I posted this a few times on the same day the forum went down

the threads were removed each time

i am a heterosexual and I support human rights

My view is epi-genetics explains the differences in human sexuality

there fore homosexuality has a natural cause explained by epi-genetics

so therefore anyone discriminating against homosexuality is discriminating against a natural cause

this is what I posted

Science, Politicians, human rights and homosexuality

this research is from The Quarterly Review of Biology

William R. Rice, rice@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Urban Friberg, urban.friberg@ebc.uu.se and Sergey Gavrilets, gavrila@tiem.utk.edu

Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California Santa Barbara, California 93106 USA

Department of Evolutionary Biology, Uppsala University Norbyvägen 18D, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Mathematics, National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee 37996 USA

Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167

If homosexuality is based on epi-genetics and the environment of the womb

then homosexuality is a natural occurrence based on nature

so consider this

when our politicians in the Lower House and Senate voted No on the gay rights bill

they made themselves human rights abusers by discriminating against nature when they voted no against gay rights

here is the abstract from the link

ABSTRACT

Male and female homosexuality have substantial prevalence in humans. Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers. This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for homosexuality. It is well established that fetal androgen signaling strongly influences sexual development. We show that an unappreciated feature of this process is reduced androgen sensitivity in XX fetuses and enhanced sensitivity in XY fetuses, and that this difference is most feasibly caused by numerous sex-specific epigenetic modifications (“epi-marks”) originating in embryonic stem cells. These epi-marks buffer XX fetuses from masculinization due to excess fetal androgen exposure and similarly buffer XY fetuses from androgen underexposure. Extant data indicates that individual epi-marks influence some but not other sexually dimorphic traits, vary in strength across individuals, and are produced during ontogeny and erased between generations. Those that escape erasure will steer development of the sexual phenotypes they influence in a gonad-discordant direction in opposite sex offspring, mosaically feminizing XY offspring and masculinizing XX offspring. Such sex-specific epi-marks are sexually antagonistic (SA-epi-marks) because they canalize sexual development in the parent that produced them, but contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex offspring when unerased. In this model, homosexuality occurs when stronger-than-average SA-epi-marks (influencing sexual preference) from an opposite-sex parent escape erasure and are then paired with a weaker-than-average de novo sex-specific epi-marks produced in opposite-sex offspring. Our model predicts that homosexuality is part of a wider phenomenon in which recently evolved androgen-influenced traits commonly display gonad-trait discordances at substantial frequency, and that the molecular feature underlying most homosexuality is not DNA polymorphism(s), but epi-marks that evolved to canalize sexual dimorphic development that sometimes carryover across generations and contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex descendants.

any biology experts around?

It is not my intention to upset people

it does look like to me that epigenetics has explained differences in sexuality

natural causes should not be discriminated against

anyone agree with this research

there are three universities involved

Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California Santa Barbara, California 93106 USA

Department of Evolutionary Biology, Uppsala University Norbyvägen 18D, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Mathematics, National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee 37996 USA

THis isn’t new information, and gender identity and sexual preference has long been discussed among various genetics, developmental, neurobiology and behavioural research groups as part of natural variation within a species havinga biological basis.

If the information is known

Then why are people discriminating against a natural biological cause?

CrazyNeutrino said:

If the information is known

Then why are people discriminating against a natural biological cause?

Because some people don’t consider it natural.

is there another explanation that is not natural?

CrazyNeutrino said:

is there another explanation that is not natural?

sin

CrazyNeutrino said:

is there another explanation that is not natural?

in a rational, secular society? Nup. Unless you blame artifical red food colouring or MDMA-fluoride-melamine in the water supply.

some people don’t believe in evolution. some don’t believe the earth is 4.7 billion years old. you can’t force people to conform to your beliefs. you can’t make them vote in certain ways. maybe it is unfair but that is what happens.

neomyrtus_ said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

is there another explanation that is not natural?

in a rational, secular society? Nup. Unless you blame artifical red food colouring or MDMA-fluoride-melamine in the water supply.

You’re not making any sense CN. There are many parts of society that are neither secular nor rational. They’ll believe what they want to believe.

chemtrails

>>>You’re not making any sense CN. There are many parts of society that are neither secular nor rational. They’ll believe what they want to believe.

Yes, There are things which dont make sense to me

I guess Im on a learning curve

so religion is playing apart in this discrimination

neomyrtus_ said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

is there another explanation that is not natural?

in a rational, secular society? Nup. Unless you blame artifical red food colouring or MDMA-fluoride-melamine in the water supply.

Yeah, where can I find a rational secular society? Sweden?

Is he Swedish?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmckWVPRaI

neomyrtus_ said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmckWVPRaI

Those nice ladies on the music video need to be told that women already have voting rights.

dare I say it – but there was scientific rationale given a century ago arguing why women shouldn’t vote (and oh am I hearing sirens now)..

so caution is exercised when applying scientific discourse to rationise decisions in politics and society..

it’s all philosofikal an’ stuff…

CrazyNeutrino said:

If the information is known

Then why are people discriminating against a natural biological cause?

People have an innate sense of privilege. Like the Borg from Star Trek, they think that the purpose of any society should be to service them.

So if something like homosexuality makes them uncomfortable, they think that the society they live in should condemn and discriminate against homosexuals.

For the most part people aren’t interested in forming justifiable opinions about anything. They are more interested in justifying their existing opinions.

We are long overdue for a sequel to the age of enlightenment.

>there fore homosexuality has a natural cause

Unless you believe in the supernatural, we can take it for granted that homosexuality has a natural cause.

When supernaturalists (like the Church etc) talk of homosexuality being “unnatural” they’re not talking about nature as it is understood by science. To them, “natural” and “unnatural” behaviour are ostensibly “moral” categories determined by God. (I say “ostensibly” because religious morality makes no attempt to rationally explain itself. Homosexuality is “bad” because “God says so”, not for any reason explicable to the human mind).

Bubblecar said:

>there fore homosexuality has a natural cause

Unless you believe in the supernatural, we can take it for granted that homosexuality has a natural cause.

When supernaturalists (like the Church etc) talk of homosexuality being “unnatural” they’re not talking about nature as it is understood by science. To them, “natural” and “unnatural” behaviour are ostensibly “moral” categories determined by God. (I say “ostensibly” because religious morality makes no attempt to rationally explain itself. Homosexuality is “bad” because “God says so”, not for any reason explicable to the human mind).

You have forgotten the catlick crede of breed, breed, breed. Give us more catlicks to make us stronger, richer, more powerful.

Homosexuals fall at the first hurdle.

Bubblecar said:

>there fore homosexuality has a natural cause

Unless you believe in the supernatural, we can take it for granted that homosexuality has a natural cause.

In addition, the basic premise of the thread doesn’t work. There are plenty of things that are “natural” that are (quite rightly) discriminated against. Murder and rape are two obvious examples.

The reason for not discriminating against homosexuals is that their activities do not harm anyone else.

Bubblecar said:

Unless you believe in the supernatural, we can take it for granted that homosexuality has a natural cause.

I’m not a huge fan of extending the meaning of words so that they include everything and thus distinguish nothing. Even though I accept that it is analytically inconsistent, I think that there is a meaning associated with ‘natural’ such that eg breathing air unassisted is ‘natural human behaviour’ whereas breathing pure oxygen in a spacesuit in space is not.

Of course even within this restricted sense of ‘natural’ homosexuality is well within the spectrum of natural human behaviour.

CrazyNeutrino said:

………
it does look like to me that epigenetics has explained differences in sexuality

natural causes should not be discriminated against

I agree with you that homosexuality shouldn’t be discriminated against – but that’s because it causes no harm rather than merely because it’s natural. Psychopaths may be naturally formed but that doesn’t mean we don’t need protection from them.

RichardC said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

………
it does look like to me that epigenetics has explained differences in sexuality

natural causes should not be discriminated against

I agree with you that homosexuality shouldn’t be discriminated against – but that’s because it causes no harm rather than merely because it’s natural. Psychopaths may be naturally formed but that doesn’t mean we don’t need protection from them.

….which doesn’t mean I’m equating the two….necessarily…

RichardC said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

………
it does look like to me that epigenetics has explained differences in sexuality

natural causes should not be discriminated against

I agree with you that homosexuality shouldn’t be discriminated against – but that’s because it causes no harm rather than merely because it’s natural. Psychopaths may be naturally formed but that doesn’t mean we don’t need protection from them.

Good point Richard :)

I agree with you that homosexuality shouldn’t be discriminated against – but that’s because it causes no harm rather than merely because it’s natural. Psychopaths may be naturally formed but that doesn’t mean we don’t need protection from them.

….which doesn’t mean I’m equating the two….necessarily…

I’m looking for a job on Tony Abbott’s front bench.

Hiya Rev – nice to see you’re still here!

A slight divergence – a beef I have with the PM’s stand on gay marriage is that she acts as if her attitude – in favour of retaining the status-quo – was some kind of “neutral” position whereas it seems clear to me that the Neutral position is not to discriminate. Putting it bluntly, JG is in favour of using the force of the Laws of Australia to prevent same sex marriages and to sanction anyone who performs one or attempts to marry a person of the same sex.

Queen signs charter to advance gay rights
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-12/queen-signs-historic-anti-discrimination-charter/4566520

But Australian-born gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the sovereign had made no “explicit commitment” to homosexual equality.

so its an interpretation of gender discrimination

well, its a step in the right direction for human rights

a beef I have with the PM’s stand on gay marriage

The beef I have is that she is prepared to prosecute a position that fairly obviously neither she, nor the majority of her party, nor for that matter the majority of the population at large subscribe to, solely because she sees some narrow tactical advantage politically.

I understand that politics is always a blend of pragmatism with principle but once people start being treated entirely as instrumental objects of political calculus then I’m hopping off the bus.

MartinB said:

a beef I have with the PM’s stand on gay marriage

The beef I have is that she is prepared to prosecute a position that fairly obviously neither she, nor the majority of her party, nor for that matter the majority of the population at large subscribe to, solely because she sees some narrow tactical advantage politically.

I understand that politics is always a blend of pragmatism with principle but once people start being treated entirely as instrumental objects of political calculus then I’m hopping off the bus.

That’s a tough PoV Martin – I’m still prepared to allow “Misguided” rather than “Mendacious” to describe her attitude. However, it goes without saying that I regard the Leader of the Opposition’s attitude is at the very least misguided. The difference is that Abbott doesn’t really attempt to pass off his own position as anything other than “Religious reactionary”.

Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167

maybe someone with knowledge of biology and epi-genetics and who can explain this research should brief the Prime Minister on current developments in biology

the opposition leader should be briefed as well

CrazyNeutrino said:

Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167

maybe someone with knowledge of biology and epi-genetics and who can explain this research should brief the Prime Minister on current developments in biology

the opposition leader should be briefed as well

hy do you think the biology is important CN?

MartinB said:

Bubblecar said:

Unless you believe in the supernatural, we can take it for granted that homosexuality has a natural cause.

I’m not a huge fan of extending the meaning of words so that they include everything and thus distinguish nothing. Even though I accept that it is analytically inconsistent, I think that there is a meaning associated with ‘natural’ such that eg breathing air unassisted is ‘natural human behaviour’ whereas breathing pure oxygen in a spacesuit in space is not.

Of course even within this restricted sense of ‘natural’ homosexuality is well within the spectrum of natural human behaviour.

Yes but that distinction is not really relevant here. Homosexual behaviour doesn’t require technological devices :)

And even when people distinguish between natural and man-made stuff, they’re happy to acknowledge that it’s natural for humans to invent and manufacture things. The important point in this context is that those who claim homosexuality is “against nature” are really talking about a religious conception of nature that is not translatable into either a scientifically meaningful concept or a rationally defensible ethical concept.

Bubblecar said:

Yes but that distinction is not really relevant here. Homosexual behaviour doesn’t require technological devices :)

Sure, it was an ‘in principle’ objection.

Bubblecar said:

The important point in this context is that those who claim homosexuality is “against nature” are really talking about a religious conception of nature that is not translatable into either a scientifically meaningful concept or a rationally defensible ethical concept.

Agreed.

A lot has been written about curing homosexuality but I’d say a vaccine is a long way off although some clinical trials are ongoing.
More success seems to be happening in the theological field where dedicated men and women are looking to prayer as a cure.
Here’s a paper written by Francis MacNutt that speaks to just that topic, it’s a fascinating read, you probably wont be able to put it down.

http://www.christianhealingmin.org/newsletter/archives/healing/homosexuality.php

Thort I should throw this into the pot too

http://letsbefriends.blogspot.com.au/

Peak Warming Man said:

Here’s a paper written by Francis MacNutt that speaks to just that topic, it’s a fascinating read, you probably wont be able to put it down.

Did this sort of thing cure you of your homosexual inclinations?

>>Did this sort of thing cure you of your homosexual inclinations?

I never came down with the affliction Witty but it worked wonders on Peter Slipper, only the other day he was saying he feels like a new man, apparently.

>christianhealing

I’m sure it’s possible to cure people of Christianity but only if they’re willing to acknowledge that they’re ill, and actually want to get better.

bob(from black rock) said:

Thort I should throw this into the pot too

http://letsbefriends.blogspot.com.au/

Then there is the story of Ko Ko the Gorilla and the kitten she requested from her human, she named the kitten “All Ball” because the kitten looked like a ball, Ko Ko was taught Amslan by her human so they could “talk” to each other.

Peak Warming Man said:

A lot has been written about curing homosexuality but I’d say a vaccine is a long way off although some clinical trials are ongoing.
More success seems to be happening in the theological field where dedicated men and women are looking to prayer as a cure.
Here’s a paper written by Francis MacNutt that speaks to just that topic, it’s a fascinating read, you probably wont be able to put it down.

http://www.christianhealingmin.org/newsletter/archives/healing/homosexuality.php

Sexual Orientation Conversion that really works?

Tim Minchin will be thrilled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIm8WgwkTeI

Bubblecar said:

>christianhealing

I’m sure it’s possible to cure people of Christianity but only if they’re willing to acknowledge that they’re ill, and actually want to get better.

.

:) :)

.

>>Tim Minchin will be thrilled:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIm8WgwkTeI

I haven’t seen that one for a while, classic.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167

maybe someone with knowledge of biology and epi-genetics and who can explain this research should brief the Prime Minister on current developments in biology

the opposition leader should be briefed as well

hy do you think the biology is important CN?

If genetics and biology can be explained to people who have no training in it, no experience or understanding of it

then they might accept reality

this is a good example of where science meets politicians

the research into epi-genetics has been done

politicians have created laws based on their opinions but the laws covering gay marriage are wrong

epi- genetics has shown that sexuality is determined by natural events inside the human body

and not by some abstract concept of sin

this abstract concept of sin is one based on fear of the unknown

a fear of something that cannot be easily explained which religious people seem to do with anything that cannot be easily explained to them

and this is why religion has always had to play catch up with science

look at all the scientific discoveries that have been done which conflict with religious views

this whole subject covers sexuality, genetics, religion and politics , discrimination and human rights

I think legal euthanasia has a similar road to travel, has religious ideology is hindering people who want it

this whole concept of death, heaven and hell, a religious way to die

religion has done a lot of damage to human rights around the world

epigenetics has shown that sexuality is detirmed by natural events in the human body and not casued by some abst

Iit is difficult for some people to visualize genetics

after all you really cannot see it, one cannot see individual atomic particles either

for that you need science

So how do you deal with people who say that other “natural” behaviour (such as murder and rape) must be OK as well then?

The Rev Dodgson said:

So how do you deal with people who say that other “natural” behaviour (such as murder and rape) must be OK as well then?

hmmm

well what im saying is a couple having kids cannot tinker around with genetic influence that is happening in the womb during birth

animals and wildlife murder and rape and so do humans

our notions of modern behavior try to control our natural instincts

rape and murder take away peoples rights

ethics and logic educate people about human rights and good behavior in a modern society

I might take a guess and say emotional intelligence plays a major part in murder and rape

that is the awareness of ones emotions and feelings, and the ability to control them but people have different education levels

and people have different abilities to control their emotions

emotions born out of their own body chemistry and the environment around them

a rapist might have a strong sexual feeling or urge and that is a chemical factor, sexual feeling are controlled by the bodies chemistry

but, if that person has little or no education in ethics logic or human rights

then the sexual urge takes precedence

Isn’t the equating of natural & unnatural with right & wrong itself misguided? Does nature really care is someone performs an act that isn’t within its scope? When nature forbids an action, it’s by impossibility rather than punishment.

KJW said:

Isn’t the equating of natural & unnatural with right & wrong itself misguided? Does nature really care is someone performs an act that isn’t within its scope? When nature forbids an action, it’s by impossibility rather than punishment.

Though admittedly, nature does punish stupidity.

KJW said:

Isn’t the equating of natural & unnatural with right & wrong itself misguided? Does nature really care is someone performs an act that isn’t within its scope? When nature forbids an action, it’s by impossibility rather than punishment.

I have pondered that question in the past

that lion which killed its female partner in capivity in a zoo

did it know it did a wrongful act?

does the lion have any concept of punishment?

When nature forbids an action, it’s by impossibility rather than punishment.
———————————————————————————————

To qoute D Adams,

If somthing cannot have possibly happened… it must have happened impossibly.

Possibly the wrong thread.

CrazyNeutrino said:

KJW said:

Isn’t the equating of natural & unnatural with right & wrong itself misguided? Does nature really care is someone performs an act that isn’t within its scope? When nature forbids an action, it’s by impossibility rather than punishment.

I have pondered that question in the past

that lion which killed its female partner in capivity in a zoo

did it know it did a wrongful act?

does the lion have any concept of punishment?

It’d have to have a system of morals to perceive it did something ‘wrong’ wouldn’t it?

does the lion have any concept of punishment?
—————————————

Apparently yes, punishment by death it seems.

Mr Ironic said:

does the lion have any concept of punishment?
—————————————

Apparently yes, punishment by death it seems.

Could be a Mossad agent.

On the question of whether or not homosexuality is natural, I’ve observed homosexuality in tropical fish, and therefore homosexuality fulfils any reasonable definition of “natural”.

On the question of whether or not homosexuality is natural, I’ve observed homosexuality in tropical fish, and therefore homosexuality fulfils any reasonable definition of “natural”.
————————————————————————

Yeah me three,

However, as it happens, there is an attempt of the subdominate male not to show his true colours and be killed as a rival.

Not convinced it is consensual.

Females probably ‘need’ to try as being egg bound is death.

Mr Ironic said:

On the question of whether or not homosexuality is natural, I’ve observed homosexuality in tropical fish, and therefore homosexuality fulfils any reasonable definition of “natural”.
————————————————————————

Yeah me three,

However, as it happens, there is an attempt of the subdominate male not to show his true colours and be killed as a rival.

Not convinced it is consensual.

Females probably ‘need’ to try as being egg bound is death.

Would it matter? Does the animal kingdom give a shit about consensual? What about those rapist dolphins and mallard ducks? Or maybe they have to to get the juices flowing. Who knows.

Mr Ironic said:

On the question of whether or not homosexuality is natural, I’ve observed homosexuality in tropical fish, and therefore homosexuality fulfils any reasonable definition of “natural”.
————————————————————————

Yeah me three,

However, as it happens, there is an attempt of the subdominate male not to show his true colours and be killed as a rival.

Not convinced it is consensual.

Hmmm, interesting. In the example to which I refer, it didn’t appear consensual, and the subdominant male was found dead shortly after my observations.

However, I should remark that the notion of “consensuality” is separate from the notion of “naturalness”, and wasn’t a part of the consideration for my previous post.

KJW said:

Isn’t the equating of natural & unnatural with right & wrong itself misguided? Does nature really care is someone performs an act that isn’t within its scope? When nature forbids an action, it’s by impossibility rather than punishment.

For that matter, nature could not be said to be a thing which acts optimillaly. It’s often innefecient, and a very large part of the transcendent human intellect involves circumventing the natural, or rather exploiting it, for better outcomes.

Regarding the thread, homosexual rights… This is not an argument of abstract morals or ethics or natural impulses. It’s a simple question; are you happy to live in a society that discriminates against people n a very real way based upon whom they love?

Isn’t the equating of natural & unnatural with right & wrong itself misguided?
——————————————————————————
More like, The original sin.

Bubblecar’s premise is clever and witty and makes for a good sound bite, but it’s inaccurate and inefficient. Homophobia is not founded on supernatural phenomena. Many people will cite supernatural phenomena to support their homophobia, but there are deeper issues at work.

Yes, that’s right… deeper issues than religion.

So many atheists think religion is a root cause of societal ills, but they are over crediting an effect and ignoring the cause. Religion is irrelevant to the plight of homosexuals. It’s an excuse which arseholes use to justify being arseholes… Nothing more. It’s not even important these days. Hell, our PM is an avowed atheist who actually got elected.

>Bubblecar’s premise is clever and witty and makes for a good sound bite, but it’s inaccurate and inefficient. Homophobia is not founded on supernatural phenomena. Many people will cite supernatural phenomena to support their homophobia, but there are deeper issues at work.<

?

I’m talking about ideas and beliefs, not “phenomena”. I pointed out that the religious conception of “nature” is part of a supernaturalist worldview that bears no resemblance to nature as it is understood by science. Also that the religious conception of nature entails certain moral posturing, but no attempt at a rational articulation or defence of those postures.

Bubblecar said:

>Bubblecar’s premise is clever and witty and makes for a good sound bite, but it’s inaccurate and inefficient. Homophobia is not founded on supernatural phenomena. Many people will cite supernatural phenomena to support their homophobia, but there are deeper issues at work.<

?

I’m talking about ideas and beliefs, not “phenomena”. I pointed out that the religious conception of “nature” is part of a supernaturalist worldview that bears no resemblance to nature as it is understood by science. Also that the religious conception of nature entails certain moral posturing, but no attempt at a rational articulation or defence of those postures.

I understand, and please know that describing your argument as “witty and clever and a ‘sound bite’” is not meant as some underhanded criticism. I genuinely like it, it’s clever and relevant.

But the thing is, people like you and I, we’re winning this battle. Religion is going the way of the dodo. But homophobia goes beyond supernaturalist views of the world. Not all homophobes are religious.

It’s not just religious conceptions of nature that entail moral posturing; it’s human nature. And it’s this which must be addressed. The religion angle is a furphy, a waste of time. A dieing nonsense.

Julia Gillard didn’t dismiss homosexual rights a couple of years ago on Q&A because she’s a religious bigot.

>Julia Gillard didn’t dismiss homosexual rights a couple of years ago on Q&A because she’s a religious bigot.

Yes but she’s unlikely to be a homophobe, either. She’s just an opportunistic politician of rather poor tactical judgment, who doesn’t personally care about the issue.

The importance of religion is that in the minds of many people (included Gillard) it still renders homophobia “respectable” by providing it with a framework of traditional belief. This works in two ways: to convince believers that homophobia remains a “morally normative” stance in today’s rapidly changing world, or on the other hand to allow them to exploit the idea of “liberal pluralism” in order to claim that homophobic religious postures are “just as valid” as any other views, and therefore worthy of protection as a “respectable” minority position.

Those countering the religionists need to keep emphasising that homophobia is irrational and anti-social and that this reflects badly on religion as a whole.

esselte said:

Bubblecar said:

>Bubblecar’s premise is clever and witty and makes for a good sound bite, but it’s inaccurate and inefficient. Homophobia is not founded on supernatural phenomena. Many people will cite supernatural phenomena to support their homophobia, but there are deeper issues at work.<

?

I’m talking about ideas and beliefs, not “phenomena”. I pointed out that the religious conception of “nature” is part of a supernaturalist worldview that bears no resemblance to nature as it is understood by science. Also that the religious conception of nature entails certain moral posturing, but no attempt at a rational articulation or defence of those postures.

I understand, and please know that describing your argument as “witty and clever and a ‘sound bite’” is not meant as some underhanded criticism. I genuinely like it, it’s clever and relevant.

But the thing is, people like you and I, we’re winning this battle. Religion is going the way of the dodo. But homophobia goes beyond supernaturalist views of the world. Not all homophobes are religious.

It’s not just religious conceptions of nature that entail moral posturing; it’s human nature. And it’s this which must be addressed. The religion angle is a furphy, a waste of time. A dieing nonsense.

Julia Gillard didn’t dismiss homosexual rights a couple of years ago on Q&A because she’s a religious bigot.

Not all homophobes are religious.

agree

non religious individuals and gangs can be homophobes

they might dislike something because they cannot understand it

or they might dislike something because of a social trend

or it might be because of the us and them factor

and there are probably other reasons as well.

Now that the Queen has put this charter out.

its going to be interesting to see which politicians who voted no on gay marriage to see if any of them change their minds about it

Bubblecar said:

The importance of religion is that in the minds of many people (included Gillard) it still renders homophobia “respectable” by providing it with a framework of traditional belief.

I agree that that is the justification, but it’s my observation that this is quickly becoming a fringe position.

It doesn’t make it right. I’m just saying, I think that battle is won already. Sure, the old guard like our politicians are holding out, but they’re working purely on momentum. Our government and our opposition are effectively irrelevant at this time, and it’s not going to take very long for this irrelevance to take effect. This is a general observation, not solely related to homosexual rights. One battle is won. It’s time to begin the next. The posturing of the losers might echo for a few more years, but it doesn’t matter any more.

I am surprised that neither party has gone for it. I cannot see it being that much of a vote loser and although too late now, as it would be dismissed as a stunt, Labor could have done it and it would have been a perfect distraction from the other woes. Or maybe not.

>It doesn’t make it right. I’m just saying, I think that battle is won already.

Tell that to gays in muslim countries, where the imposition of homophobic Islamic law (entailing capital & corporal punishment, heavy jail terms etc) appears to be increasing, not decreasing.

Bubblecar said:

>It doesn’t make it right. I’m just saying, I think that battle is won already.

Tell that to gays in muslim countries, where the imposition of homophobic Islamic law (entailing capital & corporal punishment, heavy jail terms etc) appears to be increasing, not decreasing.

Fair comment. I was thinking Aussie-centric, and somewhat ‘Murrican-centric.

Your correct though, there’s a lot of places ‘round the world which still really suck. And a lot of that sucktitude is justified by religion. But it’s still just a justification, not a reason. Reasonable people do not hate on gays, anywhere in the world.

Bugger homosexuality. What about bisexuality? Will bisexuals be able to be married to two people?

morrie said:

Bugger homosexuality. What about bisexuality? Will bisexuals be able to be married to two people?

Eventually, probably.

Marriage conveys certain privelages encoded as legal rights between people. Within marriage, people are considered family, and this gives them certain rights regarding each other.

There’s no particular reason to restrict these rights to a couple with kids. A family could be almost anything.

this was posted in chat re the new pope.

In response to a Same-Sex Marriage Law in his home country he was quoted as saying “Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

sigh

a revivalist friend who was staying here for a few days informed me that homosexuality was a sin because the bible said so and to change that would be saying the bible is not gods word and that is wrong. sighs and smacks head against the wall

as to whether she was up on the known science on this subject …… no i know nothing about that and anyway, anyone can say what they like , or try to prove ( huh ???? ) that the bible is wrong and she will have none of that because it is the devils work smacks head harder against the wall….

so therefore science is the devils work if it disproves bible teachings .sighs harder ….. personally i would like to see religious bigot progators who preach this rubbish to the ‘faithful’ taken through the highest courts in the land and their bigotry and bias exposed for what it is.

Well, saying that it is not natural means it contradicts the science. But, saying that it is a sin does not contradict the science, it is just a personal opinion guided by the teachings of their organisation. If you do not belive in god then someone telling you something you do is a sin should just be water off a ducks back.

In the meantime, we just have to live with fish, octopus and penguin sinners and their evil homosexual ways.

• In the meantime, we just have to live with fish, octopus and penguin sinners and their evil homosexual ways.

But animals don’t go to heaven anyway so they are free to do as they please…

**personally i would like to see religious bigot progators who preach this rubbish to the ‘faithful’ taken through the highest courts in the land and their bigotry and bias exposed for what it is.*

——

Ian Plimer tried that. It failed. Cost him his house and his savings.

>personally i would like to see religious bigot progators who preach this rubbish to the ‘faithful’ taken through the highest courts in the land and their bigotry and bias exposed for what it is

OK, the katolic church is certainly not a paradigm of virtue on this issue, which is not particularly surprising, but they are the voice of moderation compared to some of the nuttier (sic) versions of christianity, and heaven forfend, certain branches of the muslim faith seem to have a teensy little problem with homosexuality.

> but they are the voice of moderation

No. The fact that there are worse religious homophobes than the Catholics does not make the Catholics “the voice of moderation”.

The current pope has explicitly stated that gay rights are the work of Satan. The man is frankly insane.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-14/chavez-swung-papal-race-from-heaven/4572336

I’ts so good to know that Venezula helped get the new Pope there, isn’t it?

> but they are the voice of moderation

Jaysus, Bubbles, you can’t snip part of a comment and then argue against that portion only, FFS.

I know they’re nutters, but I’d prefer that sort of nutter than some of the other varieties. I’d rather prefer no nutters, but as I don’t believe in the tooth fairy, I doubt that that is going to happen any time soon.

I predict that sometime in the future the Australian Federal Government will apologize to the gay community, when more people understand the implications of epi-genetics being an natural occurrence, it wont be this current government, nor the next one, but some time after that

the catholic church and other religions will also at some point in the future have to face the facts as well

that the science that explains ep-genetics is more meaningful than making up something and calling it a sin

furious said:

If you do not belive in god then someone telling you something you do is a sin should just be water off a ducks back.

Ultimately, the issue is to what extent biblical law should be a part of secular law. Crimes such as murder are biblical crimes, but we accept them as secular crimes irrespective of our belief in the bible.