It's *not* okay to be gay: A tale from a Catholic school

A few weeks ago, my sister was telling us about one of the more memorable presentations her class had in the Immaculate Conception Academy.

My sister is in high school, and for those of you who have never set foot in a Catholic school before, each school year includes a mandatory Christian Life Education (CLE) class or its equivalent, where students are taught the basics tenets of Catholic education.

Getting back on topic, sis narrated that one of the groups in class was asked to do a presentation on why homosexuality is wrong. To summarize the presentation’s points:

  • Homosexuality is a psychological problem.
  • Gays became that way because they experimented with what the media presents.
  • Gays shouldn’t be condemned for being what they are, as long as they don’t act upon it.
  • Gays should be pitied.
  • Homosexuality can be cured.
  • Gays only want to marry so they can have limes and lemons
  • Gay couples cannot be good parents
  • Marriage is only for straight couples
  • It’s not love unless it’s straight.

Granted there is plenty of data countering each of these points, but that’s not the reason I’m hunkered down in front of my laptop, and writing this short piece. My reason is simple: to illustrate the sort of “values formation” that a lot of these Catholic schools indoctrinate their students in.

It is an important point to raise, given that religious freedom is one of the more common arguments the Catholic Church uses against the Reproductive Health Bill.

That is, for their leaders, the RH Bill’s sex education program will teach people family planning methods not supported by their laws, namely contraceptive use. Practically any debate that starts up will begin with this argument from Pro-Lifers, who believe that anything contrary to the church’s teachings on sexuality is unacceptable, and is a breach of their right to teach.

And by extension, church leaders have also questioned the RH Bill with regard to how much authority it will leave with their own private schools. Recent discussions have gone in this direction, with Jesuits discussing the matter on whether Catholic schools should have the right to implement their own sex education curriculum, based on their religious beliefs.

The problem is, where does one draw the line on what Catholic schools – or schools owned by a religious institution for that matter – can teach their kids, when it’s become bleeding obvious that it’s become a platform for bigotry?

Values formation indeed.

On a parting note, I do leave with some good news. My sister also told me that virtually everybody in the class thought the presentation was bullshit, and hence didn’t believe it. Perhaps it’s worth noting that sis has also mentioned that their entire class admitted to being Gleek.

Kurt is awesome that way.

82 comments

  1. I'm an incoming ICA senior, and was well, forced to do this presentation last year. The only views we could express on the topics were those of the Catholic Church's, and no one else's. It was hell. For me, at least.

  2. gay == source of STD's, you don't make love with other man's butthole. bottomline — gay is a disease.

    Be straight and you'll be fine. real man and woman builds a family, family builds a nation.

    that's why you only have king and queen, you don't see "queer".

    • [gay == source of STD's, you don't make love with other man's butthole. bottomline — gay is a disease.]

      So STDs are strictly a gay thing. Right.
      Tell that to WHO, Likhaan, and the Department Health.

      And no, gayness isn't a disease, as the American Psychological Association will tell you more than once. http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/index.aspx

      [Be straight and you'll be fine. real man and woman builds a family, family builds a nation. ]

      Homosexuality is no more an indicator of how much of a "man" a person is than being straight is. A real man does not give a fuck about another person's sexuality, and treats everybody with equal respect. A real man is secure enough in his identity that he does not manifest his anxieties and insecurities through discrimination and hate.

      And since you're a bigot bugoy, you're not a real man. Come back when you grow a proper pair of balls.

    • [gay == source of STD's, you don't make love with other man's butthole. bottomline — gay is a disease.]

      Hey genius… http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

      While it is true that homosexual activities among males was the bulk of cases of AIDs incidences in this study, it is also equally true that the disease was most prevalent among African-Americans and women engaging in straight sex.

      So by extension of your definition, women and African-Americans = disease.

      Idiot.

      • still you don't make love with other man's butthole. who does that?

        and by the way thanks for the chart, it goes to show that most african american were jailed, got fucked in the ass cuz they were forced to or too many black gays are in jail.

  3. Good explanation! It completely avoided my question though:

    Are people who are against homosexuals simply averted to gays or are actually being intolerant of them?

    • Wait, scratch that. I just realized that you never said that Darwinists really can't blame people who are against homosexuals, but that Darwinists really can't blame people for having something against homosexuals, meaning an objection component.

      But in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, the objection component is clearly not due to Darwinism but dogmatism. And so while Darwinists really should not be quick to blame all those who feel an aversion to homosexuals especially if such aversion is due to natural selection, I think Darwinists are justified in blaming 'certain' people for having aversions that are clearly due to something else, i.e., religious dogma.

      • I think you are simply saying that Darwinists can blame bigotry, yes. But the naural aversion for Homosexuality becoming ascendant in society is something that's blameless on a purely Darwinistic account.

        So It's either you try to refute that, or you concede that at least, until further information from evolutionary psychology comes in, it makes sense and has explanatory power.

        • Ah, but the issue here is not the 'natural' aversion of society, but the particular aversion of the Roman Catholic Church which is anything but natural.

          You said that Darwinists really can't blame people for having aversions that are natural, but as I've pointed out, the Church's aversion to gays is anything but natural.

          So no, I'm not going to refute that because that's not the issue in the first place.

          • I think you will find, that that was the issue in the first place. Read my very first comment. I said Darwinists can't blame people for having an aversion towards homosexuality. Why don't you read my very first comment then.

          • I've read your first comment many times, and may I remind you that the article on which you commented was about the Church's aversion to homosexuality. So when you said that Darwinists can't blame people for having an aversion towards homosexuality, had you added something like, "particularly those whose aversions are natural," I would have agreed. But what you said was so general as to include those people the article is talking about, and that's why I said that while Darwinists really should not be quick to blame ALL those who feel an aversion to homosexuals especially if such aversion is due to natural selection, I think Darwinists are justified in blaming 'CERTAIN' people for having aversions that are clearly due to something else, i.e., religious dogma.

          • [Darwinists really should not be quick to blame ALL those who feel an aversion to homosexuals especially if such aversion is due to natural selection, I think Darwinists are justified in blaming 'CERTAIN' people for having aversions that are clearly due to something else, i.e., religious dogma.]

            — Firstly, thanks for conceding the point that Darwinists can't really blame people for having aversions. And on your second point, I find that you really haven't shown me that that particular aversion comes from dogma. Because it's not only Christians who seem averted.

          • I did not concede that Darwinists can't really blame people for having aversions. I said that while Darwinists really should not be quick to blame ALL those who feel an aversion to homosexuals especially if such aversion is due to natural selection, I think Darwinists are justified in blaming 'CERTAIN' people for having aversions that are clearly due to something else, i.e., religious dogma.

            [And on your second point, I find that you really haven't shown me that that particular aversion comes from dogma.]

            Here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/c

          • [It's in the Bible.]

            — And the bible is not real on Darwinism but a reflection of selection pressures and biases on evolutionary psychology. So, stop asserting things.

          • Besides, since you mentioned it. What you said just begs the question whether the dogma is from God or based on the natural aversion. And ofcourse, on a Darwinian account, it will be from the natural aversion. Somewhere in the internet, you can find Dawkins' lecture on the origin of religion. And they make the claim that evolutionary psychology can explain religious ideas and so forth.

          • Now that's stretching it a big too far. You might as well argue that Darwinists cannot blame Hitler for the holocaust since he was merely trying to advance his own race. Are you saying that Darwinists hold no other worldview or that Darwinism and certain worldviews such as secular humanism are mutually exclusive?

          • It never has rendered any argument faulty. That's why I'm wondering why the people here love citing it. Tell them to stop?

  4. [Miguel, I think you're confusing eugenics with Darwin's theory of evolution. The former is not considered valid science and certainly was not endorsed in any way by Darwin himself]

    — Twin, no I'm not.

    And to make myself clear, so that there would be no other mindless rant based on some misconstrual of what I said:

    I DO NOT THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG, since I think there is more to life than a Darwinian explanations.. But someone who was basing life on a purely Darwinian account, would have a problem justifying his indignation with people who demonize homosexuality.

    • [I DO NOT THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG, since I think there is more to life than a Darwinian explanations.. But someone who was basing life on a purely Darwinian account, would have a problem justifying his indignation with people who demonize homosexuality. ]

      And as I have explained, and as Darwin has elaborated on in length in my quote earlier, Darwinism does not translate into us deciding to off the members of the population that we consider disadvantageous to our species as a whole. Believing in evolution simply entails understanding that the world around us develops over time; Eugenics is the business of acting on a shortsighted understanding of how the mechanism of evolution works.

      Ergo, your insistence of darwinists being wrong in being angry against bigots is a flawed argument.

      • [And as I have explained, and as Darwin has elaborated on in length in my quote earlier, Darwinism does not translate into us deciding to off the members of the population that we consider disadvantageous to our species as a whole. Believing in evolution simply entails understanding that the world around us develops over time]

        — And I didn't say that Darwinism "translate[s] into us deciding to off members". I said there is a Darwinian account of the *aversion* towards homosexual people –this in no way says that they should then "off the members".

        [Believing in evolution simply entails understanding that the world around us develops over time; Eugenics is the business of acting on a shortsighted understanding of how the mechanism of evolution works. ]

        — And understanding Human behavior (evolutionary psychology). And, incidentally, this aversion towards homosexual people has a Darwinian explanation. Nobody said anything about eugenics. You're so far off.

        [Ergo, your insistence of darwinists being wrong in being angry against bigots is a flawed argument.]

        — So you keep saying, without any explanation that actually addresses anything of what I said. And I know Darwinism does not tell us which members to "off". But it does have an explanation for the feelings of aversion. Get it right.

        Also, I said Darwinists shouldn't be angry, because Darwinism has an account of why such an aversion exists, ergo, for the Darwinist, such aversion ought to be natural.

  5. I have nothing against homosexuals.

    But, you Darwinists really can't blame people if they did. You know why? Because being gay does not conduce to replication and survival. We could say that being gay would put you at an evolutionary disadvantage. Much like how we've jettisoned ideas such as incest and cannibalism from our society, because such practices would put our species at an evolutionary disadvantage.

    Whether we consciously know this or not, everything that we feel repulsed by are often the things that would give us the disadvantage in terms of surviving and spreading our genes.

    So that's a purely Darwinian account of the repulsion from homosexuality.

    I do think it's wrong to be homophobic, but that's because my worldview isn't purely based on Darwin's. Makes you wonder though, what are these other atheists getting on about?

    • wow… putting homosexuality at par with "incest and cannibalism" (which btw are LEARNED BEHAVIOR with no genetic basis whatsoever so to pin it on Darwinism is totally pointless to begin with)

      real classy dude.

      why stop there? why dont you put left-handed people on the list too? after all, they're at an "evolutionary disadvantage" too, not being able to use a whole range of manual devices made specially for righties. There's also the lactose-intolerant people, kids with allergies to gluten, nuts, or other common food, near-sighted people… they all posses genetic disadvantages that weaken the gene pool. Are you, from a "purely Darwinian" point of view, repulsed by them as well?

      crickey

      • [wow… putting homosexuality at par with "incest and cannibalism" (which btw are LEARNED BEHAVIOR with no genetic basis whatsoever so to pin it on Darwinism is totally pointless to begin with) ]

        — I qualified my post by saying that I have no problem with homosexuality. I was talking about norms that society has jettisoned because of the evolutionary disadvantages they would bring. I in no way equated them. Read it again.

        [why stop there? why dont you put left-handed people on the list too? after all, they're at an "evolutionary disadvantage" too, not being able to use a whole range of manual devices made specially for righties. There's also the lactose-intolerant people, kids with allergies to gluten, nuts, or other common food, near-sighted people… they all posses genetic disadvantages that weaken the gene pool. Are you, from a "purely Darwinian" point of view, repulsed by them as well? ]

        — I take it you didn't understand my post. I said, I do not adopt a purely Darwinian point of view, did I not? So those who do would have a problem, but not me, since I don't. Please READ before you go on a mindless rant.

      • I didn't equate anything. I was giving an example of a practice that puts humans at an evolutionary disadvantage. Please READ my post.

        And I don't have a problem with homosexuality, exactly because I do think there is more to life than a Darwinian account of things. Before you go on a mindless rant, make sure you actually understand what you are getting on about.

        (Sorry! this might be a double post, since my other post somehow disappeared.)

        • [I was giving an example of a practice that puts humans at an evolutionary disadvantage. Please READ my post. ]

          Then your understanding of "evolutionary disadvantage," well I'd suggest reading a little more into the matter since, there might be explanations for why homosexuality is prevalent in animals:
          http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolu

          • Lots of things are prevalent in animals and in humans that are a result of random mutations– and not natural selection– that therefore do not have adaptive value. That doesn't really refute that such a trait is not evolutionarily disadvantageous.

    • [Because being gay does not conduce to replication and survival. We could say that being gay would put you at an evolutionary disadvantage. ]

      Gay parents can adopt kids, while lesbian parents can (and often do) give birth via sperm donors. Sad to say that there are plenty of orphans out there that will need a good, loving home, and while gay parents don't exactly pass on their genes to the kids they take in, at least they have a young child to pass on their legacy to.

    • [Miguel wrote: "I have nothing against homosexuals. But, you Darwinists really can't blame people if they did. You know why? Because being gay does not conduce to replication and survival. We could say that being gay would put you at an evolutionary disadvantage."]

      Miguel, it's one thing to know that the lifestyle of certain types of individuals would put them at an evolutionary disadvantage; it's totally another thing to be AGAINST them, especially for dogmatic reasons. 'Against' means "in hostile opposition to." Is it logical for Darwinists to condone hostility toward gays and other people who put themselves at an evolutionary disadvantage? I don't think so. So what if gays are unable to propagate their genes (unless they experiment with heterosexuality)? That doesn't spell the end of the human race. So it's really preposterous to say that Darwinists really can't blame bigots for being against homosexuals, especially since such bigotry has nothing to do with Darwinism.

      • That's not really what I meant.

        [Miguel, it's one thing to know that the lifestyle of certain types of individuals would put them at an evolutionary disadvantage; it's totally another thing to be AGAINST them]

        — Yes, but from a Darwinian account, natural selection saw to it that we feel repulsed by behaviors that do put us at an evolutionary disadvantage. So while it's "one thing to know.. and one thing to be against" yes, but the *feeling of repulsion* is completely explained by natural selection.

        So again, if you subscribe to a purely Darwinian account of things, then you cannot really justify your indignation of others who would feel that way –because they've inherited the pheno-typic traits that would make them feel that way!

        [Is it logical for Darwinists to condone hostility toward gays and other people who put themselves at an evolutionary disadvantage? I don't think so.]

        — It may be illogical, but the *feelings of repulsion* are not illogical, IF you subscribe to a completely Darwinian account of human life and behavior. We've evolved to feel repulsed by things that are evolutionarily dis-advantageous (hence my example: cannibalism, incest, and so forth — which is not me equating these things to homosexuality as some shallow minds might accuse me of yet again).

        [So what if gays are unable to propagate their genes (unless they experiment with heterosexuality)? That doesn't spell the end of the human race. So it's really preposterous to say that Darwinists really can't blame bigots for being against homosexuals, especially since such bigotry has nothing to do with Darwinism.]

        — It doesn't matter at all whether it spells the end of the human race or not. It doesn't matter at all whether it's preposterous or not. You're really not getting the point. My point was that if Darwinism were wholly true, then this is a natural aversion that can be explained away by it. So why should Darwinists bemoan those who have the aversion, if such has been programmed in everyone's genes to necessitate survival and replication.

        • With a little research (I'm not well versed in Darwinism) I think I can give this a better answer, but for now let me put down what's on top of my head. From the point of view of propagating one's genes, I think it would be natural to be repulsed if your offspring or even siblings displayed behaviors that would put your genes at an evolutionary disadvantage. But for those not much related to us any more than the rest of humankind, there's no evolutionary threat to our own genes. For example, if all the 3th generation offspring of the patriarch of a large clan in another country were gay, how's that going to put my own family's genes at an evolutionary disadvantage? So I don't think this "natural aversion" can be attributed to Darwinism.

          And come to think of it, it's these celibate men who actually seem most repulsed by something that poses no evolutionary threat to them since they supposedly have no intention of propagating their own genes in the first place. But while homosexuality does not threaten their genes, it threatens their memes – their dogmatic teachings against homosexuality. And so it seems more reasonable to say that their bigotry has nothing to do with Darwinisim and everything to do with dogmatism, and that's why it's wrong to conclude that if Darwinism were wholly true then this is a natural aversion that can be explained away by it – unless you're going to argue that most of those whom natural selection programmed with a repulsion to one form of lifestyle detrimental to gene propagation (homosexuality) ended up to be the same men programmed by natural selection to embrace a lifestyle equally detrimental to gene propagation (celibacy).

          • Innerminds,

            You've unwittingly undermined homosexuality here by saying that it's a choice. Being celibate is a choice –I think there isn't any dispute about this. So they're not equal, in that there is no phenotypic trait that's inherited that would make someone choose to be celibate. While, the argument for homosexuality seems to be that it's something that's inborn. Therefore celibacy isn't genetically inherited. This undermines your whole argument altogether.

            You seem like a smart guy who has gotten to the point of being able to read solely for pleasure. May I suggest then reading on evolutionary psychology –which suggests that all human behavior is a result of selection pressures. For instance, why do we like having sex? Because it's a behavior that's been selected for it's obvious adaptive quality. People who don't like having sex do not spread there genes! There will be instances of random mutations, which would give us traits that do not have adaptive qualities — for instance, people who are psychologically impaired and so forth.

            Anyway, I'm not going to debate this here anymore. But really, just for the pleasure of learning –which seems to be something you seem to find pleasure in — read on evolutionary psychology. It's really interesting.

          • [You've unwittingly undermined homosexuality here by saying that it's a choice.]

            Now where exactly did I say that?

            [Therefore celibacy isn't genetically inherited. This undermines your whole argument altogether. ]

            Now where exactly did I make the argument that celibacy is genetically inherited? Perhaps you took the part that follows after "unless you're going to argue that…" as the argument I'm presenting. No. I said, "unless YOU're going to argue that…"

            Now, will you not agree that religious bigotry and hostility towards homosexuals can be better explained by dogmatism than Darwinism, since you yourself have pointed out that celibacy is a choice? And since it so happens that the people who chose to be celibate are often the ones most hostile towards homosexuality, it seems that such hostility is also a matter of choice and therefore has nothing to do with Darwinism.

            So going back to your original comment where you said:

            [Whether we consciously know this or not, everything that we feel repulsed by are often the things that would give us the disadvantage in terms of surviving and spreading our genes.]

            And which you rephrased as:

            [My point was that if Darwinism were wholly true, then this is a natural aversion that can be explained away by it.]

            I've answered this with the arguments in my previous post BEFORE the part where I said, "unless you're going to argue that…"

            [So why should Darwinists bemoan those who have the aversion, if such has been programmed in everyone's genes to necessitate survival and replication.]

            I've shown why such aversion cannot be thought of as Darwinian, so unless you're going to refute that, I think the question is invalid.

          • [Now where exactly did I make the argument that celibacy is genetically inherited? Perhaps you took the part that follows after "unless you're going to argue that…" as the argument I'm presenting. No. I said, "unless YOU're going to argue that…" ]

            When you said this:

            "ended up to be the same men programmed by natural selection to embrace a lifestyle equally detrimental to gene propagation (celibacy)."

            — Here I believe, you wanted to put some irony on the thought that celibate men, who have a lifestyle that's maladaptive, argue against something that's likewise maladaptive. So it was you who equated the 2, not me.

            [I've shown why such aversion cannot be thought of as Darwinian, so unless you're going to refute that, I think the question is invalid.]

            — All aversions are Darwinian insofar as they are a result of natural-selection. This is really one of the principles of evolutionary psychology. You really won't be able to dispute this. You've only alleged that it's because of dogma. Sure, that may exacerbate it. But that just begs the question doesn't it. Is it only the Christians who show aversion?

          • [When you said this:

            "ended up to be the same men programmed by natural selection to embrace a lifestyle equally detrimental to gene propagation (celibacy)."]

            Again, that was put AFTER, "unless you're going to argue that…", so while I wrote that down, that wasn't what I was trying to argue.

            [Here I believe, you wanted to put some irony on the thought that celibate men, who have a lifestyle that's maladaptive, argue against something that's likewise maladaptive. So it was you who equated the 2, not me. ]

            No one equated the two – not you, not me. I said "UNLESS you're going to argue that…" It was a hypothetical argument. Which makes me wonder why you're directing your answers towards the hypothetical argument instead of addressing my actual argument.

            [All aversions are Darwinian insofar as they are a result of natural-selection.]

            And you have yet to show why aversion to homosexuality is necessarily a result of natural selection. How could aversion put bigots at an evolutionary advantage? Are women more attracted to bigots who openly criticize gays so that these bigots get to spread their genes more?

            [But that just begs the question doesn't it. Is it only the Christians who show aversion?]

            In our country, it's the Catholic Church that seems to show the most aversion to homosexuals.

          • [Again, that was put AFTER, "unless you're going to argue that…", so while I wrote that down, that wasn't what I was trying to argue. ]

            — You really have to read what you wrote again. You weren't trying to argue that, I know. But you preempted such an argument by saying that it would be ironic if I were to argue that because it would be "the same men programmed by natural selection to embrace a lifestyle equally detrimental to gene propagation (celibacy)."

            Come on , man.

            [And you have yet to show why aversion to homosexuality is necessarily a result of natural selection. How could aversion put bigots at an evolutionary advantage? Are women more attracted to bigots who openly criticize gays so that these bigots get to spread their genes more? ]

            — You're looking at it a bit too narrowly. Let's take the case of incest. We have a natural aversion to it because it leads to genetically incompetent offspring. It doesn't harm anyone actually (assuming both are of legal age), apart from the offspring. It's not that women would prefer bigots. It's that women do not prefer homosexuals just as women would, at least normally, not prefer those who are closely related to them.

            And all aversion, as I said, according to evolutionary psychology, has it's roots in natural selection. There is selection pressure to the ones that are adaptive, there is aversion to the ones that are mal-adaptive. You can extrapolate and use it to explain a lot of things; our aversion for incest, for suicide, for cannibalism, and so forth.

          • In other words, you wanted to pre-empt an argument such as that, because in doing so, I would only succeed in becoming ironic.

          • Exactly. By the way, I've thought of something. I think there are four pertinent types of people as far as homosexuality, bigotry, and Darwinism are concerned:

            1. Heterosexuals
            2. Homosexuals
            3. Bigots
            4. Tolerant

            And I'm going to refer to those four in order to answer this:

            [Miguel wrote: "My point was that if Darwinism were wholly true, then this is a natural aversion that can be explained away by it."]

            If I understand Darwinism correctly, those whose lifestyles put them at an evolutionary advantage by increasing their chances of propagating their genes tend to dominate the population.

            In the case homosexuality and heterosexuality, Darwinism can explain why heterosexuals dominate our society because the lifestyle of heterosexuals increases their chances of spreading their genes, while the lifestyle of homosexuals decreases their chances, forcing them to remain in the minority.

            But when it comes to bigotry and tolerance, are you going to argue that bigots get to attract more women than those who display tolerance, hence, the former gets to spread their genes faster than the latter? (Again, I'm preempting an argument that would only sound ironic.) So unless you can avoid sounding ironic, I don't think it's correct to say that Darwinists really can't blame bigots just because homosexuality puts people at an evolutionary disadvantage. Being heterosexual is one thing; being a bigot is another. The former puts one at an evolutionary advantage; the latter doesn't.

          • Let me stop you right there. You are making a category error by lumping "bigots" and "tolerant[s]" with those other 2 behaviors. Because bigotry and tolerance are choices.

            [If I understand Darwinism correctly, those whose lifestyles put them at an evolutionary advantage by increasing their chances of propagating their genes tend to dominate the population]

            — I would say 'behaviors' not lifestyles.

            [In the case homosexuality and heterosexuality, Darwinism can explain why heterosexuals dominate our society because the lifestyle of heterosexuals increases their chances of spreading their genes, while the lifestyle of homosexuals decreases their chances, forcing them to remain in the minority.]

            — Again, lifestyle is a choice. I would put it this way: the gene that makes people heterosexual has higher adaptive quality in terms of replication and survival. Thus more people will necessarily have this gene. The gene (or phenotype) that makes people homosexual (I'm granting you for the sake of argument that homosexuality is inborn — the jury is still out on this one) has, for obvious reasons, lower adaptive quality, thus only a small portion of the population will have it.

            [But when it comes to bigotry and tolerance, are you going to argue that bigots get to attract more women than those who display tolerance, hence, the former gets to spread their genes faster than the latter?]

            — Firstly, you wrongfully use the word "tolerant". Because when you're tolerant, this means that you don't agree with it, but you *tolerate* it. I'm assuming that this is not the case with you, since you DO agree that homosexuality is O.K. So you're not actually tolerant of it.

            And even if we use what I think is your definition of the word "tolerant". It doesn't matter if women are more attracted to tolerant people, making the tolerant people more evolutionarily successful, because tolerance is more a choice than an inherited phenotypic trait. You're kids may still choose to be bigots.

            [I don't think it's correct to say that Darwinists really can't blame bigots just because homosexuality puts people at an evolutionary disadvantage.]

            — Well they can't blame, but they should understand. Because these "bigots" inherited their aversions from natural selection –they don't have any say in it! They cannot choose to be non-averting.

            [Being heterosexual is one thing; being a bigot is another. The former puts one at an evolutionary advantage; the latter doesn't.]

            — The latter doesn't, insofar as women prefer non-jerks. But this doesn't make any difference, because your "tolerant" disposition is not something that can be genetically inherited.

            Again, you will get a clearer picture of this if you read about what evolutionary psychology has to say about human aversions.

          • [Firstly, you wrongfully use the word "tolerant". Because when you're tolerant, this means that you don't agree with it, but you *tolerate* it. I'm assuming that this is not the case with you, since you DO agree that homosexuality is O.K. So you're not actually tolerant of it.]

            From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tolerate:

            tolerate

            1. To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.

            2. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).

            3. To put up with; endure.

            When I said "tolerant", I was referring to the second definition. So it doesn't matter whether I "agree" with their lifestyle or not; the issue here is simply that they have a DIFFERENT lifestyle from mine and I recognize and respect our differences.

            [Well they can't blame, but they should understand. Because these "bigots" inherited their aversions from natural selection –they don't have any say in it! They cannot choose to be non-averting.]

            I'm getting mixed signals here. You said this earlier:

            [You are making a category error by lumping "bigots" and "tolerant[s]" with those other 2 behaviors. Because bigotry and tolerance are choices.]

            And you said this after:

            [It doesn't matter if women are more attracted to tolerant people, making the tolerant people more evolutionarily successful, because tolerance is more a choice than an inherited phenotypic trait. You're kids may still choose to be bigots.]

            So which is it, Miguel? Is bigotry a product of natural selection or a matter of choice? After you answer that I will address the following:

            [The paradox here is that a Darwinist, who's pro-homosexual, can only get out of this rut by making the argument that homosexuality is a choice or a learned behavior.]

          • Innerminds,

            My definition of the word was exactly right. Read your own link further below.

            *tolerate – recognize and respect (rights and beliefs of others); "We must tolerate the religions of others"*

            The dictionary definition is very clear, in that it means this word is used in the context of disagreement. So no, you didn't use it accurately.

            [the issue here is simply that they have a DIFFERENT lifestyle from mine and I recognize and respect our differences. ]

            — But you don't tolerate it, since you agree with it completely. Go back to the dictionary you just linked to, and read everything in context.

            [I'm getting mixed signals here. You said this earlier…………………..So which is it, Miguel? Is bigotry a product of natural selection or a matter of choice? After you answer that I will address the following]

            — I wonder why you're getting "mixed signals" when I explained myself rather clearly. Bigotry is a choice. I was talking about natural human aversions –those are products of natural selection. Someone who has an aversion to something is not automatically a bigot towards whatever that something is.

            You are confusing the 2. When someone has an aversion, say, to spiders, he isn't a spider-bigot. Bigot is a choice, in that it's a choice to be intolerant. You can't do anything about aversions, it's not like you can choose to be non-averting. It's not like you can choose to find cannibalism kosher.

            So your argument falls.

          • [The dictionary definition is very clear, in that it means this word is used in the context of disagreement. So no, you didn't use it accurately. ]

            Let me post the definition of "tolerance" from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance

            "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

            Take note of the word "those". What we are "tolerating" here are those people whose practices differ from our own – not their practices per se. A tolerant person may disagree with their practices insofar as he doesn't practice them himself, but it doesn't mean he disagrees with the people practicing them. So I used the word 'tolerant' correctly.

            [Bigotry is a choice. I was talking about natural human aversions –those are products of natural selection. Someone who has an aversion to something is not automatically a bigot towards whatever that something is.]

            Ah, you're confusing aversion to a naked male body and aversion to those men who like naked male bodies. The former can be explained by natural selection, the latter can be explained by dogmatism. So when you said that someone who has an aversion to 'something' is not automatically a bigot towards whatever that 'something' is, you're using the word 'something' for two different things in the same sentence! Remember that 'bigot' refers to "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ," meaning bigotry is directed towards persons or institutions, not practices. So the correct statement should be that someone who has an aversion to 'something' (e.g., making love with a person of the same sex) is not automatically a bigot towards the PEOPLE who practice that 'something' (gays).

            [So your argument falls.]

            Does it?

          • [Take note of the word "those". What we are "tolerating" here are those people whose practices differ from our own – not their practices per se.]

            — Even in the definition you've just given, it is still in the context of disagreement. All definitions of the word are in the context of disagreement. Sure, people nowadays may use it to mean acceptance, but they are using the word wrongly.

            [A tolerant person may disagree with their practices insofar as he doesn't practice them himself, but it doesn't mean he disagrees with the people practicing them. So I used the word 'tolerant' correctly. ]

            — No, you don't disagree with a practice simply because you don't practice it yourself. You disagree with a practice if you don't approve of it! If I don't mow my lawn, whilst you do, I don't say that I disagree with you about your mowing the lawn! I am not sexually attracted to men, but that doesn't mean that I disagree with women on their sexual attraction to men. You disagree, when you do not approve. And no, you didn't use the word tolerant correctly. You simply didn't. You may have used it in how it is now commonly used by a lot of people, but that doesn't mean it was used correctly.

            [Ah, you're confusing aversion towards a naked male body and aversion towards those men who like naked male bodies. The former can be explained by natural selection, the latter can be explained by dogmatism.]

            — LOL. NO! I'm not confusing anything. And here you just make assertions about the former and the latter. They could very well both be results of natural selection insofar as they are, as you say, human aversions.

            [So when you said that someone who has an aversion to 'something' is not automatically a bigot towards whatever that 'something' is, you're using the word 'something' for two different things in the same sentence! ]

            — I don't think so. I qualified that statement with the spider-example. If someone had an aversion towards spiders, it doesn't mean he is a spider bigot; if someone had an aversion to homosexuals, doesn't mean he is a homosexual bigot (because he could be tolerant: disapproving yet tolerating). I don't exactly know what part confuses you.

            [So the correct statement should be that someone who has an aversion to 'something' (e.g., making love with a person of the same sex) is not automatically a bigot towards the PEOPLE who practice that 'something' (gays).]

            — It doesn't matter if you shifted the word from homosexual to homosexuality. Either word you use will make sense.

            So you didn't really show anything except that an aversion to homosexuality is different from an aversion to homosexuals.

            But my argument about the natural selection thing encompasses both. Since if you have an aversion for an act, it necessarily follows (maybe not always) that you would have an aversion for people who engage in that act.

            Because of natural-selection, we have a natural aversion for the eating of insects –they could be poisonous, and they don't have high nutritional value. We would also feel repulsed by those who did eat insects. In other words, the aversion for something necessarily follows the aversion for people who would engage in that something — maybe not always, I'm sure we can think of something where it doesn't follow, but, likewise, I think we can explain that disconnect through selection pressures.

            So you really haven't accomplished as much as you think you have, by shifting those words there.

          • [Even in the definition you've just given, it is still in the context of disagreement. All definitions of the word are in the context of disagreement. Sure, people nowadays may use it to mean acceptance, but they are using the word wrongly.]

            The issue here is not the disagreement per se but the focus of the disagreement – do we disagree with the act, or the person who likes to do the act? Being tolerant of gays is different from tolerating a gay when he touches me. I don't disagree with a homosexual if he finds men attractive. Sexual preference is a subjective/personal thing, so we can actually differ in our preferences without disagreeing about which preference is the "correct" one.

            [No, you don't disagree with a practice simply because you don't practice it yourself. You disagree with a practice if you don't approve of it! You disagree, when you do not approve.]

            Let me put it this way. I do not approve of a guy trying to get into MY pants, meaning I disagree with his desire to make love with ME. But I have no problem with gay sex per se – particularly those not involving me or those not performed in front of me.

            [And no, you didn't use the word tolerant correctly. You simply didn't. You may have used it in how it is now commonly used by a lot of people, but that doesn't mean it was used correctly.]

            I've already posted this from definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance:

            "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

            That's exactly what I meant with 'tolerant' -someone practising tolerance. Are you going to say that that definition is also incorrect?

            [Since if you have an aversion for an act, it necessarily follows (maybe not always) that you would have an aversion for people who engage in that act.]

            I think the correct statement should be, "Since if you have an aversion for an act, it necessarily follows that you would have an aversion for people who engage in that act IN FRONT OF YOU." But bigots have an aversion towards gays per se – even if they don't do their thing in front of them..

            [Because of natural-selection, we have a natural aversion for the eating of insects –they could be poisonous, and they don't have high nutritional value. We would also feel repulsed by those who did eat insects.]

            Here the correct statement should be, "We would also feel repulsed by those who did eat insects IN FRONT OF US."

            [In other words, the aversion for something necessarily follows the aversion for people who would engage in that something]

            Should be, "The aversion for something necessarily follows the aversion for people who would engage in that something IN FRONT OF US."

            [So you really haven't accomplished as much as you think you have, by shifting those words there.]

            As I have shown, that "word shifting" made all the difference.

          • [The issue here is not the disagreement per se but the focus of the disagreement – do we disagree with the act, or the person who likes to do the act? ]

            — I don't think we should get tangled up on this as it has scarcely anything to do with what we are actually debating about. I however will submit that what you wanted to say was that you're *O.K.* with homosexuality and not that you're *tolerant* of it. You can study the etymology of the word if you want –which I have so done for a dissertation on the foundation for human rights– and I'm sure you will find that I'm right.

            [I think the correct statement should be, "Since if you have an aversion for an act, it necessarily follows that you would have an aversion for people who engage in that act IN FRONT OF YOU.]

            — No. this really isn't as simple and mono-causal as you seem to think it is. I may have an aversion for cannibalism, and thus an aversion towards cannibals, but there is tension among thousands of selection pressures. A crude example would be the following:

            There's this hot babe who eats insects. While I may have an aversion for eating insects, thus an aversion for people who engage in the act of eating insects, this particular woman has a good hip-to-waist ratio that tells me, at the level of the gene, we would produce genetically superior offspring if we had the sex. There is tension between the 2 selection pressures. One selection pressure may win over the other. This would result in me completely forgetting about the repugnance that I would otherwise have felt for her if she didn't have such a nice tight a$$.

            So no. I reject you're "in front " statement, as to my understanding of evolutionary psychology, it has nothing to do with the aversion. It may make things more disgusting because of the immediate visual experience, but other than that, it doesn't invalidate my argument whatsoever.

            [As I have shown, that "word shifting" made all the difference.]

            — Without explaining how it dramatically changes things at the level of the gene.

          • [when you're tolerant, this means that you don't agree with it, but you *tolerate* it.
            I however will submit that what you wanted to say was that you're *O.K.* with homosexuality and not that you're *tolerant* of it. You can study the etymology of the word if you want –which I have so done for a dissertation on the foundation for human rights– and I'm sure you will find that I'm right.]

            I will post once again the definition of 'tolerance' but this time I'm going to capitalize the letters of two pertinent words:

            "tolerance – a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, RACE, religion, NATIONALITY, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. <a href="http://(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance)&quot;” target=”_blank”>(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance)"

            If I'm tolerant of those whose race and nationality differ from mine, does that mean I "disagree" with their race and nationality but I just TOLERATE them? Is there such thing as "disagreeing" with a person's race or nationality? And in the first place, does the word 'disagree' appear in any part of the above definition of 'tolerance'? No, 'disagree' cannot be found in the definition, only 'differ', and while some people's practices may differ from mine, it doesn't necessarily mean that I disagree with them.

            So going back to homosexuality, it's one thing to be tolerant of gays; it's totally another thing to tolerate gays touching you inappropriately. Not tolerating gays to touch you inappropriately may be explained by Darwinism; being intolerant of or bigoted to gays who mind their own business can only be explained by dogmatism.

          • [If I'm tolerant of those whose race and nationality differ from mine, does that mean I "disagree" with their race and nationality but I just TOLERATE them? Is there such thing as "disagreeing" with a person's race or nationality? And in the first place, does the word 'disagree' appear in any part of the above definition of 'tolerance'? No, 'disagree' cannot be found in the definition, only 'differ', and while some people's practices may differ from mine, it doesn't necessarily mean that I disagree with them.]

            — The problem with using a dictionary, especially one on the internet, is that the listed meanings are often generalizations of how the word is commonly used.

            Read this http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/

            And it explains precisely what the word means.

            [So going back to homosexuality, it's one thing to be tolerant of gays; it's totally another thing to tolerate gays touching you inappropriately. Not tolerating gays to touch you inappropriately may be explained by Darwinism; being intolerant of or bigoted to gays who mind their own business can only be explained by dogmatism.]

            — So, thank you for your assertion. While I've gone through great lengths in explaining how all aversions are likely the product of selection pressures –as is explained in evolutionary psychology — you simply asserted that some are selection pressures and some are dogmatism.

            I'm sorry, but my argument stands, as it has more explanatory power in that it can be extrapolated to explain other necessarily mal-adaptive behaviors for which there is natural aversion to.

            Saying, "ah but this isn't covered by Darwinism, and that one is!" doesn't seem to be convincing in the slightest.

          • [Read this http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/%5D

            Damn. Now why did you not post that earlier and save us a few useless exchanges? 🙂 Thanks Miguel, for another important bit of knowledge.

            [I'm sorry, but my argument stands, as it has more explanatory power in that it can be extrapolated to explain other necessarily mal-adaptive behaviors for which there is natural aversion to.]

            You mean this argument:

            [I have nothing against homosexuals. But, you Darwinists really can't blame people if they did. You know why? Because being gay does not conduce to replication and survival. We could say that being gay would put you at an evolutionary disadvantage.]

            So the issue here is whether being against homosexuals is a choice or a product of natural selection. Now unless you have an SEP definition of the word 'against', I think this one from the American Heritage Dictionary should suffice: "In hostile opposition or resistance to." With this definition, 'against' sounds more like intolerance or bigotry than mere aversion (e.g., an arachnophobic is averted to spiders but not against them). And since you've argued that bigotry is a choice and not a product of natural selection, then it's really wrong to say that Darwinists really can't blame people for being against homosexuals.

          • Innerminds,

            I think we've butted heads on this subject long enough. I'm not conceding anything, but I think think this won't be getting anywhere. 😀

          • What do you mean it won't be getting anywhere? You already got me to agree to what is the proper definition of 'tolerance'. That's a milestone! And it only took so long because you didn't post SEP's article on toleration right away.

            Now, would you not try to answer this simple question: Are people who are against homosexuals simply averted to gays or are actually being intolerant of them?

          • Innerminds,

            The paradox here is that a Darwinist, who's pro-homosexual, can only get out of this rut by making the argument that homosexuality is a choice or a learned behavior.

          • As I've explained in my previous comment, being tolerant of gays who mind their own business is different from being tolerant of gays trying to get into one's own pants.

          • [As I've explained in my previous comment, being tolerant of gays who mind their own business is different from being tolerant of gays trying to get into one's own pants.]

            — O.K. Don't really know how this has to do with anything. But fine.

          • your initial premise is flawed to begin with:

            1. evolution has nothing to do with it. gayness is not genetic. we already know this to be true when scientists note the existence of gay-straight identical twins
            2. it is not by choice or learning – you cannot learn or unlearn sexual orientation by conditioning. straight parents can raise gay children and gay couples can raise straight children.
            3. it is not merely psychological – there are actual physical differences in gay vs. straight brains.
            4. studies now point to the amount of hormones a fetus is exposed in the womb as the most probable determinant of sexual orientation. they tried exposing male rats to gender-specific hormones in gestation and they got rats that display overtly female mating behaviors.

            In short, your arguments about these imaginary Darwinian homophobes is total bunk… simply because you can't deliberately spread gayness around… unless you go around injecting pregnant women with testosterone 🙂

            how can you invoke natural/artificial selection arguments when you cant even deliberately pass on the gay trait even if you wanted to?

          • [1. evolution has nothing to do with it. gayness is not genetic. we already know this to be true when scientists note the existence of gay-straight identical twins ]

            — I admitted that if homosexuality was not inborn, then my argument falls.

            [2. it is not by choice or learning – you cannot learn or unlearn sexual orientation by conditioning. straight parents can raise gay children and gay couples can raise straight children. ]

            — So it's not through nurture either?

            Wait, first you say it's not nature, then now you say it's not nurture either? Then you mention parents as though "nurture" only referred to them without reference to the environment? Wow.

            [3. it is not merely psychological – there are actual physical differences in gay vs. straight brains. ]

            — What brought about those physical differences? You say it isn't about nature, nor is it about nurture. So does it happen by some kind of magical process?

            [4. studies now point to the amount of hormones a fetus is exposed in the womb as the most probable determinant of sexual orientation. they tried exposing male rats to gender-specific hormones in gestation and they got rats that display overtly female mating behaviors. ]

            — So now you seem to be saying IT IS NATURE. Yet you say "evolution has nothing to do with it"? How on earth!? How do those hormones reach the levels they do as to predispose someone to homosexuality? By some magic?

            [In short, your arguments about these imaginary Darwinian homophobes is total bunk…]

            — And you've debunked them by being insanely contradictory. Riight.

            [how can you invoke natural/artificial selection arguments when you cant even deliberately pass on the gay trait even if you wanted to?]

            — You can't deliberately pass on anything that's genetic. Unless you subject someone to some form of genetic engineering.

          • since you asked so "nicely"… allow me to clarify:

            "nature" can be either due to genetic inheritance or being subjected to factors within the environment. The latter cannot be passed on offsprings, thus not subject to arguments on the "darwinism" you keep harping about. so no, I was not being contradictory.

            You posited a false dichotomy – you mistakenly believe that there were only 2 possible choice: either people learn their sexual orientation or it was encoded in their DNA. I am pointing out that there is actually a 3rd option.

            The studies I was referring to suggest that the amount of hormones pregnant mothers produce, due to factors like stress, food intake, level of activity, etc. can affect the developing fetus in terms of sexual orientation.

            You can have parents who are both straight give birth to a child that is biologically gay without them even having a say in the matter, thus no selection involved – natural or otherwise.

            you know, if you could tone down the arrogance-level a bit, you might actually learn something new here

          • Nice how you put quotation marks on the word 'nicely' as though someone actually said it.

            ["nature" can be either due to genetic inheritance or being subjected to factors within the environment. ]

            — LOL. NO. Nature is only due to hereditary inheritance. That "environment" you speak falls under "nurture".

            [The latter cannot be passed on offsprings, thus not subject to arguments on the "darwinism" you keep harping about. so no, I was not being contradictory. ]

            — I never said "nurture" can be passed on to offspring, and you clearly stated that homosexuality is not related to any kind of conditioning ("you cannot learn or unlearn sexual orientation by conditioning – you.)

            [You posited a false dichotomy – you mistakenly believe that there were only 2 possible choice: either people learn their sexual orientation or it was encoded in their DNA. I am pointing out that there is actually a 3rd option. ]

            — Yes, that's the only 2 possible ways it can go. It can ofcourse be a combination of both. What is this third, seemingly magical, process that you speak of? By the way, it's not a "dichotomy" as these 2 avenues are not mutually exclusive.

            [The studies I was referring to suggest that the amount of hormones pregnant mothers produce, due to factors like stress, food intake, level of activity, etc. can affect the developing fetus in terms of sexual orientation. ]

            — So you're saying it's about both nature and nurture? What are you saying? If you agree that nature has at least something to do with it. Then why this ridiculous statement: "evolution has nothing to do with it." ?

            [You can have parents who are both straight give birth to a child that is biologically gay without them even having a say in the matter, thus no selection involved – natural or otherwise.]

            — Interesting. So this magical process by which people can have inborn behaviors wholly separate from nature and nurture can do this. Fascinating.

            [you know, if you could tone down the arrogance-level a bit, you might actually learn something new here]

            — You're right. But I doubt I'll learn anything from you =)

          • O.K. I realize I've just been an asshole. I'm sorry Wes. But you did misinterpret what I said earlier and called me a bigot.. so.. Are we quits now?

    • Miguel said:"Makes you wonder though, what are these other atheists getting on about? "

      which "other atheists" in particular are you referring to? citations please.

      • Let's pretend that what you just said makes sense.

        Nah, even still, I probably should let it fly by me, since you won't even admit you've misunderstood what I previously said.

  6. you know the educational system has hit rock bottom when even campy TV shows make more sense than what teachers are telling students 🙁

    it has already been proven that gay brains are anatomically different from straight brains, so how exactly do they propose to "cure" it? through lobotomy?

  7. I was talking to someone the other day debating about the same thing and when I told him about my side, being agnostic and all, he proceeds to tell me that I should be PITIED and "think of myself as a God".

    Now I don't know if he has took up Logic in college, but THOSE arguments show some kind of psychological problem and a tear on his rationality. Baloney.

    Looking at it scientifically, a person 'grows' into homosexuality by having more of the opposite sex's hormones than those of his 'natural' gender. I guess that's the basic precept for that.
    Sociologically, a person achieves personality, moral consistency and a sense of identity because of his environment, of his experiences.

    To declare homosexuality as immoral, among many other things, is immoral in itself.

    • I've personally met some of them when I visited ICA, since my mom is a close friend. What my teacher told me was all the more shocking given that they seemed like genuinely kindhearted folks.

      From what my sister is telling me, it's more likely they're just following the curriculum, and are naive about what's really going on. What saddens me is that the Catholic fundie teachings aside, ICA has excellent teachers.

  8. This is not a religious issue at all, it is wrong to connect sexuality with religions.I am atheist , was born male , i like being straight man and to continue being straight man , i love only women , This is my taste , this is my nature , this is what i am ; straight man . however ; gays or homosexuals do not bother me .Mind control in this issue is ejected .This issue is more natural issue , opinions and tastes.

  9. Oh my Gosh…Really? they're teaching something like that?… let me guess.. they're using the outdated, unreliable and 'Dogmatic' scripture as reference..

  10. It's people's lifestyle. if People want to be gay, so be it. They don't have the rights calling Homosexuality is a psychological problem. sheesh.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here