It Gets Better at Brigham Young University

[Mr. McGibblets]

TunaBreath, I didn't ask for a discussion I asked for details. Cool reading skills.

You want details and no discussion? Then use the google. Here, I did it for you and these are a couple responses:

Neutral - https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds/lds-history-evolution.php

Apologetic, dismissing all statements as opinion, not "doctrine" - https://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Age_of_the_Earth

What some consider an "Anti" source - https://mormonthink.com/scienceweb.htm

However, your comments imply that you want discussion and not just details. Good luck with that.

 

[TroutBum]

You want details and no discussion? Then use the google. Here, I did it for you and these are a couple responses:

Neutral - https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds/lds-history-evolution.php

Apologetic, dismissing all statements as opinion, not "doctrine" - https://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Age_of_the_Earth

What some consider an "Anti" source - https://mormonthink.com/scienceweb.htm

However, your comments imply that you want discussion and not just details. Good luck with that.

You just put waaaaaay too much effort into a response to BeanClown. +19 anyhow.

 

[spycam1]

Anyone here read anti-Mormon/apologist arguments? It's a little hobby of mine that I find to be pretty interesting and relevant to my life.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

If anyone has some good ones on youtube I would watch them. Even though I am a Muslim I enjoy watching Christian Apologetics like John Lennox and Dinesh D'souza because I realize that their arguments for the existence of God are even stronger for Islam.

 

[franklin]

Ya because the biologist in me is thinking that in evolutionary terms the offspring that are gay don't reproduce to produce offspring so their "gayness" doesn't get passed on down the offspring.

The wannabe biologist in you. There are many factors you're naively omitting. Three examples: 1. If homosexuality is a genetic anomoly then what is the natural mutation rate? 2. Is it a recessive trait that can be carried without showing up while adding other beneficial traits that aid survival and propagate the gene (think sickle cell)? 3. Is it linked to a more promiscuous lifestyle fostering a higher/broader reproductive rate than single partner heterosexuals?

Agreed, although I tend to lean strongly toward the opinion that sexual orientation is a hard wired part of our personality. For those who think that homosexuality is a choice, I would only ask about the circumstances surrounding their conscious choice to be heterosexual instead of homosexual.

A lot of things are hard wired. I have a hard wire attraction to beer, money, and the sun. I don't wake up and ponder whether I'm attracted to beer or not, or when exactly this attraction manifested itself.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

The wannabe biologist in you. There are many factors you're naively omitting. Three examples: 1. If homosexuality is a genetic anomoly then what is the natural mutation rate? 2. Is it a recessive trait that can be carried without showing up while adding other beneficial traits that aid survival and propagate the gene (think sickle cell)? 3. Is it linked to a more promiscuous lifestyle fostering a higher/broader reproductive rate than single partner heterosexuals?



A lot of things are hard wired. I have a hard wire attraction to beer, money, and the sun. I don't wake up and ponder whether I'm attracted to beer or not, or when exactly this attraction manifested itself.

I should clarify. This is what I would say to those who think that sexual orientation is a choice. The word choice implies a conscious decision between competing alternatives.

And yes, you did make a conscious choice when you decided that you liked beer and that you were going to drink it. It was not a biological imperative.

Sexual orientation is not a conscious choice from a menu of sexual alternatives. There is no decision point. It is fundamentally who you are. An inherent part of your personality and is quite a bit different in nature from, say, drinking beer.

 

[franklin]

And yes, you did make a conscious choice when you decided that you liked beer and that you were going to drink it. It was not a biological imperative.

That's simply not true. I choose to drink beer. I did not choose my biological attraction to beer.

Sexual orientation is not a conscious choice from a menu of sexual alternatives. There is no decision point. It is fundamentally who you are. An inherent part of your personality and is quite a bit different in nature from, say, drinking beer.

That's your opinion.

If you're going to argue it's a fundamental part of us (genetic) then you should actually consider genetics. Pathways can be turned on or off. It's possible there is a homo inside all of us but the pathways are turned off in most. There may be a "silver bullet" drug someday that permanently inactivates homo tendencies and vice versa.

It's also quite possible that, in those who are already genetically susceptible to homosexuality, other choices lead to a homosexual condition without having to actually ever decide whether one is homo or not, as you have said.

The physiology is mostly unknown at this point. I suspect more will come to light as medicine and technology advances and opens new avenues for research. I suppose we could just forget about the actual biology though, and go with some mystical element that makes us either gay or straight at random.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

That's simply not true. I choose to drink beer. I did not choose my biological attraction to beer.

I'm not sure I'd call it a 'biological attraction' to beer. Equating one's preference to malted fermented beverage to one's sexual orientation strikes me as an inappropriate comparison. Which beverages you enjoy and prefer to consume is a very different kind of issue, with far less weighty implications, than one's sexual orientation. The latter is a fundamental part of who we are as humans and individuals, the former not so much.

That's your opinion.

If you're going to argue it's a fundamental part of us (genetic) then you should actually consider genetics. Pathways can be turned on or off. It's possible there is a homo inside all of us but the pathways are turned off in most. There may be a "silver bullet" drug someday that permanently inactivates homo tendencies and vice versa.

It's also quite possible that, in those who are already genetically susceptible to homosexuality, other choices lead to a homosexual condition without having to actually ever decide whether one is homo or not, as you have said.

The physiology is mostly unknown at this point. I suspect more will come to light as medicine and technology advances and opens new avenues for research. I suppose we could just forget about the actual biology though, and go with some mystical element that makes us either gay or straight at random.

That's also the current status of empirical research, though I admit it's a far from settled empirical question. I am very confident that if we could, say, do a representative survey of the world's population, we would find that one's sexual orientation is not, for the vast majority, a choice. It is a biological imperative that is hard wired, whether the cause is genetic, environmental, or both. Again, I ask, when did you decide to be straight instead of gay? (Or gay instead of straight?)

As to the rest of your post, I don't get the bigger point you're trying to make here. I suppose it is possible that we could manipulate one's sexual orientation somehow through some kind of gene therapy. So what? If true, it corroborates the argument that sexual orientation is genetically determined, which is consistent with the point I'm making.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

The wannabe biologist in you. There are many factors you're naively omitting. Three examples: 1. If homosexuality is a genetic anomoly then what is the natural mutation rate? 2. Is it a recessive trait that can be carried without showing up while adding other beneficial traits that aid survival and propagate the gene (think sickle cell)? 3. Is it linked to a more promiscuous lifestyle fostering a higher/broader reproductive rate than single partner heterosexuals?

A lot of things are hard wired. I have a hard wire attraction to beer, money, and the sun. I don't wake up and ponder whether I'm attracted to beer or not, or when exactly this attraction manifested itself.

The Wannabe intellect in you.

I ommited them because I knew people like you know nothing about genetics so I didn't want to confuse the simple minded folk like you that get confused easily.

1)What is the Mutation rate? Mutation rates are so low that any genetics that people get are asummed to inherited it from their parents rather then mutate spontanously from their parents. It is ignored.

2) Recessive traits that cease ALL reproduction (or death which in survival terms is the same as NO reproduction) are extremely rare and are localized mainly to one population. Sickle cell is linked with African Americans while Parkinsons is linked with Jews.

3) Lets say gay people live better longer more sucessful lives. Lets say it is 100 times more. Even if this is the case then reproducing no offspring is about equal as death as far as genetics is concerned (assuming gay and not bi).

 

[franklin]

Again, I ask, when did you decide to be straight instead of gay? (Or gay instead of straight?)

As to the rest of your post, I don't get the bigger point you're trying to make here. I suppose it is possible that we could manipulate one's sexual orientation somehow through some kind of gene therapy. So what? If true, it corroborates the argument that sexual orientation is genetically determined, which is consistent with the point I'm making.

I wasn't trying to make any bigger point and don't see where we really disagree. I had a side comment on hard wiring and drinking beer and not much more. We're all hard wired and many choices we make have actually been predetermined by our genetic makeup and active pathways.

The Wannabe intellect in you.

I ommited them because I knew people like you know nothing about genetics so I didn't want to confuse the simple minded folk like you that get confused easily.

1)What is the Mutation rate? Mutation rates are so low that any genetics that people get are asummed to inherited it from their parents rather then mutate spontanously from their parents. It is ignored.

2) Recessive traits that cease ALL reproduction (or death which in survival terms is the same as NO reproduction) are extremely rare and are localized mainly to one population. Sickle cell is linked with African Americans while Parkinsons is linked with Jews.

3) Lets say gay people live better longer more sucessful lives. Lets say it is 100 times more. Even if this is the case then reproducing no offspring is about equal as death as far as genetics is concerned (assuming gay and not bi).

You remind me a lot of those middle aged women students.