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

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.

Wait, I posted this: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/c…

I can't read it now! The commentsection isstretching thin!

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?

I invoke Godwins law on you. Just like many of your fellow atheists have done on me.

Does Godwin's law render my argument faulty?

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

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.

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?