Is it religions fault that the discrimination against the GLBT exists?

Views: 1476

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think religion is what has allowed such discrimination to persist, even though discrimination may have occurred anyway.

My response is similar.  I don't think that religion caused homophobia, but in many cases it did make homophobia doctrinal, which makes it much harder to get rid of.

But Mith your interpretation is from the human's perspective. Would it apply to the "animal?"  

How do you know that the animals behavior is related to mating, bonding, sex, or sexual contact?  The DNA code for that behavior could mean something entirely different, that's just how WE interpret it. 

OK now birds are homosexuals.  Interesting how people perceive things. As for the primates, I'd think if homosexuality (as we define it) was a natural occurrence in Nature, everything on the planet would be homo sexually inclined. Is this a fact? 

Again I ask, how do we know that the animal behavior is what we call "homosexuality and how much of it is due to our own interference with their environment?  For example the removal of rain forest, habitat therefore food sources, the introduction of disease which may mark "gender" imbalance etc. inadvertent killing of species for profit which also creates imbalances. 

I think you would think that other species share our anthropological concepts because you keep insisting that they have homosexual acts/behaviors. 

Yes your sexual preference does have a barring on your answers. Whether actively, passively or just plain open to boundless behaviors...I really didn't mean to be offensive.  

But Mith your interpretation is from the human's perspective. Would it apply to the "animal?"  

If I'm not mistaken, her perspective is the scientific perspective, which seeks to remove as much human bias as is possible.  I'm not sure why you persist in portraying it as something personalized.  As a third party to the conversation, it really doesn't appear that way.

OK now birds are homosexuals.  Interesting how people perceive things. As for the primates, I'd think if homosexuality (as we define it) was a natural occurrence in Nature, everything on the planet would be homo sexually inclined. Is this a fact? 

There are examples in captivity and in the wild of birds forming persistant homosexual pairings.  It has nothing to do with how people perceive things.  As for all species exhibiting homosexuality, I have no idea why you would assume that.  If it is a biological condition, there's no guarantee that species with differing biology would all express the same conditions/ behaviours/ traits.

I think you would think that other species share our anthropological concepts because you keep insisting that they have homosexual acts/behaviors. 

This does't make the slightest bit of sense unless you assume from the beginning that homosexuality is strictly anthropological.  It's circular reasoning.

Again I ask, how do we know that the animal behavior is what we call "homosexuality and how much of it is due to our own interference with their environment?

We know that animal behaviour is homosexuality because they are preferentially copulating with members of the same sex, in some cases persistently or even for their entire mating lives.  It is not more complicated than that.  I'm sure that some cases are ambiguous, but others are not.  Actually, looking back, this was already answered.  Are you even reading what she wrote?

As for human interference in their environment, why is that relevant here?  We are talking about the actual behaviour of animals in their actual environments.  If human activity has affected either, that's unfortunate, but it's the current reality we live in.  I don't see the point in arguing from some hypothetical, non-existent reality what would have, could have, should have been.

And please don't equate racial equal rights with homosexuality. Equal rights for "black" people affects ALL people's rights equally.  Homosexuality does not apply to ALL people. 

I can't make sense of this.  Why do the rights of homosexuals not apply to all people?  Because not all people are homosexuals?  Not all people are black.  Perhaps I've missed the point you're trying to make here.

Bravo! Well said, with considerably more patience that I could have mustered. Thanks! :)

I think your original wording was quite good, but it occurs to me that the conversation with Shabaka is a lost cause at this point.  I don't know if there's too much of a language barrier or a misunderstanding on how science works, but something clearly isn't clicking.

'Fraid you're right. Thanks for hopping in, and I hope to see you around here more! :)

Yes there is a blockage.

"And please don't equate racial equal rights with homosexuality. Equal rights for "black" people affects ALL people's rights equally.  Homosexuality does not apply to ALL people" (here I should have said, equal rights for homosexuality does not apply to all people)

Kris I see Mith has an ally... lol.. Why, because ALL people aren't homosexual. As for not all people being "black" maybe you will find the point if you can remember we are talking about EQUAL RIGHTS, not color of skin. But some folks will twist stuff to make their point.

Basically you are rehashing the same points..but please keep in mind as you do so that scientist are people too and subject to human interpretation. In fact Scientist once thought that the human skull determined intelligence. 

I still didn't get an answer for the manipulation of the animals environment by humans and its effect on their behavior and that behavior being interpreted from the human perspective as homosexuality. 

Nor did I get a response regarding the cultural aspect of homosexuality...but it's ok that would take you someplace that you don't want to go..


"I still didn't get an answer for the manipulation of the animals environment by humans and its effect on their behavior and that behavior being interpreted from the human perspective as homosexuality." 

You have gotten all the answer you will get, because there isn't a question here. Animals show the behaviors we have been discussing regardless of their environment - in the wild, in threatened habitats, in zoos, in laboratories - the behavior is there. It's a non-issue. There is also no interpretation required to say that sexual behavior between animals of the same gender is 'homosexual behavior.'  

In Nature they have an event known as "protogynous hermaphrodites"...Do we really know enough about animal behavior to label it from how we see the world?

Some folks are just plain arrogant, they want to order the world in their image.

one example would be the christian idea which by the way comes from the same culture that declares homosexuality is "Natural"..

Sorry that didn't make any sense at all! We (humans) are labeling things with names to aid in our own observation and recording of facts. Is it also "arrogant" to label gravity with a name? 

RSS

Blog Posts

Pabst Blue Ribbon to the rescue!

Posted by Ed on December 15, 2014 at 9:33pm 0 Comments

Finally, a cool billboard in Arkansas!

Posted by Ed on December 15, 2014 at 8:21am 2 Comments

Atheist Sites

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service