objectively unverifiable claims of eternal consequences.

Yes, I can imagine fates worse than death, but I'd generally put it to the individual which they'd prefer rather than decide for them. I'm happy to put the choice to any gay couple whether they'd rather be shot in the head than get married.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Or take yourself, if you could chose to die as a child or live a life spent committing horrible atrocities that torment millions of people would you chose to live?
Is it your opinion that everyone permitted by God to untimely die does so in order to avoid a worse fate for themselves or others?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattB
Member
Member # 1116

 - posted      Profile for MattB   Email MattB         Edit/Delete Post 
Thoughts:

Extending sealings (ie, solemnizations of marriage in a LDS temple) to include same sex marriage is a much deeper theological deal than extending the priesthood to African Americans, and even more so than ending polygamy, though the latter is closer than the former.

Extending the priesthood to all races was 1)practiced under Joseph Smith, and 2)acknowledged as possible throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It required very little transformation of already existing theology, to the point that many Mormon theologians can describe it as a 'policy' rather than a doctrine.

Ending polygamy required a serious shakeup of theology, because to that point exaltation - the highest degree of salvation - was understood to be conditional upon participation within it. However, Mormon thinkers were able to reapply its sacramental language (the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, celestial marriage) to monogamous marriages while still preserving the notions about eternal increase and spirit children that most basically defined marriage theologically.

For such extension to same-sex marriages, then, the Mormon theological definition of marriage would have to drift away from reproduction and toward individual fulfillment. This is happening to a degree, but nowhere near to the extent required.

Secondly, a whole host of other theological notions about the genders and their roles together would have to change.

All of this is theoretically possible (as are most things) but it would mark an astounding theological shift.

What could happen, I think, and probably should, is the cultivation of a respected and permanent place for single celibate adults in the church. Currently, due to the theological premium placed on marriage, such a place does not exist; twenty-two year old married people are generally treated more like adults than single thirty year olds, because being single is rather like being incomplete, and is the sort of thing that's vaguely embarrassing to admit at parties. There's a good reason for this - theologically, it _is_ incomplete, because exaltation is something that happens to married couples.

Anyhow, there are precedents for this; the Genesis Group, a special ministry to African Americans, was organized in an official capacity; singles wards (congregations) of course are another example, but currently exist to destroy themselves. Perhaps another organization, rather like the monastics in Catholicism, plus a fairly hefty rhetorical change is in order.

(The last, I would note, is well underway; there's been a distinct shift in official discourse on homosexuality in my lifetime; it's light years more inclusive than it used to be, and I think that really means something.)

Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Matt, are adopted children "spirit children" of their adoptive or their biological parents?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattB
Member
Member # 1116

 - posted      Profile for MattB   Email MattB         Edit/Delete Post 
Neither. Spirit children are those beings who populate the pre-existence of a cosmos, and who are born into bodies on earth. They are, according to current Mormon theology, the children of an exalted couple.

Given this theology, all of us on this earth have two sets of parents, earthly and heavenly; we are thus literally spirit siblings.

Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Ah. Sorry. To which set of parents are they sealed, rather?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2