Obama Calls For End To LGBT Conversion Therapy

a reply to: woodwardjnr

They also do a very good job.
Just going to add also before the usual dolts chime in that no they do not make their children gay.

originally posted by: redhorse

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: greencmp if there are homosexual animals in nature, would that be natural?

Well, supernovae are "natural". That doesn't mean that it is a successful strategy for solar system advancement.

I simply mean that homosexuality does not reproduce itself so, it solves itself.

Interestingly, the only mechanisms capable of lending it longevity through reproduction are cultural mandates to engage in heterosexual reproduction despite the obvious personal preference of the homosexual.

Actually in social animals homosexuality can serve as a way of diffusing tension and reinforcing social bonds, particularly between males. This may be why it has persisted to be represented at all; further, with human beings so dependent upon cooperation it may be why it is so widespread among our species. Social sex for the sake of social sex (not necessarily just reproduction) is part and parcel to the human condition and it does serve to reinforce social bonds among males and females. Not everything in evolution is directly about reproduction, sometimes it is about the broader success of a species as a whole. There is a difference between a reproductive strategy and a survival strategy, although both are synergistically related.

I would agree with that and, in fact, I think it serves a very similar function in humans though, as a contiguous genetic lineage, I don't believe it can be maintained. Though that doesn't mean that it is completely prevented from being propagated forward.

The best argument in support of your assertion is probably contained in the Price equation which explains the evolution of altruism.

a reply to: redhorse

This may be why it has persisted to be represented at all; further, with human beings so dependent upon cooperation it may be why it is so widespread among our species.

I imagine it existed in harems as well. I imagine intimate physical bonds between women living together as wives to one man would be common. I've never heard any story of the lesbian wives of one man being stoned to death as punishment in the Bible.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Gay adoption is always an option. There are plenty of kids out there with no one to love and care for them

True but, it doesn't mean that the adopted children will be gay and if they are, they also don't reproduce.

I am surprised by the openness of this discussion with regard to the debate about nature vs nurture on this topic.

Bravo!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: redhorse

This may be why it has persisted to be represented at all; further, with human beings so dependent upon cooperation it may be why it is so widespread among our species.

I imagine it existed in harems as well. I imagine intimate physical bonds between women living together as wives to one man would be common. I've never heard any story of the lesbian wives of one man being stoned to death as punishment in the Bible.

Yes, it requires the imposition of an unnatural social construct in order to be passed down to another generation.

If it isn't genetic, all bets are off but, again it is self correcting.

a reply to: greencmp

I don't think that the love between Ruth and Naomi was unnatural.

And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

17 Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.

Ruth's oath to Naomi is still used in marriage vows today.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Not to mention they quote the verses in the New Testament where Jesus forbids divorce to claim that He says something about same-sex marriage (which He doesn't say).

Oh well, can't argue with belief.

I think the reason it seems unfamiliar or unnatural to us is because our culture has created that image when in fact it's actually perfectly natural.

That would explain why we see it in other species especially the more evolved species like ourselves except only in our culture and our species is it treated as wrong. Because only our "cultural overlay" has made it seem that way whereas other animals don't apply those other layers on top of their natural understanding.

It would also explain why it does continue in spite of the fact that it isn't a trait being passed on nearly enough for it to have continued without evolution removing it. There is no evidence that when a person is gay they have gay kids when they do procreate. While at the same time obviously straight couples have gay kids all the time. In fact, they are the primary source for them. Again showing that it is simply normal and natural only just not as common. Most people are right handed too but we stopped viewing lefties as "sinister" a long time ago.

I think if we were to remove our culture and graph it out we would see a sliding scale from Straight to Gay with something of a bell curve with most being somewhere in the middle and actually the least on both extremes of Fully Straight and Fully Gay. As mentioned already, there is more to Pair Bonding and it's effect on our survival than just procreation alone.

a reply to: greencmp

Do you understand what ad hominem means? It's not Latin for "I didn't like what you said."

I did address your backhanded assertion about local versus federal levels.

I did call you out for speaking to Windword in such a callous and uncalled for manner.

The two actions are not mutually exclusive or inclusive of each other.

originally posted by: beezzer
Show me where in the Constitution that government can dictate to a parent how to raise their children.

There is nothing in the Constitution about a person's natural right to life, liberty, and property - but these are concepts Americans hold dear. The Declaration of Independence at claims something rather similar, no?

The right to life in this context is commonly understood as (a) not being killed and (b) not being abused. Such conversion 'therapy' drives many children to suicide - seems pretty wholly in violation of this belief to me.

a reply to: Greven

Not to mention that Article I gives Congress the power to make Federal law.

But, the concept of Federal law is "not in the Constitution. "

I am stymied at times.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: greencmp

I don't think that the love between Ruth and Naomi was unnatural.

And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

17 Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.

Ruth's oath to Naomi is still used in marriage vows today.

Beautiful, enlightening and fulfilling as they may or may not be, all human social constructs are necessarily unnatural.

I am not challenging, begrudging or otherwise judging here, just pointing that out.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

Do you understand what ad hominem means? It's not Latin for "I didn't like what you said."

I did address your backhanded assertion about local versus federal levels.

I did call you out for speaking to Windword in such a callous and uncalled for manner.

The two actions are not mutually exclusive or inclusive of each other.

It means attacking the person instead of the content of the statement which you continue to do.

Thank you for addressing my contention that crime is the responsibility of local law enforcement though, you seem to not be fathoming the spirit of my argument.

a reply to: greencmp

Okay, I'm going to shut up and listen for this explanation.

Greemcmp, I promise, I won't comment on your response, but can you explain your statement that human social constructs are all unnatural?

Thanks if so.

a reply to: greencmp

I have not attacked you once, trust me.

Crime is addressed at all governmental levels, of which there are roughly three or four.

(EDIT: National/federal, State, County, City) (Sometimes the last two are intermingled)

The appropriate enforcement happens at the appropriate level.

I don't agree with your argument; that doesn't mean I don't understand it.

You're repeatedly confused on that issue.

a reply to: greencmp

Beautiful, enlightening and fulfilling as they may or may not be, all human social constructs are necessarily unnatural.

Really? Are families unnatural? Are herds and hives unnatural?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

Okay, I'm going to shut up and listen for this explanation.

Greemcmp, I promise, I won't comment on your response, but can you explain your statement that human social constructs are all unnatural?

Thanks if so.

Certainly, "culture" (wherever it is found) is an invention of humanity and is based upon a set of commonly agreed principals and accepted behavior. Information which cannot survive without the benefit of a tradition and mechanism of communicating across generations.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: greencmp

Beautiful, enlightening and fulfilling as they may or may not be, all human social constructs are necessarily unnatural.

Really? Are families unnatural? Are herds and hives unnatural?

Marriage is, yes. It could be argued that families are as well.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

Okay, I'm going to shut up and listen for this explanation.

Greemcmp, I promise, I won't comment on your response, but can you explain your statement that human social constructs are all unnatural?

Thanks if so.

Certainly, "culture" (wherever it is found) is an invention of humanity and is based upon a set of commonly agreed principals and accepted behavior. Information which cannot survive without the benefit of a tradition and mechanism of communicating across generations.

Great definition of culture.

Why are human cultural creations "unnatural"?

PS: Not a comment, but a request for clarification.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

Okay, I'm going to shut up and listen for this explanation.

Greemcmp, I promise, I won't comment on your response, but can you explain your statement that human social constructs are all unnatural?

Thanks if so.

Certainly, "culture" (wherever it is found) is an invention of humanity and is based upon a set of commonly agreed principals and accepted behavior. Information which cannot survive without the benefit of a tradition and mechanism of communicating across generations.

Great definition of culture.

Why are human cultural creations "unnatural"?

PS: Not a comment, but a request for clarification.

Because they are human creations and not preexisting inevitabilities.