Science, Arts, Belief, Right & Wrong...

[HimSar]

Certified jerk.

Pants on fire

 

[Sohail Shuja]

I am not a biologist but I understand the big picture and the logic.

Not the Big picture, but you do fall for the picture painted in front of you.

Even if you cannot isolate the specific part of the genome that leads to homosexuality it doesn't mean there is no genetic/hormonal. You can find other evidence that hint towards a genetic cause of homosexuality.

Doc, to be honest, in today's world, genetic studies have advanced so much. It is impossible that the presence of a gene is missed/unverified.

To tell you the truth, the proposition of a male homosexual gene was retracted because they made it up, but the linkage they tried to put forth under evolutionary aspects (and the one you also quoted for the hunter's tribe) could not explain the Lesbian phenomenon. Do you also have an explanation of Lesbianism in a hunter's society and in evolutionary context?

For example having older brothers may mean a hormonal/genetic imbalance in younger siblings which can be taken as a hint of hormones/genetics causing homosexuality rather environmental factors.

In such metaphysical contexts, the meaning of the words "May/Might" means that the study is inconclusive and the results cannot be generalized.

What is evident here is that they are trying to find a reason to rationalize homosexuality, but they are unable to find one yet. However, this is conclusive that there is no "Gay Gene" found. There is no conclusive study to support the hypothesis that homosexuality is prenatal.

When there are multiple studies that fall on the same conclusion which does not involve society and environment, then there is a strong conclusion to be made there as well.

In fact... NO. First of all, you cannot eliminate the social and psychological factors in an "in vivo" study. That is why, in medical/clinical research, it is not taken as reliable as an in vitro study. Secondly, there is a phenomenon known as "Replication Fallacy" and "Conditional Probability Fallacy" which has plagued much of the research nowadays. It produces biased results, by biased mindsets. It is more common in "in vivo" studies.

Also, Ill give you some extra information but you do not have to take it as evidence this is just for your info... I think you live in a Muslim country where you cannot meet Gay people openly. But I live in the West and Ill share my experience. I have met lesbian women and I can tell they are lesbian before I even know them. Just last week I met a girl and it was strange that I felt no sexual tension with her at all. It is as if she is my brother or something, later I found out that she is lesbian.

Well, in an evidence based analysis/discussion/debate/syllogism, it does not matter where you live. We are talking about the hardcore facts here, revealed by the analysis of occidental research and findings.

However to give you a pretext, I have lived in both the western countries and in Muslim countries as well. I have also seen people in West, who abhor the idea of homosexuality. Moreover, I have also seen gay and trans etc. in Muslim countries. So your disposition that I have a natural tendency to be anti-gay is based on the societal influences is totally false.

I am very objective about the topic here. Give me a solid evidence that a gay gene exists and I am not haughty enough to negate you just because I personally do not think that there is a genetic link to it. However, I expect the same in reciprocation. Conversely, if you are predisposed with the notion of defending homosexuality because in your society it is accepted as such, then it is not a reasoned debate, rather a partial argument.

To be an atheist, a person needs to be very objective about the facts and reasoning. Not only should he be able to question the religious thought, he should also be able to take things coming up from "commercial and sponsored researches" with a pinch of salt.

 

[Vitamin_C]

I dont understand your position on this. What do you think is the cause for homosexuality and do you think there is no hormonal or genetic cause?

Not the Big picture, but you do fall for the picture painted in front of you.



Doc, to be honest, in today's world, genetic studies have advanced so much. It is impossible that the presence of a gene is missed/unverified.

To tell you the truth, the proposition of a male homosexual gene was retracted because they made it up, but the linkage they tried to put forth under evolutionary aspects (and the one you also quoted for the hunter's tribe) could not explain the Lesbian phenomenon. Do you also have an explanation of Lesbianism in a hunter's society and in evolutionary context?


In such metaphysical contexts, the meaning of the words "May/Might" means that the study is inconclusive and the results cannot be generalized.

What is evident here is that they are trying to find a reason to rationalize homosexuality, but they are unable to find one yet. However, this is conclusive that there is no "Gay Gene" found. There is no conclusive study to support the hypothesis that homosexuality is prenatal.



In fact... NO. First of all, you cannot eliminate the social and psychological factors in an "in vivo" study. That is why, in medical/clinical research, it is not taken as reliable as an in vitro study. Secondly, there is a phenomenon known as "Replication Fallacy" and "Conditional Probability Fallacy" which has plagued much of the research nowadays. It produces biased results, by biased mindsets. It is more common in "in vivo" studies.


Well, in an evidence based analysis/discussion/debate/syllogism, it does not matter where you live. We are talking about the hardcore facts here, revealed by the analysis of occidental research and findings.

However to give you a pretext, I have lived in both the western countries and in Muslim countries as well. I have also seen people in West, who abhor the idea of homosexuality. Moreover, I have also seen gay and trans etc. in Muslim countries. So your disposition that I have a natural tendency to be anti-gay is based on the societal influences is totally false.

I am very objective about the topic here. Give me a solid evidence that a gay gene exists and I am not haughty enough to negate you just because I personally do not think that there is a genetic link to it. However, I expect the same in reciprocation. Conversely, if you are predisposed with the notion of defending homosexuality because in your society it is accepted as such, then it is not a reasoned debate, rather a partial argument.

To be an atheist, a person needs to be very objective about the facts and reasoning. Not only should he be able to question the religious thought, he should also be able to take things coming up from "commercial and sponsored researches" with a pinch of salt.

 

[Sohail Shuja]

I dont understand your position on this. What do you think is the cause for homosexuality and do you think there is no hormonal or genetic cause?

To be honest... No.

From an evolutionary perspective, sex may be a tool for friendship etc.. but it is the means to procreation. Friendship, in it's entirety, in more evolved species like humans, is mostly a means of social inclusion, which does not necessarily gravitates around sex. People have intellectual bonding as well.

As you said earlier about evolution that, while defending the homos in the hunters era, that preservation of the "Gene pool" is the most important thing. So from an evolutionary perspective, the institution of marriage and a family evolved in human societies as a means to secure that gene pool. Now if you don't have a family, you are wasting your evolutionary prowess.

Whereas friendship and relationships are quite complex human interactions, which are rather higher brain functions than the physiological one.

Then there is another bonding between people, which is rather created by a common cause. This is reflected in the formation of armies, protesters and groups etc throughout the history of human society. Here, we see people even dying for each other, without having any sexual intimacy among themselves. Simply speaking, friendship, in my own limited point of view, is not related to one's sexual intimacy.

Now my 2 cents about evolution of homosexuality in homo sapiens.

Mainly two causes:
1- Due to unavailability of a member of opposite sex.
2- Conditioning of the mind (Pavlov's Study referenced here)

Due to the implications of the latter, a legislation for promotion of such practices is not advisable at all. You will lure more and more people in. If, the current percentage lies between the range of 3 to 5 % right now, imagine how it would be after 150 years later?

Now, as I explained earlier, that homosexuality is plainly in contrast to the reason of evolution of the sexual function in heterosexual species, therefore it must be avoided.
If I recall Darwin correctly, then he said that : "It was not the strongest of the species that survived, but it was the one, most adaptable to the change".

To me, this has two implications. One is the obvious one about the adaptability, but the second one is about why species got extinct? It is likely to be the malpractices of the majority of the population.

 

[Sohail Shuja]

You have dug yourself into a hole bro.

Im not talking about history, I am talking about Qurans guidance with regard to slavery. If you are a Muslim then I am sure you agree that Quran is meant to be a guidance for all times not just a specific time in history.

Actually Doc, I don't seem to have any reference from Quran which "Promotes" slavery.
Rather FREEING A SLAVE IS THE ONE OF THE GREATEST REDEMPTIVE ACT (KAFFARAH). So this act is considered a noble deed which undoes the effects of a sin. In this way, Islam promotes freedom from slavery.

You are requested to provide one reference alone, where it is cherished to take a slave. Muhammad (SAW) even used to free prisoners of wars even if they were ready to teach his people to read and write and no other ransom was needed.

Slavery has remained a practice in human societies, even 13 long centuries of advent of Islam and 19 after the advent of Christianity. Islam only sets some rules for slavery.

So let me ask you a question and prove me a liar once and for all...

1. what is the instruction given in this book of guidance for all time about slavery? Is it allowed or is it haraam like pork and wine?

It is allowed, under conditions
1: You should not treat them harshly
2: You do not earn from them sex money. Yourself is allowed to have sex with a slave, but provided that the child who is born thereafter, bears full rights of a legal heir.

2. What is the instructions in Quran regarding sex slaves? Are you allowed to have sex with your female slaves or not?

Yes, because in that way you prevent the evolution of brothels in your society and prevent STI's and STDs. Moreover, as described earlier, that the child who is born is the legal heir of the male. This ensures the"Preservation of the gene pool"

Slavery is thoroughly discussed in Quran so it shouldnt be hard for you to answer these.

I am waiting for your answers. Cheers!

Yes, indeed it is thoroughly discussed in Quran, but not thoroughly read and understood by many who discuss about it. We have a habit of cherry picking. We mostly highlight what suits us.