Researchers are baffled over hows and whys of homosexuality. They agree that it is not inborn, they agree that it cannot be natural but they fail to understand that what has caused a sudden spurt in growth of homosexuality. Lame reasons provided by many scholars including self-proclaimed gay indologists like Ruth Vanita claim that homosexuality was always an integral part of culture. One can agree that perversion may have existed in all period of history, but neither was it ever a part of culture, nor was it in the proportions as it is alleged to be. In fact, in ancient masterpieces like Vedas, one does not even find reference to homosexuality.The Vedas instead lay directions that any act that is unnatural and purposeless would eventually bring miseries.
The modern culture has ignored this most essential lesson of Vedas and hence facing the consequences. The modern society focusses bit too much on purposeless enjoyments and hence sex is used as a tool for commercial ends as well as misled gratifications. From very childhood, a new-born is exposed to an overdose of sexuality which builds perverted tendencies in him or her. For some, this pervertism takes queer and extreme turns causing them to seek sexual satisfaction for their deprived mindsets from objects and people most accessible to them. In a society, when two or more such likeminded individuals come together, menaces like homosexuality are born.
If we dwell back to the Vedic wisdom, we would find enough directions on how to avoid any such pervertism, either for same or opposite sex. The Vedic approach to life was much more simpler, intuitive and rational. The whole life span was divided into four Ashrams.
The first quarter of life, at the least, was supposed to be for development of self in terms of knowledge, health, skills and attitude.
A graduate from this phase of life, called Brahmcharya, was now considered fully matured and responsible enough to enter the next phase of life – Grihastha Ashram. The purpose of this phase was to settle with a member of opposite gender so as to procreate and construct a noble offspring for the society. A Grihastha was supposed to earn, donate, manage the mundane affairs of the society and nurture the rest of the Ashrams.
The rest of the two Ashrams were dedicated to self-less charitable activities for the society and spiritual uplift of self and others.
The goal of life was to achieve salvation through noble acts and ensure that you live not merely to extract from the world but to give back as much as you can.
Regardless of the spiritual evolve that an individual would have, there were certain specific do’s and don’ts, especially for the first phase of Brahmacharya which would ensure that likelihood of any sort of mental weakness is near zero. Thus there was no concept of homosexuality, depression, frustration, helplessness, dejection or even illicit heterosexual misconduct in a Vedic society.
The core reason for growth of homosexuality in particular and sexual diseases – mental and physical – in general is ignorance of certain visionary advises of Vedic culture for Brahmacharya or first quarter of life. Since this phase represents foundation of entire life, even if discipline in other phases go awry, it is not as serious a matter. But if the first phase is screwed up, a strong fort cannot stand on a weak foundation. And even in the phase of Brahmacharya, the earlier these habits are inculcated the better. The first 15 years are supposed to be most critical phase for construction or destruction of a personality.
Coming specifically to the issue of homosexuality, following is an extract of code of conduct for Brahmacharya, which can be applied even in current scenario. This would ensure there are no homosexuals or AIDS patients in the society. This is the most imminent need of hour. We can challenge the researchers in field of sexual abnormalities to test these out with a control population and see the results for themselves.
Here is a partial list of code of conduct for Brahmacharya:
- Do not touch or massage one’s own body or someone else
- Do not touch the genitals unnecessarily
Ignorance of these two factors alone cause appearance of homosexual tendencies by the time adolescence is reached. By now this becomes an addiction like alcoholism or narcotic-addiction and hence homosexuals feel helpless even if they want to quit homosexuality. - Do not consume meat, alcohol and sour food
- Avoid use of fragrance and wear simple clothes
- Avoid exposure to music, films, literature, photos etc which depict humans in romantic, nude or semi-nude state and contain sexual overtones or fundamentals. Instead depiction of valor, spiritualism, patriotism, selflessness should be promoted.
- Avoid gambling
- Avoid criticism of others and crude jokes.
- Entertain through outdoor sports, good music, good literature and healthy debates/discussions ensuring point 5 above is adhered to.
- Sleep alone
- Avoid masturbation. Avoid any activity that brings sexual excitement.
Howsomuch modern doctors may say about how safe masturbation is, the fact remains that this act represents tendency to succumb to purposeless cravings of mind. This weakening tendency is mother of many associated problems that emerge later in modern society – homosexuality, depression, sexual indulgences, frustrations, worrisome nature and reduced longevity and health in long run. - Drink lots of water and eat simple nutritious food.
- Do not watch other people. Develop habit of introspection and self-analysis instead.
- Avoid idiot-box to extent possible.
- Force your mind to think only about seeking more knowledge, skills and health. Set challenging targets for yourself in these areas and focus every moment on planning and execution of the same.
- Ensure spending 15 minutes twice a day – in morning and evening – on meditation and giving oneself positive vibes. The Vedic culture has devised an excellent technique called Sandhya for this. This itself if practiced effectively can get rid of any mental weakness whatsoever in matter of few days.
- Treat everyone with respect, humility and avoid use of crude language.
These are just snippets for the detailed code of conduct as given in Vedic texts like Manu Smriti. There are proven, time-tested and based on scientific principles.
Mail me at agniveer@agniveer.com to get more details into the Vedic approach of treating homosexuality.
Do not miss these:
About Agniveer
How is it that the soldier of fire fears ‘fire’ so much, that he decided to dedicate so many lines to ‘fiery’ men and women?
Its not fear of fire, but the urge to help everyone to discover the true fire within, and get rid of false illusions of fire.
This is so retarded, it's hard to know where to begin. So let's start at the top (and let me specify right away that I'm heterosexual): "Researchers…agree that it is not inborn" That is A COMPLETE, UTTER LIE !!! The exact opposite is true: there's absolutely no question about the fact that 99% of all homosexuals were BORN as such. That is extremely well known and established. Its absolutely unquestionable, cf. below. "they agree that it cannot be natural"
Of course it is natural, you fool! How could it be otherwise?
Because you think a "homosexual gene" can't exist because it could not survive? That just shows how little people understand genetics: – there's no "homosexual gene" – homosexuality is the result of EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT, like the personality type – there are huge genetic benefits for KIN SELECTION in having occasional homosexual births, i.e. during periods of scarcity, it is better to have one more person taking care of the parents' or siblings' offspring rather than producing more children.
There's a lot more than the sexuality that is different in homosexuals:
#1 The average IQ of homosexuals is higher than among the general population
#2 They tend to be extremely gifted in arts and sciences such as mathematics
I don't have to start enumerating the unending list of geniuses who were homosexuals, do I? Alan Turing, father of the modern computer and hero who allowed the Allies to win over Nazi Germany by decrypting their Enigma machine. Leonardo da Vinci. Michelangelo. Oscar Wilde… there are THOUSANDS of top-rated artists and scientists in the list. If pathetic morons who hate homosexuals because of their own sexual insecurities had been allowed to kill all homosexuals, the world would be an infinitely worse place. We'd probably still be stuck in the dark ages, which seems to be where these homo haters want to drag us to.
In absolutely every population, there's a consistent 3 – 5% of homosexuals, totally indepenently of the prevailing culture. Of course the primitive, barbarian socieites claim that "there are no homosexuals in our country" (curtesey the moron Ahmadinejad), which is really ironic as the same week, 20 homosexuals were executed in Iran. So quite obviously, even the most severe repression doesn't prevent people from being homosexual. The fact that most don't dare to admit it doesn't change a thing about the facts.
Homosexuals have existed at all times throughout history. There are documents going back thousands of years. Obviously, those homosexuals didn't have any "inspiration" and weren't "seduced" into being homosexuals. They were just, well, BORN that way. Duh!
Just saw a documentary about Albanian homosexuals in Europe: they admitted that their very conservative families would never tolerate their sexual orientation. So they either break off contact with their family or they hide it. At least one admitted that he'd rather die than admit it to his father. He married a girl and pretended to live a perfectly normal life, but he's completely miserable, because he cannot live according to THE WAY HE WAS BORN. That's like keeping a fish out of water.
Looking at all of the above, all claims about the alleged "non-natural origin of homosexuality" crumble like a house of crads. In fact, they're so ridiculous that I won't go through them. I can only push so much ridicule and scorn on morons who compile such idiotic lists.
Guys, being a heterosexual, I know that no amount of "seduction" or masturbation (which I did extensively, like all normal boys) would turn me into a homosexual. The idea is so retarded, it makes you wonder where they go get them. In the 19th century, religious retards claimed that masturbation could make you blind. HAHAHA. Amazing to what length some people will go to try to control other people's sexuality.
Here's a hint: STOP BOTHERING!
Just don't even think about what other couples do in bed, be they hetero- or homosexuals. Trust me, I wouldn't want to know what any of you do when you have sex.
Once you get over this desire to control others – which is pointless anyway – you'll see that you will live a lot better.
And no, we'll never agree with your religious ideas, be they Hindu, Muslim, Christian or whatever – it's all ancient nonsense by people who had no clue about the world.
1. Please check all medical sites. Now all refuse to accept that homosexuality is genetic. In fact pro-gay movements find it offensive to hear that homosexuality is genetic. They now state that its their free choice. The hoax of gay gene is long over and actively refuted by both sides.
2. I am not sure about IQ levels of homosexuals and whether Vinci etc were homosexual. But in any case, no one is linking homosexuality with IQ. Just as we do not link even criminal tendencies with IQ.
3. No where have I mentioned that homosexuals should be killed or tortured. That is against Vedas. On contrary, I have full sympathy with them for their being victims of situations.
4. In all societies, irrespective of culture, there are more than 3-5% criminals and rapists. I believe you would apply same logic for them as well!
5. Homosexuality is one of the random results of lack of mind control as a training input from early childhood. There are many subtle manners in which it can start – including culture of irrational conservatism and full freedom for monkey-mind! In fact conservatism without logic is as stupid as concept of total liberty.
6. Even criminals have existed throughout. Existence of deviance is no justification to accept something.
7. Masturbation does not make one blind or homosexual. But it does impact the mental attitudes. From material standpoint it does not create any problems, perhaps. But from point of view of mental peace and spiritualism, the very need for masturbation defines hollowness. The goal of Vedic life is to develop attitude of happiness independent of pretexts. That is where masturbation acts as a barrier.
8. Sex is definitely a private business. That is what ensures sanity in society. And no one should bother about what two people do in closed rooms. The problems with homosexuality are different though – a. Homosexuals are by nature most non-monogamous. Monogamy is a rarity in their case. b. More than 505 of homosexuals are actually bisexuals and keeps shifting their sexual preferences. c. Homosexuals can only have anal sex which increases chances of HIV transmission almost 30 times. (Please refer texts of medicine). Thus in case of homosexuality, the private affairs of two individuals become a threat for entire society. Just as government will not allow me and my friend to privately manufacture bomb or consume narcotics, or kill each other with consent, because it can harm others, same is case with homosexuality.
9. Because of these problems, homosexuals are a poor victim. Media would try to cash on them by convincing them that they are helpless and destined to remain so. Thus they become victims of HIV/AIDS and frustrations in life. They also face ridicule of mainstream society. All for a purposeless tendency that breeds illness.
I have full sympathy with them and would like to help them live their lives to fullest.
You are completely wrong! You simply didn't keep up with MODERN RESEARCH. You simply stick to whatever answers you're comfortable with.
You can't even READ properly: I said it was the EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT that defines the brain and that turns a person into a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.
THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS "GENETIC".
I already said so – there's no gene for homosexuality, so your answer completely misses the point.
And yes, homosexuals are homosexual FROM BIRTH to 99%.
How do we know? Because a heterosexual man will never be attracted to another man no matter what. Suggesting that it is a "choice" is complete BULLSHIT and totally contradicted by all those men who suffer terribly from being homosexual, who don't even live out their homosexuality, but who are clearly attracted to men. How can you explain that, hein?
And IT IS NOT A NEW PHENOMENON!
Homosexuality has always existed in ALL CULTURES and AT ALL TIMES. This also contradicts your ridiculous theories.
The fact that you don't know about Lenardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing etc. just shows that you're a completely uneducated person. Anyone with half an education knows about those men and the fact that they were homosexuals.
And that YOU don't know about IQ studies is not the least bit surprising. It is, however, very well established. There's a very simple method: take any random number of homosexuals and check their professional achievements, then compare them with a proportionately equal number of heterosexuals. You will find that the homosexuals are consistently better qualified / more famous than the heterosexuals.
I know a guy who became a Commisar in the German Federal Police at the age of 23 – many years earlier than the average – and who was homosexual. Another friend is the director of the Opera of a large American city. Another one is a very successful entrepreneur. Just out of the ones I personally know – plus many famous ones – I can immediately deduct that the scientifically established high IQ for homosexuals is perfectly valid.
As for your claim that homosexuality is dangerous:
ONLY IF IT IS REPRESSED!!!
If it is LEGAL and not prosecuted, it becomes possible to INFORM homosexuals about the dangers of HIV, to distribute condoms etc.
Besides, if you read the book "The AIDS Pandemic" by Dr.Chin, you'd see that AIDS really stayed within the original communities (drug addicts, prostitutes and homosexuals) and did NOT enter the mainstream society. So your claims are completely WRONG.
How do we know that Dr.Chin is right? Because the WHO and UNAIDS both had to change their numbers based on his studies. I met with Dr.Chin and the entire directorate of the above organizations in person and did video interviews with them. WHO and UNAIDS no longer question Dr.Chin's numbers.
As you see, some INFORMATION would be very helpful – it might actually allow you to make some mental progress.
You seem to assume that you can get everything through meditation. Unfortunately for you, FACTS require actual contact with reality.
Let me also remind you guys that Indian society was not always so constipated about sex as you are now.
The Kama Sutra is proof that just a few hundred years ago, Indians enjoyed sex.
And by what I remember, homosexuality was not considered perverse either. So this is a new development.
You know what you'll get if all young people follow the "Vedic" rules above?
A society of sexually repressed and incredibly frustrated people!
And what do frustrated people do? They become PERVERTS!
The kind of people who best match your model in European society would be monks and priests. Guess what? They have the highest rate of PEDOPHILES in the entire society, probably because children end up being the only possible target for their sexuality that has no other outlet.
Concentrating on all sorts of things – "spiritual", intellectual etc. – doesn't help one bit. Sooner or later, the natural sex drive takes over and if you don't heed it, you end up going crazy.
Incidentally, a lot of homosexuals used to become priests and monks, trying to hide their sexual orientation. This also hat the benefit of allowing them to find more like-minded men. Those who were homosexuals and lived it with other priests at least didn't turn into pedophiles.
So let me say it again:
Not being able to live out one's sexual needs can only lead to madness, period.
If you want to oppress anyone who doesn't fit into your narrow model of a "perfect" society, you'll generate a really crazy society instead.
And don't get me started on arranged marriages and the near impossibility of divorce in India.
1. Kamasutra is a piece of trash and unscientific literature. Taking it seriously may be injurious to health.
2. No one actually enjoys sex. Because enjoyment is a function of mind. You can derive enjoyment from anything and without anything. Because in reality you enjoy through the mind, and rest is only a pretext. In Vedic concept, you can train your mind to enjoy anything. So we train it to enjoy whatever makes sense. Same happen in civilized society even today – we train ourselves to enjoy more sensible things even though we enjoy silly things like eating dirty things in childhood.
3. Monks and priests are perverts because they try to repress feelings without mind control. in Vedic system, no one deliberately controls desire of sex. One is encouraged to marry and enjoy conjugal life in a sensible manner. The Vedic concept is not of repression but redirection. Repression is a recipe for perversion.
4. Mind is a tool. One can use it to get rid of any habit and acquire any new habit. Most people fail to understand this and consider themselves destined to live as per what their minds got trained to learn as per whatever random events happened in their lives. The system of Vedic Yoga helps one master his mind and use it to enhance his or her happiness multiple times. NLP also tries to do so in a limited manner. But it to admits that mind is a mere tool. You can repattern it for virtually anything.
5. Vedas do not believe in externally arranged marriage. They believe in self-arranged marriage. But marriage has a purpose here, and as per Vedic approach, divorce is a rare phenomenon. Unfortunately, what Indian practice today is farthest from Vedas in same manner as what Westerners practice. The key is self-determination devoid of lust to make objective decision. That is true for marriage or anything else.
No wonder you're such an arrogant, uninformed prick who tries to control how everyone else has sex: you don't enjoy it yourself, so why should anyone else?
As for your fanaticism for the Vedic system – if it were so great, it should have produced wonderful results. Where are they?
When I see India, I see chaos, poverty, corruption and very, very unhappy people. Yet it is better than it used to be.
My guess is: rather than trying to achieve some imaginary bliss through "mind control", Indians should simply start having more FUN while having sex and then getting down to do some actual WORK.
Might be a better concept.
Dear Friend, I just provided facts. As I emphasized in previous comment, it is no one's business to control what anyone does. That is against Vedic system. But when something is proven to breed deadly diseases for masses, one has to be careful. In same manner as any Western country would also disallow bomb manufacture in privacy.
Second, Vedas are for entire world, not only for India. India is suffering today to extent it does not adopt the rational concepts of Vedas. Earlier when it used to do, it was the lighthouse of world having given world the knowledge that has been the foundation for the entire progress we have made – maths, science, architecture, norms of civilized society etc etc. But even today, overall, Indians have much more FUN than typical western countries. That is why drugstores in India sell only drugs, unlike in west where 75% of drugstore capacity is for keeping alcohol or mood-management pills and stuff.
Third, with regards to bliss, you need to do some more study. It is the focus of modern psychology too to bring internal locus of control in people so that their bliss is not dependent on external situations.
Finally, instead of vague concepts, kindly provide facts – on how homosexuality is harmless, or anal sex safe, or whether monogamy is a predominant trend among gays, or whether bulk of gays are not bisexual etc etc. Often people counter facts with hyperboles, and thats most dangerous for a sane society.
1. Kindly provide links to proven studies that conclude that homosexuality is 99% from birth. At least APA found none and they admitted they do not know why it happens.
2. The names of people you mentioned may be heroes in your country, but not in this part of the world. And because they were gay, that does not mean being gay is good. That is stupid logic.
3. No where did I claim that homosexuality has any link with IQ. But to claim that homosexuals are more intelligent would be crazy. Even WHO and APA does not claim that homosexuals are more intelligent.
4. I can agree that homosexuals may be more creative, because to enjoy such purposeless act, one needs to live in world of imagination and hallucination and situations where one can transgress the boundary of sanity. Thus bulk of homosexuals are actors, dancers, musicians, etc.
5. Why does one need to legalize homosexuality to inform them of dangers? Do we also legalize terrorism then? Anyone can by condom without police permission. Why we need to legalize homsoeuxality then? The logic is too circular!
6. What you imply by Dr Chin study is that so far homosexuality was abhorred, it stayed in particular community. When we started gay movements emphatically and liberalizing sex-based stupidity, it became an epidemic.
The typical kind of ILLOGICAL ANSWER: "What you imply by Dr Chin study is that so far homosexuality was abhorred, it stayed in particular community. When we started gay movements emphatically and liberalizing sex-based stupidity, it became an epidemic."
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
The REAL implication is that even in places with a completely open homosexual scene, AIDS never entered the main stream, contrary to what activists constantly claimed.
So its the exact opposite of what you claim, too.
Legalizing homosexuality does NOT increase the risk of AIDS or any other illness for anyone else in society. It does, LOWER the risk to homosexuals, as they get more access to information and medical care, which, if anything, even decreases the risk to the rest of the population, too.
What you claim is that homosexuals can be fully informed even if homosexuality is illegal. That is of course complete nonsense. In countries where it is illegal, it is impossible to publish information specifically for homosexuals, they cannot get access to official health care etc.
#1 Every homosexual does not automatically know that he needs to use condoms; most people assume that condoms are against having babies; most uneducated people know nothing about how AIDS and other illnesses spread
#2 Condoms are not the only thing that reduces the risks; there are many other things that specifically homosexuals should know.
For these reasons, making it legal is not only an obvious choice, it is mandatory. Anyone opposing it has the blood of the victims on his hands. Including the blood of those who commit suicide after being arrested for being homosexual (like Alan Turing) or who die of a mob attack by people who feel justified in attacking homosexuals because it is illegal.
1. So you imply that legalization is necessary for education! I wonder we need to legalize many other things as well to make people aware of dangers of those things, if we go by this logic!
2. At least in India, everyone smart enough to innovate in sex knows that condoms are necessary for AIDS prevention, by the way. What other things do they need to know that cannot be informed of otherwise? I did not find a single one, after consulting experts in the field.
3. How do you think legalization will prevent mob-attack? Mob attack is illegal in any case! The same fundae apply in case of any crime – petty or big! This is too childish a logic.
"The names of people you mentioned may be heroes in your country, but not in this part of the world"
Sorry, but the "cultural difference" card doesn't work here. You are really just uneducated.
Every single computer science student learns about Alan Turing and you have plenty of computer guys in India.
No one with an education can claim that he doesn't know Leonardo da Vinci of Mona Lisa fame (the most famous painting in the world) and who designed helicopters and modern bridges in the 15th century.
Michelangelo is the most famous sculptor in the world. David etc. Indian, Chinese and Japanese tourists arrive by the millions to see his works in Italy.
I have plenty of Indian friends and all of them know all of the names that I mentioned. Not knowing them for an educated Indian is like not knowing Gandhi for a European or American.
"that does not mean being gay is good. That is stupid logic"
That is YOUR logic, not mine. What I said is that innumerable geniuses – and some of the absolute top-ranking ones who immensely contributed to art and science – were gay. We can even observe that the proportion of outstanding geniuses among their ranks far surpasses what one could expect based on the percentage of homosexuals in the overall population.
(And that does not even count any high achieving homosexuals who never made their homosexuality public, i.e. who are normally counted as heterosexual; we have to assume that there are quite a few given the repression against gays).
Its not that it is "good to be gay" but that it is really, really stupid to prosecute gays. If humanity had always followed your demands, we'd be stuck in the dark ages.
1. Knowing name and knowing history is different. The claim of Da Vinci being gay is dubious, by the way. He was implicated but charges were dropped later. I know no witness who had such relation with Vinci.
2. Who ever claimed that being gay or being criminal has anything to do with IQ?
3. You yourself are testifying against the evidence you gave to prove that homosexuals are more intelligent. As per your logic, only a few brave ones come out open in public. These have to be the more gifted ones. Now if you compare the IQ of these successful people with general populace, that has to be high, no rewards for guessing it.
4. Who claims that gays should be prosecuted. They should be taught art of living just as it should be taught to prostitute-seekers. The only point is that homosexual acts increase AIDS spread 30 times by mechanism of anal sex and many times more because most homosexuals are bisexuals in reality
Scientific PROOF that homosexuality is INBORN and not a choice:
READ THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES:
http://mental-health.families.com/blog/homosexual…
In this Swedish study, brain scans revealed that hetero- and homosexual brains respond completely differently to smells that contain sexual information (sweat, urine). That shows that it takes a homosexual brain to be attracted to other men.
A man who is attracted to men cannot choose to be attracted to women. He can try to have sex with a woman, but it will feel to him exactly like having sex with a man would feel to a heterosexual man: totally unattractive and even repulsive.
And here is a the most important article – very complete and a wonderful summary:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/article…
That confirms what I said: it's a matter of EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT, but the sexual orientation is definitely fixed the second the child is born.
Contrary to your claims, almost no one in science still supports the "nurture" explanation. The overall agreement is now that gays are born that way.
So what kind of sources did you use to come up with your conclusions?
1. You are referring to magazine article and dubious studies. Visit apa.org, the official body on psychiatry. They are unarguably pro-homosexuality. But even they have rephrased the cause of homosexuality to deemphasize biological factor. Visit <a href="http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html” target=”_blank”>http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html
2. The brain theory you states is interesting. Because studies have also found clear differences in criminal and non-criminal brains. This difference is much more clear and unambiguous – that criminal brains are different. Read about criminal brain scans. Perhaps we should then stop prosecuting criminals who were born that way!
3. However, research also suggests that many of our brain functions and subsequent effects arise from the way we think and what we think. London cab drivers even increase their size of brain during their training. So we have an option to think the way we want and let our brain and physiology follow that. This is the foundation of NLP which is accepted by scientists as well.
@Pro Liberate:
Thank you for following up with this ignorant person, who sticks to a stand and is not ready to look at the current scientific data. I cannot really believe that he listed those "code of conduct". What a load of nonsense! You cannot reason with anyone who doesn't accept science. No point in talking to this person! And people blindly follow his ignorant rant – that is the sad state of affairs!
Which data? Refer to CMDT 2009 and Harrison on Medicine 17th edition – the most authoritative texts on medicine. They would clearly explain that anal sex is 30 times more risky. And homosexuals can only have anal sex. Further, check up a variety of surveys that conclude that monogamy is a rare exception among homos, and that almost 50% of homos are actually bisexuals. Thus calculate yourself the rate of progress of AIDS – which in incurable – through homosexuality.
Also refer these books on new diseases that homosexuality has brought in. Kindly refer the chapter on STD.
Yes, it is true that anal sex is more risky for spreading STD's. That is not the only sex that homosexuals can have – check up on that! And heterosexuals get involved in anal sex too… well, the reason for the spread of AIDS is not homosexuality, but promiscuity. Majority of the 2.3 odd million people in India who are afflicted with HIV, are the heterosexual, promiscuous people.
What surveys are you talking about when you say that monogamy is a rare exception among gay people? Do they also not conclude that this is because of lack of societal support and role models? Psychiatric and Psychological associations have repeatedly stated that homosexuality is not a disease, and cannot be cured.
Please quote the scientific survey which says that 50% of homosexuals are actually bisexuals. I am very interested in knowing the source of such a claim.
As I said earlier, anal sex could be the cause of AIDS, not homosexuality.
1. This is not the only but predominant one. Check up on that.
2. I agree on heterosexuals as well. That is why it was illegal so far.
3. I agree reason for spread of AIDS is promiscuity. Homosexuality is a dangerous variant.
4. The reason for legalizing homosexuality was given as this being highest risk group for AIDS. You are now giving a different story.
5. Several surveys are available. I have referenced one. Monogamy referred in this is within preferred partner gender. So societal support point is irrelevant.
6. Psychiatric associations do not even consider promiscuity as disease and hence stupid sexual tendencies are rising. Just because something cannot be cured does not mean it is not a disease. No mechanism has been found to cause homosexuality except mental make-up.
7. They are several surveys on relative percentage of homosexuals and bisexuals. A 2002 survey in the United States by National Center for Health Statistics found that 1.8 percent of men ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 2.3 percent homosexual, and 3.9 percent as "something else". The same study found that 2.8 percent of women ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 1.3 percent homosexual, and 3.8 percent as "something else". The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior, published in 1993, showed that 5 percent of men and 3 percent of women consider themselves bisexual and 4 percent of men and 2 percent of women considered themselves homosexual.
8. Again several surveys have researched on monogamy aspect. You can refer to those of Adams, Miller, Mattison, MacWhirter, martin danneckar etc. Many have been done by homosexuals themselves.
The reasons would be obvious for those close to vedic culture though!
I agree with Agniveerji….If we want to be great india we must have to follow Brahmcharya…But we should control our mind then body will automatically controlled. Because Mind is driver for this body otherwise mindles body is dead.We have so many example who were bhramchari and having great physical and mental power. (Bhism,Hanuman,Mahaveer,Gautam Budha,Ram,Krishna,Maharshi,Vivekanand,Tukdoji, so many Rushis) We still have so many example in our society. We can test this by following one month yoga and some satvik food intake.
I totally agree with Veda's thought of bramhacharya…We have to go back to our root i.e. Veda' but by following correct way. If we have disease upto to extreme limit so it will not be cured immediately but will take time. It does not mean we should not take medicine.
Mai aapke prayas ko safalta mile yahi praarthana karta hu…Aap bahut accha kam kar rahe hai…
Don’t be a fool…
It’s not about any book,Faith or Religion when comes to sex. It’s all about nature.
We live in the society where two genders have been identified to be protected. Exceptions are always there like Eunuchs. We have been civilized since many millenniums. What is the meaning of civilization needs to be understood by everyone part of it.
Now, the Consumerism (Capitalism) has taken over our lives. Girls/Woman are open towards pub/smoking as well as vulgarities of all sorts even when these things are not recommended for men. There is no social security for anyone in the so-called great societies. That is why, everyone wants to earn quick money as well enjoy his/her life as it is considered very short. They do not feel that there are any liabilities towards the society and country.
So, it is quite understood that we can expect the Homosexualism to increase and become a recommended practice in next few decades [Recommended by doctors ]. If these un-natural things are approved and legalized then please also look at following disasters:
A) Like gays/lesbians a new breed would demand to allow sex with animals
B) Animals would be considered part of the human society and Pharma Companies would work over the possibilities of having babies from animals.
C) Test-Tube Babies would be considered to get babies from animals if humans want them to be one of the parent.
D) There would be another community coming into the picture, which would demand cannabalism to be made legal. They would argue that they should be given rights to consume the unclaimed dead-bodies. They would roast them and consume them, thereby reducing the food-shortage and saving the environment from the pollution [ cremation / burial ].
E) There would be another sect which may come into the picture. This sect would try to scientifically prove that we are animals first. Of course it is true. This way they would be able to convince Judiciary as well as democracies that human-beings should be allowed to marry in-between Blood-Relatives .[Brother/Sisters or even with parents] . These things have been slowly started in some countries where these abhorring things have been identified,
F) Army Personnels would demand to have these intimate relationship to be made legal. It is their private affair when thy are not in duty. In fact, these relations should be promoted in the :On Job Training”…………..This would help a strong bonding between the soldier and the concerned official.
G) Next, Rapist would argue that since we are animals, Rape should not be considered as a major offence, They should rather be penalized monetarily for this offense. They would be willing to pay for the expenses for the abortion/contraceptives etc.
And we all can imagine such scenarios to be in near future. One incorrect decision and mistake paves the way for others to become dominant and get authorized. Apart from science, there has to be some common-senses as well.
I hope my points make sense to the so called modern and liberal people. If not, then we all are in trouble and no doubt that the humanity would be a VOID in near future.
Regards,
Satyendra
I someone is a homosexual, this means he is full of lust….and Vedas say there should be no lust….So Vedas are against homosexuality..!!!
Why are religious fanatics so stupid?
Moron…
Incredible. The first two sentences discredit the article completely as nothing more than a homophobic fluff peace based not on science but on personal biased beliefs the writer tries to convince the reader is supported by “Researchers”….what a joke.
“Researchers are baffled over hows and whys of homosexuality. They agree that it is not inborn, they agree that it cannot be natural but they fail to understand that what has caused a sudden spurt in growth of homosexuality. ”
As others have posted. The so called “science” is weak and cherry picking from outdated homophobic “studies” and ignoring the growing evidence that homosexuality is in fact “inborn” clearly shows the desperation of the poorly written article.
How could this be? This website stands for true knowledge. But how could this article proclaim that homosexuality is not inborn? Does it not know about genetics? About the many number of studies which show that homosexuality is not unnatural and has been observed in many of our fellow species? I thought only narrow minded Bible and Quarnic cults are against natural order. But this, how? How?
Anir
A naturalist can have sex with his mother and impregnate her and become father of her baby (father of his own brother!) and no “natural law” will oppose this act. Should it be fine then? Will you, being naturalist support it? Many animals have this tendency. Do you want to start this custom in humans on that basis?
Definitely those are narrow minded, who think God as an emperor sitting on throne and ordering his followers to kill others and rape their women, but at the same time those minds are still narrower, who think that they can derive everything including morality from the equations of Physics or gene codes of biology!
best regards
Nice try. There are valid reasons against it like predominance of recessive traits from an incestuous mating. That is also a reason why natural selection has a strong aversion to it. Maybe someone like you who thinks evolution never happened (correct me if I’m wrong in assuming it. That is the general idea I got from the Vedic knowledge on this site) and who is schooled in Vedic knowledge may not feel that aversion and can entertain that idea, but I find it repulsive.
@Anir
Now your norms to call something as “natural” have changed! Why did you defend homosexuality by saying it as inborn in the first place? You see wrong in incestuous mating but see no wrong in homosexuality whose result is nothing but the diseases! Incestuous mating should be more “natural” than homosexuality for naturalists because previous can give you result at least!
We only differ with evolutionists over the issue of purpose of everything including evolution. Any evolutionist, if accepts that the laws of evolution are maintained by supreme maintainer and are meant for a purpose, I can accept it.
If you read my comments in reply to einstein, you would see that I changed my stance as to the complete inborness of homosexuality.
I also agree that my implication of naturalness of homosexuality is wrong. It is something that would be called as a naturalistic fallacy.
So you are right. My original comment was quite lacking in logic.
@Anir
I admire your approach Brother. Congratulations for being the follower of truth. There are very few who have guts to accept the mistake. My respect for you has increased a lot after this comment of yours. May we all have such tendency of truth seeking like you and live in peace and love always.
Your Brother
Arya
@Anir
Brother, can you tell me, how will a naturalist see his mother’s sexual relationship with any male other than his father? It is not incestuous at all and thus a naturalist has no arguments against it!
Dont you think, being “natural” in your terms has no place for morality?
Your question is the perfect example of the naturalistic fallacy, of which I was guilty of a few comments ago. The fallacy is quite difficult to spot, and very easy to make. Please do read what I had linked to earlier and if you still don’t see why your question is a fallacy, I’d be happy to explain.
@Anir
Can anything (my comment) which is the effect of the natural cause Big Bang have fallacy ever? Do natural effects of natural causes are fallacious?
Again your question is a naturalistic fallacy. You seem to some difficulty in understanding the relationship of nature and morality.
“Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired,” Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project
By A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D, MBA, MPH
April 4, 2007 – Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the world’s leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA, concluded that “there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive.”
Dr. Francis S. Collins
In reviewing the heritability (influence of genetic factors) of personality traits, Dr. Collins referenced the estimates of the percentage of various human personality traits that can be ascribed to heredity from the Bochard and McGue research.
The heritability estimates for personality traits were varied: General Cognitive Ability (50%), Extroversion (54%), Agreeableness (42%), Conscientiousness (49%), Neuroticism (48%), Openness (57%), Aggression (38%) and Traditionalism (54%).
Kirk et al. (2000) in their research using a community-based cohort of Australian twins reported a heritability estimate of 30% for homosexuality. Whitehead (1999, 2006) in his extensive review of the research cites 30% as the estimate of heritability for homosexuality as well, though he views the estimate as a maximum.
Estimates of heritability are based upon careful analyses of studies conducted with identical twins. Such studies are important and lead to the conclusion that heredity is important in many of these traits. It is important however, to note that even in such studies with identical twins, that heritability is not to be confused as inevitability.
As Dr. Collins would agree, environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present.
Dr. Collins succinctly reviewed the research on homosexuality and offers the following: “An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.”
Dr. Collins noted that environment, particularly childhood experiences as well as the role of free will choices affect all of us in profound ways. As researchers discover increasing levels of molecular detail about inherited factors that underlie our personalities, it’s critical that such data be used to illuminate, not provide support to idealogues.
Citing such dangers, Dr. Collins referred to the book written by activist Dean Hamer who declared the discovery of the God Gene (this same author also is associated with “discovering the gay gene”).
Dr. Collins noted that the “evidence” in Hamer’s book “grabbed headlines,” but was “wildly overstated.”
A reviewer in Scientific American suggested that Hamer’s book on the God Gene should have been titled, “A Gene That Accounts for Less than One Percent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study.”
Unfortunately, much of the research in areas such as homosexuality, has been not only misrepresented in the media but by the scientists themselves through the tendency to overestimate the quantitative contribution of their findings.
Perhaps the best example of this media misrepresentation was the two studies conducted by J. Michael Bailey. In Bailey’s first study, he reported a concordance rate of 52%. In a second study, Bailey reported a concordance of 20-37.5%, depending on how loosely you define homosexuality. The first study received a great deal of press. The second study received almost no media attention.
Bailey himself acknowledged probable selection bias in his first study—he recruited in venues where “participants considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate.” The second study, using the Australian Twin Registry with its anonymous response format, made such bias unlikely.
Regarding the contributions of genetics to areas such as homosexuality, Dr. Collins concluded, “Yes, we have all been dealt a particular set of cards, and the cards will eventually be revealed. But how we play the hand is up to us.” *
” It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written would cause anguish for you or others who are seeking answers to the basis of homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God” (pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.
The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.
Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.”
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/05/major-geneticist-francis-collins-responds-to-narth-article/
Is homosexuality genetic or is it a choice?
No, homosexuality is not genetic. But neither do people choose to have homosexual feelings. These are not the only two options.
Genetics is the domain of science. So let’s consider what science has found regarding homosexuality and genetics. First, science has found that sexuality and sexual orientation are some of the most complex aspects of people and the answers to simple questions like “What causes homosexuality?” are not simple. For example, science does not have any test that can identify homosexuals from heterosexuals – no gene or DNA test, no blood or hormone test, no organ test.
Some people have studied twins. They found that identical twins do not always have the same sexual orietnation. The study by Bailey and Pillard, published in 1991, found that when one twin is homosexual, the number of times the other twin is also homosexual occurs more often than the general rates of homosexuality in society. The media reported this as proof that homosexuality is genetic. But the researches themselves clearly stated that this study did not prove that homosexuality was solely caused by something genetic. Interestingly, this study also looked at the rest of the family and found that the rate of homosexuality among the rest of the family, including adopted brothers was 200-300% more frequent than the general rate in society. And so the data leads to the conclusion that something is causing homosexuality to occur more frequently in the families that were studied but that it can not be genetics because the increase even occurs in adopted brothers who do not share any genes at all with the rest of the family.
Others have studied hormones and brain structures looking for other possible causes that are biological but not genetic. While they have found there may be biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, they can not determine if these possible differences cause homosexuality or they are the result of homosexual activity.
Still others have studied sociological and psychological causes for homosexuality. And they have found substantial evidence that homosexuality is developed (something you grow into) and that sexual orientation is not fixed but changeable.
When all of the work being done to understand causes is put together, the question about what causes homosexuality seems best answered as follows. First, science does not have a firm answer that everyone in the field of science let alone everyone else can agree on. The origins of homosexuality are still not clearly understood by scientists and the topic is the subject of debate. The scientific evidence about its cause or causes is inconclusive at this time. Second, science can say that the search for causes is better understood as a combination of causes rather than a single cause. It may be more accurate and more helpful to consider that a combination of psychological, environmental and biological factors together with human choice contribute in ways that vary from person to person to cause homosexuality.
It is also important to note that each person who experiences same-sex attractions or later identifies as gay or lesbian has unique predispositions and experiences that contribute more or less to that person’s emerging sexual identity. In other words, the combination of factors is different for each person.
A comment is needed about the nature of human choice. Human choice can be accurately viewed as one of the factors influencing the development of sexual orientation but this is not meant to imply that people consciously decide their sexual orientation. No one decides on a specific day that from that day onward that they will be a homosexual. Instead, sexual orientation is shaped and reshaped by a series of many choices and response to circumstances in one’s life and enormous social and cultural pressures.
Returning to the question – is homosexaulity genetic or is it a choice? The answer is neither. The scientific research about its cause or causes is inconclusive at this time. But what is clear is that we do not have to adopt an either/or approach when looking for what causes homosexuality. There seems to be a multi-faceted combination of causes. The simple question of what causes homosexuality appears to have a rather complicated answer.
Agreed. The issue is complex, just like determining the origin of other human phenotypes.
Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.”25th may 2007
taken from exgay website . but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years. 3 years ago. but still nothing.oh well
My note was sarcastic.The article seemed to provide rather primitive and crude ways of addressing a complex issue.
But I agree, I jumped the gun on the genetics factor.
@anir evolution should be rejected on all grounds. no species is evolving , and no species has records of evoultion. if you claim evolution has taken place then monkeys should not be co-existing with humans.
A pasted a couple of links but they might have gone into the spam queue. Here is link1
And if evolution should be categorically rejected, how do you explain this and this?
great couple of links there, but those bacterium had evolved or rather changed or adapted to their environment but they didnt actually change species did they? the grounds that humans have evolved from being a chimp to a human is not conclusive because as i said , chimps, monkeys or whatever you wanna call them still exist, so how does a species change from being a bacterium to a monkey then to a human?? its not possible. yes i agree we can become better adapted to a certain set of stimuli but we dont actually change species do we? if today im morbidly obese(which im not) and next year i am a muscular specimen then by a scientific logic i have evolved to become better adapted to cope in my environment, it does not mean i have changed my whole genetic makeup!
the fallacy is in the experiment itself, we already know that microevolution occurs, we dont deny that, but the notion that a monkey evolves into a man is stupidity. further like i said monkeys=still existing. and theory of evolution is called THEORY for what reason? because it is still not satsifactorily proven. the study you showed was about 2 years ago? had it been conclusive then we would not be calling it theory today.
I had posted a reply to your earlier comment which seem to be stuck in moderation queue as it had 3 links.
Anyway, the gist of that comment was this.
Are you trying to troll me? Somebody else has accused me of not knowing a subject but still commenting on it. What do you think is the meaning of theory? .
And I also think you have some trouble on understanding the word contradiction:
Your earlier comment:
@anir evolution should be rejected on all grounds.
But now:
the fallacy is in the experiment itself, we already know that microevolution occurs, we dont deny that, but the notion that a monkey evolves into a man is stupidity.
How does “evolution should be rejected on all grounds.” translate to “we already know that microevolution occurs, we dont deny that”.
I said microevolution, not evolution where a chimp transforms magically into a swan, or more unrealsitically into a human, so no contradiction from me. however, you say you are an athiest and yet you claim that you dont deny there being a causative agent in creation of universe see for yourself where the contradictions lie.
thanks for the link, but despite all the ‘evidence thats been presented you will notice on the website that they mention evidence for evolution as inconclusive. now one thing that the website fails to answer is that why there are so many species and they have suddenly stopped evolving? i too can give you many links which nullify evoultion theory but i will not bother going forward until you or anyone on earth can explain why monkeys(our supposed ancestors) are still with us?
“Why are monkeys still with us”. One of my earlier links had an answer for that. What exactly don’t you agree with in that article?
@anir whilst the link you gave admits inconsistency in evolution theory here is a little something against evolution, This rare admission is from the evolutionist journal Nature: “Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of ‘organs of extreme perfection’, such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved.”– Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin’s bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.
whats more , you have to remember that some scientists battle with notion of creationism due to the idea of god as presented in bible or koran. they fit in evidence to prove to themselves that evolution did happen. whereas the sad reality is they do this and there appears to be an inconsistency with their conclusions because they are forcing science to fit with their mumbo jumbo.
You said evolution should be rejected on all grounds. You should have specifically said macroevolution (in a creationist sense. Not the scientific meaning) should be rejected on grounds.
@ anir i also should say that people are misled into believing that since microevolution is a reality, that therefore macroevolution is such a reality also. Evolutionists maintain that over long periods of time small-scale changes accumulate in such a way as to generate new and more complex organisms … This is sheer illusion, for there is no scientific evidence whatever to support the occurrence of biological change on such a grand scale.
In spite of all the artificial breeding which has been done, and all the controlled efforts to modify fruit flies, the bacillus escherichia (E-coli), and other organisms, fruit flies remain fruit flies, E-coli bacteria remain E-coli bacteria, roses remain roses, corn remains corn, and human beings remain human beings.”
ok macroevoultion(higher species changing into different forms) i rejected. however, despite arguments against macroevolution lets just say it did happen, and the website does provide a lot of evidence for it. problem is darwinism proposed man evolved from chimps, and because that didnt work out , they changed their ideas to make it appeal to the atheistic temperament. so science can manipulate the existing data to form different conclusions to reject creationism. But even if macroevolution was accepted by all then it still cannot explain what the origin of THAT was.
No man did not evolve from chimps. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
that common ancestor is?
We don’t know.
further, darwinism was believed to be true until sensible people found out the obvious loopholes in that theory so to accomodate ignorance, the idea changed! now its that both these species share a common ancestor. what will you be saying in next 10 years?
science is indefinite on these issues , otherwise it would not need to change its theories.
/i>”science is indefinite on these issues , otherwise it would not need to change its theories.”
You obviously have no clue about the philosophy behind science. Your real argument should be “I find the epistemology of science questionable”.
fact remains. science has changed its concepts time and again. proving that humans(including scientists are fallible)
That was why I linked to the philosophy of science. Science had never claimed that it is infallible.
@Anir : Well Veda is Infallible, infallible – perfect, without any mistake,foolproof.
Now as you agree science is not infallible but Veda is, and can be proved. then what does it say about the origin of the veda?
can you infer?
Of course, I can infer. I’ll even start at the very beginning, philosophically speaking. Vedas are infallible by your own epistemology by which they are the One True Knowledge because they are infallible, something that would be called a tautology. But their infallibility is only valid in the qualia of people who consider them infallible and are not so infallible when it comes to the observed Universe, as the Vedas are quite clueless when dealing with the observed Universe as their ontology is not as strong as that of science as evidence by their inability to confirm or deny the existence of something like, say, the Saturn’s moon – Titan.
@Anir :LOL u are a nut bro
Enjoy…
Nice games on this portal in the toolbar, do try some of them.. your stay will be pleasant.
or can try meditation .. may be some of your questions get answered in Turya
You asked a question and I answered. If you can’t understand it, is that reason enough for ad hominem attacks?
‘we dont know’ . Exactly.
i think with your current view as an atheist, it is useless to disuss anything god related. so il leave it with you to either study vedic knowledge or else remain ignorant about it. however if you choose to condemn something without having sufficient information about it then it is hypocritical. your choice. bye
vedas are infallible as proven by science itself. you are merely arguing and not trying to find out the truth. the reason no on wants to answer you is because ofyour bias, you self admitted that you do not know vedas and now say that science is better than vedas.
vedas are infallible as proven by science itself.
Really? Proven by science? How about some evidence (as generated by the scientific method) to back that statement?
you self admitted that you do not know vedas and now say that science is better than vedas.
Of course science is better than the Vedas in explaining the observed world. Got any evidence to say the contrary?
@Anir ; Methodology of science theories from scientists themselves.
I had already linked to the methodology of science earlier. Here, let me link to it to again in case you haven’t even glanced at it.
You seem to have your definition of the word “science” which really means pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. I have no problem if you call it something else like Vedic knowledge, creationism, magical thinking or whatever.
did you even see the video. fully , they say that if the evidence if found contrary to the prevalent scientific belief it is ignored most of the times as it will negate all the progress made till date.
That is what makes it a conspiracy theory. The evidence they speak of is not scientific (didn’t I tell you before what evidence counts as scientific?) and based on that flimsy premise they go on to make other claims which are what could be called pseudoscience.
Evolution???
Sigh. I had already linked to the talk origins FAQ which will probably have every argument you can think of about evolution.
If you are so confident that theory of evolution is bunk, do have an alternate theory that can explain things like these?. One answer is god did it, but that really doesn’t answer anything. If that were the case, an equally satisfying answer is that the Invisible Pink Unicorn did it. So outside of “god did it”, do you have any other explanation for something like – why a mitochondria has its own independent genome and how come it is close to that of proteobacteria’s?
here you go
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/setting-record-straight-vestigial
I think it is safe to assume that you think that article actually answers my question and given that it uses the Bible as its epistemological basis, can I assume that you subscribe to the ontological implications of the Bible, i.e. humans are descended from Adam and Eve?
Now, coming to the points the article makes, the main premise is that there is significant loss of information for many genes in humans since Adam and Eve were first created by god. However it doesn’t explain the mechanism for the loss. If the mechanism is mutation, then how is that after Adam and Eve were created, and given that there were many descendants of them, all of them share the same mutations for a range of organs? What event caused such mutations were all humans on Earth are affected in the exact same way? If the loss is not due to mutations, then what is due to (Other than the Invisible Pink Unicorn).
The article also spouts a blatant lie:
Since Darwin’s point is a dominant trait this is supposed to imply that it was useful.
Darwin never talked about dominant traits. Even if he did, it doesn’t matter because the article should really be arguing against what the theory of evolution says. According to it an allele is dominant if it is always expressed when it is present in a heterozygous form. It says nothing about whether such dominant alleles are useful or not.
So what the article provides is a hypothesis with no evidence and at least one lie.
and for the back issues
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/back.asp
The entire article is one giant strawman. It doesn’t give any explanation as to why we have back problems. It doesn’t provide any evidence to say that a straight posture cannot cause back pain, other than the words of a evangelist physician. What it does is go on a rant of why a particular treatment does not work. How does the non-working of a treatment disprove the theory that the transition from walking on all fours to two legs contributes significantly to many back pain problems?
My grandfather, grandmother never had any back problems and they no longer are in this world.!! and they walked on two feet..
People who keep their body fit (like via yoga asanas) NEVER have any back problems.
How is that in any way related to this discussion? Are you suggesting that since your grandparents were fit, theory of evolution is wrong?
i think one has to answer the question that does evolution change the genetic material of a creature or not; can you give any scientific proof that across time genetic material changes and creates new species?
and what is your answer to Chirality requisite for a being as in the video.(watch it in full)
I can tell you about the evidence for evolution, but I’ll link to a video where Dawkins explains it much more eloquently than I could ever hope to. Jump to 08:42 if the video starts the beginning.
As to your video, it is again a strawman argument. Theory of evolution doesn’t have any sure answer as to the origin of life. What it does have an answer is given a replicator molecule, how it can lead to life as we see today. The video assumes that evolution can fully explain abiogenesis and thinks that the Urey-Miller experiment is definite proof of it. It is wrong on both counts. The experiment only shows that organic molecules can be produced in a lab.
And you still haven’t given me an alternate scientific theory that explains my questions.
I saw the video(i enjoyed it also, especially the hate mails section.
was LMAO), in essence it states that the differences if plotted in the genes of all the animals would form a tree like structure which would suggest that the the gene has in fact evolved over a period of time.from one to the last.(human)
isn’t there an assumption here : and identifiable pattern from start to end would suggests evolution
Now as per Vedic tenets all the creation is of the panch bhuta, so the ingredients are the same for all the created beings, rather than saying that the differences suggest evolution, could it not mean that some thing caused these difference deliberately, as it is only HUMANS who can attain Moksha or else he wonders in the 84 Lack species bodies. (science has identified only 1.7 million species till date !!!!)
Now please dont ask me what is the scientific proof of Moksha, as it a individual experience and falls under atmaGyan ,you can test it out for yourself but none of the scientists will believe you as the proof what science wants cant be provided by you.
and you are right all these articles are useless strwman.. i just realized.
no more comments till you understand vedas please.
I have done upteen discussions with many religious fanatics and their best trick to slip away from an argument is ‘You don’t understand till you study the Vedas itself’ LOL and obviously no sensible person want to study ancient scriptures written by goat herding nomads and consider it as infallable LOL.
LMAO,goat hearding nomads.!!
im a stupid atheist who thinks the world made itself
@aryavratast
isn’t there an assumption here : and identifiable pattern from start to end would suggests evolution
Of course it is an assumption. But it is one that is supported by evidence. It is also corroborated by other forms of evidence and in total they contribute to what is called the theory of evolution. And mind you the theory of evolution has a lot of explanatory power. No other theory (scientific or otherwise) can explain life on Earth in the exquisite detail that evolution does.
Sure, you are free it to think that Vedas with their panchabhutas (doesn’t the periodic table have more elements?) can explain life. But you can’t explain any of the links I have provided so far using the Vedas. As I said, “god did it” is a valid answer. So is the answer of “the Invisible Pink Unicorn did it”. The difference between theory of evolution and those answers is that evolution has explanatory transparency whereas the others lack it.
http://agniveer.com/136/2-modern-science/
Another nice strawman argument. Is that article in any way capable of answering my questions on evolution? No. Instead it makes absurd and primitive philosophical arguments that rightly belong in a museum. Fatalism explained.
well why dont you refute the article with science… and then it would prove that God doest not exist in his/her/its essence and in turn Evolution is the only answer.
well why dont you refute the article with science…
I already did. Didn’t you read the link on fatalism? The other arguments are also juvenile like science can’t tell this and that. Well, neither can the Vedas. They are so primitive that they can’t even explain why human cells have mitochondria and how it is used to gather energy.
Anir,
Being a naturalist, will you have sex with your mother, since it will be just a ‘natural act’ due to some of the chemical reactions in the body with no morality involved whatsoever. Since science never talks about morality, i think you will have no problems with that. Kindly share your insights on this before we answer your blabberings.
However, as far as your query regarding explanation about human cells having mitochondria is concerned, My dear Scientist, Vedas are not for dumb minds who want everything to spoon-fed from absolution to ejaculation. Instead they provide a basic framework for the humans to evolve.
However, before going deeper into this, kindly clarify your stand on having sex with your mother !!
You obviously have no clue about naturalism or moral philosophy. Go read my previous comments in this page, follow the links I have given and then come back with your inane strawman arguments. If you can’t comprehend any of the philosophical concepts I had introduced, just say so and I’ll be happy to explain.
its my fault , it like talking to blind man(since birth, like HG well’s country of the blind) about the things of sight.
adios brother.
Unlike Vedas, science doesn’t rely on the human brain or our senses to learn about nature. So even if one is blind, things can still be objectively evaluated.
your response stands in testimony,Corroborating the analogy
Do you understand what the philosophical concepts of subjectivity and objectivity mean? Subjectively, of course I am blind to the “knowledge” of the Vedas (a tautological statement from your end, given that I had admitted it before). But what you fail to recognize is that I am blind in the same sense as you are blind to the beauty of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
“Unlike Vedas, science doesn’t rely on the human brain or our senses to learn about nature. So even if one is blind, things can still be objectively evaluated.”
I fail to understand as to how objective evaluation is possible in the absence of an intelligent and receptive mechanism, viz., the mind and the senses here.
True. On reading again, I see that my statement wasn’t clear. Here is what I meant: Science doesn’t solely rely on the human brain and senses to arrive at models about nature, as they have been proven to be insufficient and unreliable. Science requires intersubjectively verifiable and reproducible evidence.
Now you could argue that none of what science discovers makes any sense unless there is an intelligent agent exists to take in the data. That is a view that leads to solipsism, and being a materialist, it is a view that I don’t subscribe to and it is one science doesn’t agree with either.
The purpose of my comment was to say that the epistemic rigor demanded by science is far more greater than the one demanded by Vedas (“my mind has spoken, therefore it is true” versus the intersubjective and reproducibility requirement of science) and hence science has a greater explanatory power when it comes to the observed world.
Existence itself is subjective in nature. If something is not within my domain of awareness, it does not exist for me. If I have not been to Honduras or not have heard of a country named such, it does not mean it ceases to exist, but I am unaware of it, and hence, it does not exist for me, unless of course I am made aware of its existence. Levels of awareness determine knowledge (that can be verified) individually as also collectively.
BTW, let us take the case of science. What would you describe as scientific and what as unscientific? Who is going to set the standards and do the labeling bit? The American Heritage Dictionary describes science as, “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Well, needless, to say, in the absence of a subject, it is not possible to do all this. Also, what sciences are you referring to, if at all you are, or you are generalizing something that you know as “science.” For my part, I know there are very many branches of science, viz., material sciences, physical sciences, chemical sciences, medical sciences, etc. Also, there is also a set of knowledge, ancient in nature that was handed down by our ancestors, that some refer to as being sciences in their own right, viz., spiritual science, astrology, yoga, etc. Now, one may argue as to whether they fall under the category of science or not (matter of individual interpretation), because of lack of awareness of things does not make them nonexistent (save for the subject itself). You can refer to them as esoteric sciences coz the mechanisms and methodologies of such sciences are yet to be established in totality. Not so long ago, yoga (and pranayam) was considered a sham, but these days the efficacy of these age-old practices is for all to see. Let me bring in the concept of empiricism here: if something can produce results, it has to be true.
1) Haven’t gotten it is simple Karma you abort the female and get what instead. Shame shame . India,
2) the hormones in meat.
3)Over sex these people do anything for their pleasure always trying something new with their dirty minds.
4) Brain washing by TV of young gullible minds that is normal and nothing wrong. One mentally off making another and TV full of mentally off. Mental illness is contagious.
5) Last they have some mutilation weather castrated , or circumcised..
One thing to note I was talking one time to an homosexual asking why you are one. He made on statement about the activity as having no responsibility. Whereas between man and women he thought there were lot of problem and worries and it being complex. As he said he don’t worry about pregnancy so no worries.
So it seems some sort of escapism, or cowardliness. Yes, I agree women are demanding maybe less demanding then us men and there is responsibility in being heterosexual like raising children. The person was in opinion was of low character because of his behavior pattern and thought him a nonsense fraudulent person. I know of these problem as I had dealt with public, rented houses, rooms etc.
6)Further they say the many fold increase estrogen in the environment due to environmental pollution.
But when I was in college an homosexual was able to be identify by MRI as certain regions were fundamentally different…Hard to think at birth such thing would be known as secondary sex characteristic only after puberty.I guess the tendency of girls to play house and with dolls, the tendency of boys to be more aggressive and active in sports. These things I noticed like always feeling trapped when girls wanted to play house with me as emotional I was obliged to. I think over exposes might be creating more problems as people think to try new things..
But I’ve notice it is alarming the amount of homosexuals in society and how commonly practiced whereas before it was unheard of as only in Muslim society. In fact people in general are more sexually active but that could because I am married now and notice those things whereas before I did not notice so much.. This to may be a factor for the raise of homos.
reproducible evidence? so why belive in evolution when it is not reproducible? and im not on about crappy lab tests making bacteria grow a tail. im on about massive changes that a bacteiria evolves into a human. no evidence for it. whereas you havent an iota of info about ved and yet deem yourself fit to evaluate the contents of it. this is called bias.
Why bother replying when you seem incapable of understanding simple English? Reproducible evidence means if I generate some evidence, somebody else should also be able to do the same.
Unlike you, who doesn’t have a clue as to how science works and yet make statements about it, I’m not “deeming” myself to evaluate contents of the Vedas. You don’t see me making idiotic statements like the Vedas support the caste system, do you? I’m simply contesting the claim that Vedas are scientific. By saying that they are better than science in explaining the observed world, you have the obligation to show that Vedas can explain things which science can’t. When I showed you examples to the contrary, all you did was to show your complete lack of understanding of science instead of answering my questions.
@SDC,
BTW, let us take the case of science. What would you describe as scientific and what as unscientific?
Science is very well defined. Whether something is scientific or not is determined based on that definition.
Also, what sciences are you referring to, if at all you are, or you are generalizing something that you know as “science.” For my part, I know there are very many branches of science, viz., material sciences, physical sciences, chemical sciences, medical sciences, etc.
All of them follow the scientific method. So where does the question of generalizing arise?
Also, there is also a set of knowledge, ancient in nature that was handed down by our ancestors, that some refer to as being sciences in their own right, viz., spiritual science, astrology, yoga, etc.
You are conflating shastra with science. I have no problem if you call them something else. They are not science, given the definition of science. If we keep muddling the meaning of words, then no meaningful conversations will be possible as everyone will pick their own definitions for words.
Now, one may argue as to whether they fall under the category of science or not (matter of individual interpretation), because of lack of awareness of things does not make them nonexistent (save for the subject itself).
Fine. I am not ruling out the existence of things per se. I just trust the epistemology of science because it has proved so successful in modeling the world. You may think this is myopic, but I offer the counter argument that science is what shields me from the illusions created by the Invisible Pink Unicorn (which btw is superior to the Ishwar of the Vedas. That is a fact as proven by my subjective experience). All I’m saying is if you do not have evidence for a claim, just don’t call it science. When there is evidence, it becomes science. Simple as that.
Please do read the two links in their entirety to know what science actually means (that includes empiricism as well).
And on a more general note, I don’t understand why people here want to conflate science with the Vedas. You guys obviously think the Vedas represent the one true knowledge. On that epistemological basis, science is superfluous and unnecessary as the epistemology of both are mutually exclusive . You can take a leaf out of some Christian and Islamic denominations who have come to that very conclusion and deny science, i.e. they don’t try to paint scientific legitimacy to their world view. People here have no qualms in denying evolution based on creationism backed by a Christian epistemology. Why not go a step further and deny all of science? Why do you people cling on to the word science when by *its very definition* Vedas cannot be scientific?
Namaste brother.
Firstly, you do not understand the purpose of Vedas.
The purpose of Vedas is to provide the fundamental knowledge necessary for a person to achieve ultimate knowledge (Moksha). They are not texts which contain all knowledge in the universe, because that would make existence pointless.
So your argument regarding Titan’s existence holds no weight.
Now to my next point. Could you mention what exactly in Vedas science has proven to be wrong?
Firstly, you do not understand the purpose of Vedas.
I never claimed to.
The purpose of Vedas is to provide the fundamental knowledge necessary for a person to achieve ultimate knowledge (Moksha). They are not texts which contain all knowledge in the universe, because that would make existence pointless.
For you they are the path to Moksha. For me they are not.
So your argument regarding Titan’s existence holds no weight.
That’s what I have been saying all along. Vedas cannot explain the observed world as well as science can.
Now to my next point. Could you mention what exactly in Vedas science has proven to be wrong?
I keep repeatedly saying, I don’t know much about Vedas and I am only contesting the claims made as regards to science, about which I do know a lot. But since you asked, maybe you can help me here. I am assuming that Vedas don’t just contain metaphysics, they also talk about the observed world. So if you can get me some stuff that talks about the observed world (say like what causes rains/lightning, what causes wind, why the sun shines, or what makes animals move), I’d be glad to show you how much they deviate from science, if at all they do.
@Anir:
Debate with a Nastik is a welcome change from a debate with a Muslim. At least you do not believe I am going to hell for not being a fellow Nastik.
I personally am more of an agnostic. In any case, you said: “Science is very well defined. Whether something is scientific or not is determined based on that definition.”
Science, is indeed well defined. But the fact that something is well defined does not make it complete. You only have to look at Godel’s incompleneteness theorem that says that ANY axiomatic system (which forms the basis of all science) contains statements that can be neither proven nor disproven. Additionally, there are TRUE statements that cannot be proven.
If people follow religion, it makes them feel good AND they dont try to shove it down other people’s throat, there needs to be no debate. I personally practice Yoga and can vouch that it leads to a calmer/more concentrated mind. You may try it too. If it works for you, great. As long as you have a healthy body and a healthy mind, whether you achieve it through Yoga or juijitsu is besides the point. Different strokes for different folks.
I have not gone through the entire discussion thread to see what you/others said. So, any possible misrepresentation of people’s positions is a mistake I cannot avoid due to paucity of reading and understanding all that has been said. I do not represent the Agniveer team. Their opinion may be different from mine. But neither one of us considers the other “lost souls” that need saving from otherwise burning in eternal hell. I think you should support force Agniveer in their main goal of ridding the world of radical Islam. Radical Islam/Christianity are a greater threat to atheism/science than Sanatana Dharma will ever be.
Science, is indeed well defined. But the fact that something is well defined does not make it complete. You only have to look at Godel’s incompleneteness theorem that says that ANY axiomatic system (which forms the basis of all science) contains statements that can be neither proven nor disproven. Additionally, there are TRUE statements that cannot be proven.
It isn’t easy to understand Godel’s Incompleteness theorem and as such gets used for the wrong reasons. The language is a bit acerbic, but it is a good read.
If people follow religion, it makes them feel good AND they dont try to shove it down other people’s throat, there needs to be no debate. I personally practice Yoga and can vouch that it leads to a calmer/more concentrated mind. You may try it too. If it works for you, great. As long as you have a healthy body and a healthy mind, whether you achieve it through Yoga or juijitsu is besides the point. Different strokes for different folks.
Agreed. With the caveat that ideas need to debated (civilly, of course).
But neither one of us considers the other “lost souls” that need saving from otherwise burning in eternal hell. I think you should support force Agniveer in their main goal of ridding the world of radical Islam. Radical Islam/Christianity are a greater threat to atheism/science than Sanatana Dharma will ever be.
I support the prevention of any faith based system from influencing public policy. Religion should be a private affair. But I can’t support Agniveer because of epistemological and ideological differences (I also subscribe to secular humanism).
@Anir: I cited Godel’s incompleteness theorem to show that in any scientific axiomatic powerful system there will always be TRUE statements that cannot be proven. I believe that you chose to extrapolate from this to say that I am proving the existence of God using Godel’s theorem. (The link to the blog you provided aims at destroying such a proof of God). I am an agnostic. I believe that a proof of God’s existence or non-existence can never be found. I do not claim to have a proof of God’s existence. There is incompleteness within science. I think both of us agree on that. (This incompleteness does not prove/disprove the existence of God.)
Let us get specific. Please answer with yes/no with short reasonings at the most.
(1) Do you practise Yoga/Pranayama/Medidation? If yes, do YOU YOURSELF experience any benefits from doing so? If you do not practise Yoga, can you atleast try in the near future? Here is a link which shows the positive effects of Yoga ( http://www.yogadork.com/news/your-brain-on-yoga-new-studies-in-neuroscience-show-meditation-positively-changes-your-brain/ )
(2) The atheist/agnostic/theist debate has been going on for millenia. We cannot hope to resolve it within the space of a comment section of a website. Based on what you see PRACTICALLY happening in the world, can you atleast acknowledge that Islam (because it is practised in a very violent/virulent fashion) poses the greatest threat to atheism/agnosticism/science as compared to Hinduism/Buddhism/Judaism/Christianity (as they are practised)? A religion is what its followers make it out to be…not what is written in books.
(3) I would tend to think that “secular humanism” (nice sounding term by the way) finds political expression as Communism. Yes? Can you name one country that was previously Islamic that is now predominantly Communist. I can give you at least one example of a country that moved in the reverse direction. In the 1970s Indonesia was a predominantly Communist country. It couldnt withstand the onslaught of radical Islam and see where it is now. So, debates about reason and ethics are fine and dandy, but Communism comes a cropper against the virulence of Islam. Even in India, the Communists in Kerala and West Bengal are so afraid of radical Islamists that they cannot bring themselves to condemn the chopping of a professor’s hands for allegedly blaspheming the prophet. So much for “secularism” and “humanism”!
In short, the theist/atheist debate is pointless in some sense…I would call it pure waste of internet bandwidth if bandwidth were not so abundant.
Islam is the greatest threat to “secular humanism”. Vedas/Sanatana Dharma/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism (in the way they are practised) can not even be called threats to any belief system. So, using the stick of atheism to try and score points over Vedantists is misdirected. It should be directed at radical Muslims/Biblicists.
There is incompleteness within science. I think both of us agree on that. (This incompleteness does not prove/disprove the existence of God.)
The same can be said of any axiomatic system. And it does not make science any less useful or any less powerful.
Do you practise Yoga/Pranayama/Medidation? If yes, do YOU YOURSELF experience any benefits from doing so? If you do not practise Yoga, can you atleast try in the near future? Here is a link which shows the positive effects of Yoga ( http://www.yogadork.com/news/your-brain-on-yoga-new-studies-in-neuroscience-show-meditation-positively-changes-your-brain/ )
That link is not conclusive evidence. Sorry, but if you are going to assert that something is intersubjectively applicable, I will subject it to the rigors of science. Did the study conclusively prove that those brain changes are only possible by meditation? Do those changes have a positive correlation with being happy and content? Do all people who are happy and content show the same patterns?
And yoga is just another form of physical activity. There is nothing special about it. Beneficial effects can be achieved through other forms of exercise as well (I have experienced it myself).
Based on what you see PRACTICALLY happening in the world, can you atleast acknowledge that Islam (because it is practised in a very violent/virulent fashion) poses the greatest threat to atheism/agnosticism/science as compared to Hinduism/Buddhism/Judaism/Christianity (as they are practised)? A religion is what its followers make it out to be…not what is written in books.
What I see as a threat to atheism/agnosticism/science are faith based systems. There are fringe elements in every belief system and the harm they have caused is substantial (think caste system or the unquestioning obsequious attitude fostered by some Indian belief systems). But I do agree that Islamic fundamentalism is a bigger issue. But asserting the supremacy of another faith (Sanatana Dharma) is not the solution. Removing faith based beliefs from public policy is the solution.
3) I would tend to think that “secular humanism” (nice sounding term by the way) finds political expression as Communism. Yes?
You didn’t disappoint me. I had specifically linked to what secular humanism really means because I know the sick and twisted sense in which the word secular is bandied about on this website. No, secular humanism is not expressed as communism. You have setup a nice strawman and have rigorously attacked it. To see how secular humanism gets expressed as a political expression, you should be looking at western countries, especially the Nordic nations.
Islam is the greatest threat to “secular humanism”. Vedas/Sanatana Dharma/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism (in the way they are practised) can not even be called threats to any belief system. So, using the stick of atheism to try and score points over Vedantists is misdirected. It should be directed at radical Muslims/Biblicists.
This article is an example of Dharma being a threat to secular humanism. Secular humanism supports LGBT rights, but Agniveer opposes them because their faith tells them to.
I think you may have been creating the biggest artificial straw man of this discussion and punching him vigorously. Agniveer’s article does not demand that its 16 point code-of-conduct be made public policy and enforced in schools and hospitals. In fact, the term “public policy” entered this thread (original article as well as the subsequent responses) for the first time in one of your responses above. I agree that public policy should not be formed on the basis of scientifically/empirically unverifiable ideas. Can you point out to me any public policy in India which favours Hindus or is oppressive to the LGBT community?
My own feeling on the LGBT issue is not based on any faith. For me, it is immaterial whether homosexuality is a genetic or an acquired habit/trait/practice or if any “holy” book condemns it. It is, however, true that if at some point in time 100% of humans practised homosexuality (and by implication, did not procreate) that would be the last generation of humankind on earth. So, be it inborn/acquired, for the sake of continued propagation of the human race, we may have to force homosexuals to procreate, if needed. Do you dispute this?
As to your pointing out to Nordic countries as flagbearers of secular humanism, let me first point out that I am not an expert on the political/social system there. It remains to be seen how they react to radical Islam. I fear that they may lay an egg when faced with the threat of radical Islam. I am sure there is some truth to commentators pointing out that Western Europe is is the process of becoming “Eurabia” social humanism and all that not-withstanding.
I think you may have been creating the biggest artificial straw man of this discussion and punching him vigorously.
I agree that it is a strawman argument if the position of Agniveer is that they don’t like homosexuality, but have absolutely no issues with supporting LGBT rights.
It is, however, true that if at some point in time 100% of humans practised homosexuality (and by implication, did not procreate) that would be the last generation of humankind on earth. So, be it inborn/acquired, for the sake of continued propagation of the human race, we may have to force homosexuals to procreate, if needed. Do you dispute this?
Unfounded, scare mongering speculation.
As to your pointing out to Nordic countries as flagbearers of secular humanism, let me first point out that I am not an expert on the political/social system there. It remains to be seen how they react to radical Islam. I fear that they may lay an egg when faced with the threat of radical Islam. I am sure there is some truth to commentators pointing out that Western Europe is is the process of becoming “Eurabia” social humanism and all that not-withstanding.
I too am no expert on political systems. I merely pointed out the Nordic countries as an example of secular humanism.
@Anir: For someone who purportedly supports the methods of science, it seems ungainly to dismiss a thought experiment as “unfounded, scare mongering speculation”. It dilutes your position substantially. Let me ask the same question differently:
For humankind, is there a threshold % of total population that is homosexual above which we (as a society) have to force homosexuals to procreate (mate with members of the opposite sex) for the continuation of our species?
From what I have read elsewhere, 2.1 is the fertility rate at which population stabilizes reaching an equilibrium. So, if fertility rate drops below that due to homosexual behaviour, what should society do?
Methods of science apply in the case where there is evidence. Your question has as meaning as asking “At any moment, a Vogon fleet might appear next to Earth and obliterate it. What should society do about it?”. Your scenario is as possible as the Vogon scenario. It is hypothetical and unsupported by evidence. Come back with some evidence of why the entire human population will suddenly turn homosexual and then we can talk. If we are going to merely speculate, I’d rather talk about Vogons first.
Extra extra…hear all about it. Straw Man Alert issued…watch out…Straw Man Alert.
Can I consider this debate closed as I have brought up a point (without any faith/religion involved) in a very logical/rational/reasonable fashion which you trivialize? Your point all along has been that faith should form no part of public policy. I agreed with that. My point all along was that it is an exercise in simulation/mathematics/probability (no religion/faith needed) to come up with a threshold % of homosexual population above which human population would not be self-sustaining. Fertility rates would plummet. A sophomore student in Engineering would probably be able to build a model to come up with that threshold percentage. You equate this question to a scenario from an Isaac Asimov novel.
@KalBhairav
Extra extra…hear all about it. Straw Man Alert issued…watch out…Straw Man Alert.
Can I consider this debate closed as I have brought up a point (without any faith/religion involved) in a very logical/rational/reasonable fashion which you trivialize? Your point all along has been that faith should form no part of public policy. I agreed with that. My point all along was that it is an exercise in simulation/mathematics/probability (no religion/faith needed) to come up with a threshold % of homosexual population above which human population would not be self-sustaining. Fertility rates would plummet. A sophomore student in Engineering would probably be able to build a model to come up with that threshold percentage. You equate this question to a scenario from an Isaac Asimov novel.
I asked you about some evidence for on what basis you formed your thought experiment. You had none. And then I said, if we are going to merely talk about hypothetical situations, I’d rather talk about Vogons first. I did not say that I will not answer your question. (And fyi, Vogons are not from an Asimov novel). Where is the strawman argument in that? I think I was not unreasonable in asking for evidence. If you have no evidence, just say that you are talking about an imaginary situation. If you don’t want to talk about Vogons first, fine. Why don’t you just say so instead of wanting to prematurely declare the debate as closed and run away?
Since you want an answer for an imaginary situation, here it is:
Your imaginary situation is – all of humanity has become homosexual. Let us say Ishwar did that. I need some causal agent to think clearly about this weird, imaginary situation (though I’m involving an imaginary agent, it is fine as we are in talking about an imaginary world and adding another imaginary object would do nothing to diminish the imaginary-ness of this imaginary situation). Even if it were the case that some imaginary % were homosexual (again caused by the imaginary Ishwar) and that causes the fertility rates to drop imaginarily alarmingly, what society should do is this: It should not force anybody against their will. Some people would voluntarily consent to have children (since the requirement of evidence is not there for this imaginary situation, this is a necessarily true statement). Some of those children will be straight (again, since the requirement of evidence is not needed for this imaginary situation, this is a necessarily true statement). So society would just be fine. Nobody need to go against their will.
One of the arguments of atheists on the basis of morality is that there is an absolute level of morality which can be deduced from its effect on population and its stability. A rather famous youtube atheist put up this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M
I tend to agree with him on this count – that is, it is possible to deduce morality (per his definition, which will suffice for our purposes here) of actions based on their effect on population stability.
It is a mathematical truth that there exists a threshold % (real number between 0 and 100, ie. a number with imaginary part 0) homosexual population in humankind above which population will not be stable. You have not disputed this (although in your response you claim this % to be imaginary). Good for you. That is all I intend you to acknowledge.
PS: I really do not care about Vogons. Pink Unicorn…maybe.
I tend to agree with him on this count – that is, it is possible to deduce morality (per his definition, which will suffice for our purposes here) of actions based on their effect on population stability.
Ok. Now you are involving real world evidence.
It is a mathematical truth that there exists a threshold % (real number between 0 and 100, ie. a number with imaginary part 0) homosexual population in humankind above which population will not be stable.
And now you are muddling real world and the hypothetical. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t setup an imaginary situation ignoring the importance of evidence and yet at the same time quote something from the real world to support your imaginary situation. If that is the case, you have the obligation to justify how in the real world, the situation you mention can occur (Which you did not despite me asking for it). You also haven’t considered other variables in postulating your imaginary situation which are very important if you want to use real world evidence (I leave it as an exercise for you to figure them out).
You have not disputed this (although in your response you claim this % to be imaginary). Good for you. That is all I intend you to acknowledge.
Just a clarification I do not dispute it in the imaginary world. When it comes to the real world, before I acknowledge it, I need you to show me how would such a situation occur in the first place. Only then would I acknowledge it. You can write a mathematical equation with its variables standing for anything (say Vogons). I will agree that the equation is mathematically sound. But for you to say that the equation has any real world basis, you have to show that the assumptions and the variables you used for the equation have any real world basis.
I take back this statement:
Just a clarification I do not dispute it in the imaginary world.
In my earlier comment where my analyzed the imaginary situation, I concluded that human population will not be unstable. Looks like you glossed over that part and concluded that I did not dispute the instability argument. So, even in the imaginary world, I do not agree with your conclusion.
I am amazed at your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the existence of a real number! Head in the sand ostrich-type behavior is not how science advances which you claim to be a flag bearer of. It involves rigorous and fool-proof arguments. I just gave you one but since it would demolish your stance you refuse to acknowledge its merit! I guess that is expected. Let me try again.
Let f be the fertility rate (the average number of children which a woman should bear) that is required for sustainable population levels. Let K be the absolute population level all of whose adult members procreate. Let m be some relevant measure of mortality. In fact, m could be a function of age a. m(a) can then represent the probability of mortality at age a. Clearly, f is a function of form f(K,m). There may be other factors involved but let us not bring them in for simplicity.
Now, evolutionary biologists have probably done some analysis of this function and ended up saying that given today’s K and m, f works out to 2.1. If a particular number of individuals within the population K, say N, refuse to procreate, the burden of carrying on with human propagation falls on heterosexual members. Let their (only heterosexual) fertility rate be F.
Are you not interested in learning the behavior of function F(K,N,m)? We all can REASON that F will be greater than f and more so for larger values of N. The question is how sensitive is F for various values of N.
In whichever academic paper that established 2.1 as the value of f today, a subsection ought to have been dedicated to this very problem. Had I been a referee of this work, I would have insisted that the authors do some analysis of the behavior of F. The authors/referees may have chosen not to report/request it for reasons of political correctness.
This is a pure academic/SCIENTIFIC problem WORTHY of research.
I am amazed at your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the existence of a real number!
And I’m amazed at your inability to realize the difference between a mathematical equation and reality. If you had actually bothered to read my comments, you would know that your situation was a hypothetical (do you know what that word means?) I had analyzed that hypothetical and have come to a conclusion. Did you actually read it? I don’t think so. If you had, you wouldn’t have tried to make up my mind for me by coming to a conclusion like this with your amazing deductive powers:
You have not disputed this (although in your response you claim this % to be imaginary). Good for you. That is all I intend you to acknowledge.
Again, did you actually read my comments? I have proven that it is necessarily true that in your hypothetical situation, human population will be stable.
And you are accusing me of not understanding science? Let me show you how science works.
Let f be the fertility rate (the average number of children which a woman should bear) that is required for sustainable population levels. Let K be the absolute population level all of whose adult members procreate. Let m be some relevant measure of mortality. In fact, m could be a function of age a. m(a) can then represent the probability of mortality at age a. Clearly, f is a function of form f(K,m). There may be other factors involved but let us not bring them in for simplicity.
So far good.
Now, evolutionary biologists have probably done some analysis of this function and ended up saying that given today’s K and m, f works out to 2.1.
Again, good.
If a particular number of individuals within the population K, say N, refuse to procreate, the burden of carrying on with human propagation falls on heterosexual members. Let their (only heterosexual) fertility rate be F.
Can I get a wtf please? How is this science? My original reation to your weird hypothetical was “Unfounded, scare mongering speculation”. Do you know what those words mean? They mean you are making some wild assumptions and coming to ridiculous conclusions based on those wild assumptions. Evidence – do you understand this word? Where is the evidence for your claim – “If a particular number of individuals within the population K, say N, refuse to procreate”? Why would that the population of N refuse to procreate? What if a particular number of individuals within the population K, say N, refuse to procreate becuase Brahmacharya is desirable? It will be the END OF THE WORLD. EVERYBODY PANIC.
You built your entire argument on a baseless, ridiculous assumption. This isn’t science. It is making things up.
This is a pure academic/SCIENTIFIC problem WORTHY of research.
Fine, go ahead and do your research. Then you can talk about muddling imaginary situations with real world evidence.
I think that comment would be too dense for you to understand. Here is a simplified version of it:
In science,
1. You hypothesize
2. Find evidence to support your hypothesis
3. If the evidence fits with your hypothesis, it becomes a theory. Use the theory to predict something and confirm that the findings concur with the theory.
You are stuck in step 1. When you understand steps 2 and 3, you can make grand speculations like this:
Head in the sand ostrich-type behavior is not how science advances which you claim to be a flag bearer of. It involves rigorous and fool-proof arguments.
And I’m amazed at your inability to realize the difference between a mathematical equation and reality
Did you just diss the scientific nature of pure mathematics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics
Claiming that you have proven anything in this discussion thus far amounts to adding a new definition to the word.
Your response to my hypothetical was that some people would voluntarily procreate. How is this proving anything let alone the continued stability of human population?
I would love to know the behaviour of F(K,N,m). Wouldn’t you? That which causes N is irrelevant – it may be Brahmacharya, Priesthood, or homosexuality. IT IS AN UNDENIABLE FACT THAT HUMAN POPULATION PROPAGATION DEPENDS ON A SUFFICIENTLY HIGH PROCREATING PERCENTAGE OF ADULTS.
(Nice try there trying to rope in the straw man “Brahmacharya”
)
And I’m amazed at your inability to realize the difference between a mathematical equation and reality
Did you just diss the scientific nature of pure mathematics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics
I need to clarify this. What I meant to say is that it is undeniable that the search for F(K,N,m) IS SCIENTIFIC and more relevant than the search for Pink Unicorns and Vogons. Abstract away from the causes of K, N and m and humankind. That equation may very well predict the population dynamics of predator-prey in a variety of settings. At least from a PURE MATH perspective I would like to know that function.
I would love to know the behaviour of F(K,N,m). Wouldn’t you? That which causes N is irrelevant – it may be Brahmacharya, Priesthood, or homosexuality. IT IS AN UNDENIABLE FACT THAT HUMAN POPULATION PROPAGATION DEPENDS ON A SUFFICIENTLY HIGH PROCREATING PERCENTAGE OF ADULTS.
Oh now, “it may be Brahmacharya, Priesthood, or homosexuality”. How convenient. Why didn’t you say so at the beginning? That you are only interested in an function that will calculate fertility rate where N is some arbitrary factor? Why did you insist on using homosexuality? Now that I mentioned Brahmacharya, suddenly it becomes “Brahmacharya, Priesthood, or homosexuality”.
(Nice try there trying to rope in the straw man “Brahmacharya”
)
My mentioning Brahmacharya served its purpose – to show the importance of evidence. Now that I have mentioned it, you have weaseled your way out by saying “Brahmacharya, Priesthood, or homosexuality” whereas all along you have been trying to setup an absurd argument that homosexuality will lead to instability of human population.
And finally, now that you have changed N to mean an arbitrary factor (which is what I have been trying to say all along. In the absence of evidence, anything can be used to say anything), of course I’m interested in the behavior of F(K,N,m) given that N is any arbitrary factor with the caveat that interest is only in a PURE MATH perspective and not in a scientific sense (where the scientific method is involved. I thought you would know that scientific method is a given when talking about science). And I repeat again, all that is keeping in mind that N is any arbitrary factor.
I do not have an opinion on whether homosexuality is acquired or inborn. From what I can see the issue does not seem to be settled conclusively one way or the other. My initial point was that regardless of homosexuality’s origin this article does not support a public policy that wants a ban on homosexuality.
We then did digress quite a bit from my original post on this thread and ended up with a conclusion that in a pure math sense there is a threshold % of non-procreators above which population of any species would be unsustainable. Can we agree on this?
The current probability of this occurence may be small for the whole of humankind, but it may manifest in smaller societies. For eg. although humankind as a whole has a fertility rate above 2.1, Italy and Japan have rates much less than 2.1 leading to demographic problems.
So, I wouldnt dismiss this exercise in pure math as scaremongering. It may already be occuring in some societies especially if it is genetic and some genetic mutation of sorts causes the related gene to become dominant. For instance, due to their small numbers, the Parsi community in India faces an above-average occurence of certain genetic problems. If homosexuality is prevalent in a particular gene pool, it does make existential questions relevant.
Finally, from a purely scientific/atheistic viewpoint if homosexuality is genetic, forcing Brahmacharyas and priests to procreate (unless you claim Brahmacharya and priesthood are also genetic) is lot more natural than forcing homosexuals to procreate. You agree?
We then did digress quite a bit from my original post on this thread and ended up with a conclusion that in a pure math sense there is a threshold % of non-procreators above which population of any species would be unsustainable. Can we agree on this?
Yes, but only in a pure math sense and that too with N being any arbitrary factor. But not in the real world sense unless it is backed by evidence.
So, I wouldnt dismiss this exercise in pure math as scaremongering. It may already be occuring in some societies especially if it is genetic and some genetic mutation of sorts causes the related gene to become dominant.
Speculating without evidence, especially your kind of speculation is scare mongering. Some societies have a decrease in fertility rates because people there are having fewer children and at a later age. Now that is supported by evidence and one can speculate where that will lead to.Also think on the mechanism of how an allele gets fixed in a population.
Finally, from a purely scientific/atheistic viewpoint if homosexuality is genetic, forcing Brahmacharyas and priests to procreate (unless you claim Brahmacharya and priesthood are also genetic) is lot more natural than forcing homosexuals to procreate. You agree?
I do not want to start another round of hypothetical guess work especially when a naturalistic fallacy is involved in it.
Homosexuality shouldn’t be compared with brahmcharya as, brahmacharya comes by understanding and it can always be revoked. Can same be said about homosexuality? If it can be it proves homosexuality is not in genes but in head.
Homosexuals have not right to live, they should be killed. They are real threat for the society. If we leave them they will corrupt entire society. For some problems there is no other solution, except killing. Since these people won’t listen to any good words. It is like a Cancer which kills the entire body. GOD created man and women to fulfill their sexual desires, which is the correct way. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of a good society.
You are more threatening than gays. At least they won’ be able to reproduce offsprings and teach them hatred.
Peace man, peace. Relax with this soothing picture.
am cool… these guys are fanatic about everything. kiliing, murdering blah blah
Namaste
Let it be very clear that while we oppose homosexuality, we do not prescribe killing as a solution. We would rather suggest that all those forces who seriously plan killing everyone who do not subscribe to their views be killed.
One of the reasons why logical rebuttal to homosexuality does not make desired impact is because the voice of logic is silenced in noise of fanatics for whom killing alone is only solution to every problem. Because of the advent of such fanatics, any counter-view to homosexuality is assumed to belong to category to these fanatics.
Thus we have got several comments on this article itself that we are being killers by opposing homosexuality.
It is interesting to see that while Islam is hailed as religion of peace, we find many protagonists of Islam recommending death for anyone who does not fit their vision of world! It seems that peace for them is only applicable to followers of their specific brand of Islam and not for others! Its a pity that this harms innocent Muslims the most.
We, at Agniveer, recommend death only for such mindsets who are always bringing death to those who do not belong to their camp – read terrorists and their active supporters.
Let it be clear that while we are strongly against homosexuality, we consider it to be an eccentric mental condition accentuated by the environment around (including supporters and fanatic opponents of homosexuality). Thus the solution is not killing and carnage but attitude-shifting and compassion.
We request our readers to not confuse our stand on this issue with those of fanatics. Truth and compassion (non-violence) alone are our most powerful weapons.
Agniveer and his team are coward people. This is the reason why Vedic law can never be established. You are the lost people. You won’t do anything and just watch even some one rape your sisters and mothers, bcas you are human loving people and will leave the rapers and thinking to change their mindset.
If Shri Krishna might have think your way to change the mindset of Kauravas, then their might be no Mahabharat Yudh. I think Krishna is a stupid. The same way Shri Ram should have kept quiet when Ravan kidnapped Sita, thinking to change the mindset of Ravan, then their might be no war. I think Shri Ram was also a stupid. Learn from the History. To help the society there is no harm to erase these homosexuals. It is like a farmer keeping away insects by spraying pesticide, otherwise these insects will destroy entire crops.
Dear Brother
1. If someone rapes or kills innocent people or even conspires to do so, our stand, as per Vedas, is unambiguous – that person should be given death sentence. Where did we say that we believe in leaving the rapists and murderers roam free?
2. The case of homosexuality is different. Here there is consensual perversion. Its a mental problem. And the environment – read the sex-obsessed media and materialistic culture + those who hate homosexuals without giving valid reason – is also largely responsible for this nuisance. Since this is a consequence of mental absurdity, the battle against it also needs to be fought at mental level.
3. When you abruptly suggest killing as a solution to anything, this only breeds the nuisance further. If homosexuality deserves killing, in today’s context even prostitution, sex-slavery and polygamy also deserve the same treatment.
4. I agree that to help the society there is a necessity to erase homosexuality or at least keep it in control in less ideal conditions. But the way to destroy poisonous fruits is not to pluck each and every fruit but destroy the roots of the tree. That root lies in the mind.
Any person for whom this world is everything and there is nothing beyond it is bound to have natural incentive in trying to maximize his or her momentary gratification by whatever way seems suitable for him or her – be it prostitution, incest, murder, killing, rape, homosexuality, cheating, fraud etc. Unless one believes in accountability for each and every act beyond the petty years of this life, morality, law and ethics are bound to go for a toss. Today the commercial+media+political mafia wants people to stay focussed on immediate gratifications, they make them numb and hence these diseases breed. Our goal should be not to destroy the cancer patient but those pillars that breed cancer. Patients swarm in billions today. Even we are patients ourselves in some aspect or other – if not homosexuality then something else.
Its a mind game today, brother. So the effective antidote can only be mental. That is the practical solution in today’s context.
You can call us coward, we don’t mind. Because its a relative term. If you compare with great legends of history like Ram and Krishna, yes we are nowhere compared to their stature, even in bravery. But if people like you join hands with us, we can bring greater and greater impact by our synergy and hopefully reach next level of milestone for us all including society.
We admire one thing in you – your sincerity and intensity of emotions to do something worthwhile. It deserves sincere appreciation, even though our viewpoints are different today. Why don’t you mail us through Contact link and let us collaborate on common themes.
Admin
We would like to add one basic foundation of Vedic Dharma – Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – entire world is my family and Aatmavat Sarvabhuteshu – All living beings are like me. Thus whatever we would prescribe for anyone should be exactly same that we can prescribe for our own father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, husband, wife and self – be it punishments or rewards. If my brother turns a terrorist or rapist, I would justify his killing without a doubt. Hence we recommend the same for everyone. But if my brother has a differing viewpoint, would I kill him? Probably not. I would rather try to convince him and bring him to right path.
Very primitive way of thinking would justifying killing whosoever refuses to agree. This is like trying to destroy each defective product from a machine. The evolved Vedic way would be to correct the source itself. And after all, these are not products of a machine, but your own family!
For Agniveer, be it Hindu, be it Muslim, be it our supporter, be it our basher, be one agreeing to our stands, be one having complete opposite stand – all are my own family members. We would deal with them in same manner as we deal with our immediate family. You are also in same family and hence we look forth to collaboration in spreading peace and direction to the world.
Namaste Abdullahji,
.
Yes we love human, which shows we are real religion of peace and because of our human loving nature people like you are still alive and spreading your nonsense around
But don’t be in perception that we won’t pull out our weapons in any case. We treat problems based on the solution required. Gays are not killing anyone so they are not killed. ( You do, but still we feel you people need rehabilitation).
And for your information, Shri Krishna did wage war against kauravs and Shri Ram did kill Ravana, so you should know what you should be expecting from us
@Anir:
Also think on the mechanism of how an allele gets fixed in a population.
When this statement comes from someone who believes homosexuality is genetic, does it not also mean that that person considers homosexuality something that needs “fixing”?
Also, since we talk about forcing homosexuals to procreate (or in your Ishwar-Vogon-inducing “response” to my thought experiment, having some of them volunteer for procreation), can we, in all seriousness, discuss how that will happen?
For this discussion can we agree that a homosexual man is someone who is not aroused by a woman but by a fellow-man? So, how exactly can this man who volunteered to procreate “perform” long enough in the company of the woman who is also homosexual? Or do you suggest some form of in-vitro fertilization/artificial insemination?
@Anir
I did a google search on “fixation” and reached http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(population_genetics)
“Fixation” is when one type of gene becomes predominant in the population. So, my original point still remains. By bringing up the example of allele fixation in the context of homosexuality, genetics and sustainable human population, are you not suggesting that if and when the percentage of homosexuals rises, “nature/evolution” would cause positive selection leading to the rise in the population of heterosexuals?
“Fixation” is when one type of gene becomes predominant in the population.
Good for you. You understood it. Or not as I will show below.
So, my original point still remains.
And that is? A vague statement of this sort – “that if it is genetic and some genetic mutation of sorts causes the related gene to become dominant.”?
Even after reading about fixation, you still don’t get it do you? If you had really understood it, you wouldn’t make a statement with this clause:
are you not suggesting that if and when the percentage of homosexuals rises
Am I suggesting it? No. You, with your inability to understand fixation, are suggesting it. Why would the percentage of homosexuals rise? I keep asking you why, why would such a thing happen. You have no evidence for that and yet take that as a given. That is why I called your reasoning unfounded and scare mongering. That is also why brought in Vogons, to illustrate the imaginary-ness of your premise. That “why” is why I asked you to ponder the mechanism that brings about that why. You are still playing the game of making baseless assumptions and trying to get me to acknowledge some ridiculous conclusion based on them.
and when the percentage of homosexuals rises, “nature/evolution” would cause positive selection leading to the rise in the population of heterosexuals?
Here’s a hint: we are already there.
And please, if you are going to argue from a genetic point of view, at least do your homework. I know that you didn’t, because you also brought up another argument as if to show that alleles (not genes. Do you know the distinction between them?) somehow magically increase in frequency (not become dominant. In a genetic context, dominant doesn’t mean what you think it does) and homosexuality too might magically come to be that:
For instance, due to their small numbers, the Parsi community in India faces an above-average occurence of certain genetic problems.
Parsi community faces those genetic problem because of inbreeding (and before you jump to the hasty conclusion that I have uttered some offense, I mean it in a scientific sense, i.e. mating within a small group). Inbreeding elevates the probability of recessive traits expressing themselves. It is also seen in other close knit groups where they mate within themselves like the Amish and some Jewish and Islamic groups. It is also seen to a lesser extent in endogamous societies like the caste based ones. The origin of those genetic problems is cultural, cultural practices that date back to hundreds or even thousands of years back. Those problems can easily be solved by marrying outside of the group.
And you actually thought that the Parsi argument makes a case for you where you are trying to proven within a scientific context homosexuality is bad? You actually need to understand science if you are hell bent on making me agree to some absurd conclusion in a scientific context.
For this discussion can we agree that a homosexual man is someone who is not aroused by a woman but by a fellow-man?
Yes.
So, how exactly can this man who volunteered to procreate “perform” long enough in the company of the woman who is also homosexual? Or do you suggest some form of in-vitro fertilization/artificial insemination?
If your imaginary, weird, ridiculous and baseless hypothesis ever becomes true (you still don’t have any evidence to support it), yes IVF is one option. And before you jump in joy that you had actually got me to agree onto something, on which you will start another around of ridiculous assumptions, all that is assuming your imaginary, weird, ridiculous and baseless hypothesis ever becomes true. I repeat all that is assuming your imaginary, weird, ridiculous and baseless hypothesis ever becomes true. And I repeat a third time (three’s a nice number isn’t it?), all that is assuming your imaginary, weird, ridiculous and baseless hypothesis ever becomes true. Sorry, I had to do that as you have the habit of making up my own mind for me. If you still don’t get my point, I’ll repeat it again.
Finally, tell you what, enough with the posteuring. Consider this:
You actually don’t believe in individual freedom (from which comes the need for LGBT rights and the separation of faith from public policy). You merely agreed with me to set me up for your arguments constructed on a flimsy base. Given the chance, you will influence public policy by making the kind of justifications you have been trying to make all along (homosexuality leads to population instability). I’m sure you wouldn’t threaten people like the Islamic fundies are wont to, but you will use your twisted arguments which are not scientific, but are mere speculations. But you will assert that they are science (like you did in one of your comments. I had to explicitly show you how wrong you were) and use it to lull people into thinking it is scientifically justified to discriminate against homosexuals.
Am I right or am I wrong? I’d love to be wrong, but your line of argument does give me that impression. Despite not having any evidence and not understanding evolutionary biology, you repeatedly keep making things up in a scientific context.
@Anir:
Our differences boil down to the % of population that is homosexual. I would argue that IF homosexuality is genetic (caused by a gene or a combination of genes) it is not beyond the realms of possibility that in some societies this gene/set of genes (substitute the genetically correct term – but I think you get the drift) may become “dominant” (substitute the genetically correct term – but I think you get the drift) over time. On the other hand, you say, why bother looking into the dynamics of % of homosexuality over time? We are already “there” where nature/evolution is playing its part. LET US DO ZERO RESEARCH ON WHAT MIGHT CAUSE THAT GENE (or any other gene also?) TO GET DOMINANT WITHIN A SPECIES.
“Why bother we are already there” is a tad FATALISTIC (something that Hindus get accused of being!), dont you think? An analogy would be…why bother with trying to find a prevention/cure for dental cavities. Human beings have lived just fine for millennia without fluoride in toothpaste. Let them continue for the next few millenia. Human population will be just fine.
I doubt that despite great advances in genetics it is a completely well-understood field. So, WHY WILFULLY CLOSE THE CHAPTER ON THE HOMOSEXUALITY GENE AND STUDY OF IF AND HOW IT COULD GET WIDESPREAD IN A POPULATION? I guess geneticists do this sort of analysis for so many other non-controversial human characteristics – hair colour, eye colour, etc. Do you want to stop such research also?
Strangely, I get the impression that if a scientist/biologist applies for a grant for the study of the “homosexuality gene” and if both of us were in positions of power, YOU will probably deny that grant, while I will approve it!
I just skipped over your attempt at psychoanalysis of my persona. You are guilty of the same crime you accuse me of of making up my own mind for me.
I would argue that IF homosexuality is genetic (caused by a gene or a combination of genes) it is not beyond the realms of possibility that in some societies this gene/set of genes (substitute the genetically correct term – but I think you get the drift) may become “dominant” (substitute the genetically correct term – but I think you get the drift) over time.
Fine, find some evidence for that and then argue with your hypothesis (*the point I have been making since the beginning*). At this point, I tend to think the Vogon threat is more worthy of research. But that is my personal opinion, but unlike you, I won’t resort to baseless speculations and scare mongering until I have some conclusive evidence.
LET US DO ZERO RESEARCH ON WHAT MIGHT CAUSE THAT GENE (or any other gene also?) TO GET DOMINANT WITHIN A SPECIES.
Did I tell not to do any research? My point all along has been show some evidence or don’t make ridiculous assertions. Go do your research, find some evidence and then make your assertions.
“Why bother we are already there” is a tad FATALISTIC (something that Hindus get accused of being!), dont you think? An analogy would be…why bother with trying to find a prevention/cure for dental cavities. Human beings have lived just fine for millennia without fluoride in toothpaste. Let them continue for the next few millenia. Human population will be just fine.
False equivalence and setting up the strawman of fatalism. You made that statement because you think homosexuality is a disease and will lead to population instability, which it will not (as there is zero evidence). I repeat (which I have to if I’m talking to you), go do your research, find some evidence and then make your assertions.
I doubt that despite great advances in genetics it is a completely well-understood field. So, WHY WILFULLY CLOSE THE CHAPTER ON THE HOMOSEXUALITY GENE AND STUDY OF IF AND HOW IT COULD GET WIDESPREAD IN A POPULATION? I guess geneticists do this sort of analysis for so many other non-controversial human characteristics – hair colour, eye colour, etc. Do you want to stop such research also?
I repeat (which I have to if I’m talking to you), go do your research, find some evidence and then make your assertions. And no, research should not be stopped. I repeat (which I have to if I’m talking to you), go do your research, find some evidence and then make your assertions. I am not stopping you.
Strangely, I get the impression that if a scientist/biologist applies for a grant for the study of the “homosexuality gene” and if both of us were in positions of power, YOU will probably deny that grant, while I will approve it!
Well, you are wrong (again). As a person committed to the spirit of science, I’m always for critical inquiry.
@Anir
I think you are beginning to tie yourself up in knots here.
You say, As a person committed to the spirit of science, I’m always for critical inquiry., yet you wouldn’t even so much as entertain the possibility of a homosexuality gene becoming widespread. You suggest the Vogon threat is more worthy of research. How is this keeping an open mind?
You would rather first have someone find some evidence and then make your assertions.. I believe that genetics is governed by probability. So, it is unclear to me what would constitute conclusive evidence that you want. You said some messages earlier that you hardly find any research conclusive about the benefit of yoga/medidation. Do you go to Yoga websites and chastize Yoga performers that they are unnecessarily letting themselves get spiritual and that yoga is just another form of physical activity. There is nothing special about it. ?
I am no geneticist, but I will hazard a guess as to the form of possible evidence: this example is a bit stylized but here is hoping that you catch the drift.
One of the parents WAS homosexual (yet he/she procreated) and fathered/mothered 4 children. Two of the children were heterosexual (with the homosexual gene “suppressed” (substitute the appropriate term – but I think you get the drift)), while the other two children were homosexual and did not procreate. The former two children procreated but in all their offsprings the latent/passive/dominated (substitute the appropriate term – but I think you get the drift) homosexual gene finds greater expression becoming dominant (substitute the appropriate term – but I think you get the drift). So, all leaves of this family tree end up without being able to procreate. This combined with some as of yet unknown genetic mutation (substitute the appropriate term – but I think you get the drift) makes the environment conducive for continued propagation (substitute the appropriate term – but I think you get the drift) of this gene. Will that be the beginning of some sort of a scientifically respectable theory of propagation of homosexuality gene?
PS: “substitute the appropriate term – but I think you get the drift” may make the post unnecessarily longer…But if you agree not to nitpick and split hairs about exact meanings of terms in genetics, I am willing to stop quoting this. We have progressed sufficiently for you and me and for other readers of this exchange to be able to get the drift correct.
You say, As a person committed to the spirit of science, I’m always for critical inquiry., yet you wouldn’t even so much as entertain the possibility of a homosexuality gene becoming widespread. You suggest the Vogon threat is more worthy of research. How is this keeping an open mind?
Sigh. Did you read my reply properly? “Come back with some evidence”. I kept repeatedly telling you this. Here is you making up my mind for me – “yet you wouldn’t even so much as entertain the possibility of a homosexuality gene becoming widespread”. I am willing to entertain, provided, sigh, here it comes again, you have some evidence for it.
You started this ridiculous line of reasoning. For you it is an important area of research. For me Vogon threat is an important area of research. Why should I agree with you on that importance. If you had some evidence, I would give your hypothesis some importance. Do you think can command me – “Here is a stupid statement which is purely imaginary. Consider it important.” If that was not the case, why did you make this statement – How is this keeping an open mind?. I have been consistent in my position from the beginning (evidence, or it didn’t happen). And I do keep an open mind as regards to that position.
I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that I give importance to every crackpot hypothesis and my brain falls out. Just like you don’t think research on Vogons is pointless, so do I about your hypothesis. I am entitled to have my own opinions, do I not? Or do you think otherwise?
Let me quickly show (yet again) why your line of reasoning is baseless.
Your assumption – Homosexual alleles will increase in frequency.
Your evidence – wishful thinking, bias of “homosexuality is bad, bad, bad”
My justification for the above two statements – If you actually subscribe to the theory of evolution and know some natural history, human and our ancestral populations had plenty of opportunities where homosexual alleles could have increased to an extant where they posed a threat to fertility rates (The effect will be even more stronger in light of smaller population sizes in the past). And yet here we are, aren’t we? But you are blissfully ignorant of that. You think homosexuality is a recent phenomenon and start your ridiculous premise with that assumption.
You also do not take into consideration the current state of human population. What percentage of population is actually homosexual and to what extent it is heritable. Those are very important factors if you want to construct mathematical models. But you aren’t interested in such factors. Hence my statement on wishful thinking and bias.
PS: “substitute the appropriate term – but I think you get the drift” may make the post unnecessarily longer…But if you agree not to nitpick and split hairs about exact meanings of terms in genetics, I am willing to stop quoting this.
I had to do that to show that you have little clue about population genetics. Even after I had suggested that you do your homework, you still whine like this:
You would rather first have someone find some evidence and then make your assertions.. I believe that genetics is governed by probability. So, it is unclear to me what would constitute conclusive evidence that you want.
Here is what would count as conclusive evidence:
1. Identify alleles for homosexuality (if there are any).
2. Find out to what extent homosexuality is heritable.
3. Perform some GWAS.
4. Construct statistical models (data from step 2 is very important here), take into consideration the current count of human populations, find the distribution of homosexual alleles in each population and factor in heritability, calculate fertility rates in those human populations and find out if they drop to alarming levels.
Once you have done that then make grand standing claims like “omg, homosexuality will lead to population instability. Humanity is going to end”.
And let me also deconstruct your attempt at forming a hypothesis:
One of the parents WAS homosexual (yet he/she procreated) and fathered/mothered 4 children. Two of the children were heterosexual (with the homosexual gene “suppressed” (substitute the appropriate term – but I think you get the drift)), while the other two children were homosexual and did not procreate.
So far, good.
The former two children procreated but in all their offsprings the latent/passive/dominated (substitute the appropriate term – but I think you get the drift) homosexual gene finds greater expression becoming dominant (substitute the appropriate term – but I think you get the drift). So, all leaves of this family tree end up without being able to procreate.
For you to make that assumption, (and I’m simplifying to a great extent here) you need to identify homosexual alleles, determine whether they are dominant or recessive, determine what parent contributed what alleles and then calculate the probabilities of the straight children having the dominant allele in homozygous and heterozygous form, having the recessive allele in homozygous form and also do the same calculations for their children and then make statements like this “homosexual gene finds greater expression becoming dominant”.
This combined with some as of yet unknown genetic mutation (substitute the appropriate term – but I think you get the drift) makes the environment conducive for continued propagation (substitute the appropriate term – but I think you get the drift) of this gene.
You can’t just introduce dues-ex-machina into your hypothesis. If that were the case I can also make ridiculous assumptions like what if all humans become impotent due to some unknown genetic mutation like in the movie Children of Men. What is the nature of that mutation? How can it happen? Is the mutation in somatic cells (high probability, but irrelevant wrt heritability) or gamete cells (low probability, but is what we need). What factors causes that mutated allele to increase in frequency? You aren’t interested in such questions. You just want to prove a point – “Homosexuality is bad. I have a theory to that effect”. You skip through entire steps, make wild assumptions and yet think I’m the one tying myself up in knots here.
@KalBhairav,
Our past few comments have taken an aggressive tone with statements veering off into adhominem land. Whatever be the reason, that was uncalled for. I apologize for those statements.
The question is whether homosexuality is hereditary. This presupposes that it is genetic (in the first place) which we have been unable to prove (in an even first”er” place). So, there is still a LOT to be studied in this field (probably along the lines that you have outlined). If it is proven that homosexuality is NOT genetic then my thought experiment is moot anyway. If it is proven that homosexuality is genetic then whether it is hereditary IS more important than Vogon threat.
A thought experiment is needed because the actions inherent cannot be performed empirically and direct conclusive evidence is lacking anyway. The lack of evidence is precisely why we conduct a thought experiment. It is MEANT to stretch things to the limit and observe the effect on a system. A lot of clarity about the behaviour of systems can be gleaned from such asymptotic/extreme analysis. In any case, I do not have to defend thought experiments (to you or to myself) since a lot of theoretical quantum physics is based on them.
Could you clarify whether you agree or disagree with the youtube video I linked to which provides one thought experiment of coming up with “morality” (as per the video maker’s definition/usage) and “moral” actions? That is, observe the effect on population size of that action if everybody were to do that. My position on homosexuality (as I clarified at the beginning) is less driven by any “holy” book or faith/religion. It is based on the video’s definition of “morality”.
Despite your thinking for me which made you say Your evidence – wishful thinking, bias of “homosexuality is bad, bad, bad”, please let me know where I have said homosexuals are “bad” (in the usual sense of the term). The various comparisons that I have made on my posts include Brahmacharya/Priesthood (due to non-procreation), dental cavities (yes, they are painful, but they are also a part of the human condition. They are not “bad” in the sense that we should ask for the dental condition of applicants to a government job and avoid candidates who have cavities), color of eye and hair (due to the fact that these are also genetic).
Thought experiment aside, can you point out to a law in India which is anti-homosexual? Are there any government forms which specifically ask for your sexual orientation? So, WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU IMPLY THAT GLBT RIGHTS ARE UNDER ASSAULT?
You are free to have any opinions including the opinion that Yoga/medidation is just like any other physical activity. Let me press, do you go to Yoga websites and chastize practitioners for doing Yoga and unnecessarily meditating while they can achieve the same by, say Juijitsu or Kungfu?
I take back
If it is proven that homosexuality is NOT genetic then my thought experiment is moot anyway..
Actually, if it is proven that homosexuality is NOT genetic but acquired, my thought experiment becomes even MORE relevant!
As to homosexuality having a genetic origin, it is complex to determine, just like how we have difficulty in genetically pinning down other human phenotypes. *And a lot of research is indeed going on in this area*.
As to importance of the the thought experiment, for me the current state of affairs don’t justify it. As I said, that it is my opinion (in view of my knowledge of evolutionary biology and population genetics).
Morality definitely has a biological basis, but only to an extant. From a biological perspective a slave society is just as good as a free society. So morality is something that needs to be reasoned out. Also lookup on the naturalistic fallacy.
Dental cavities are something that are generally viewed as needing a cure. I don’t see homosexuality as needing a cure. That was where my statement came from.
I never implied that LGBT rights are under attack. I only said secular humanism supports them, while Dharma opposes them. Then when you said that was a wrong argument, I agreed that it was wrong if the position of Agniveer is that they don’t like homosexuality, but have no issues with supporting LGBT rights.
Lastly, in one of your earlier comments, when you said something to the effect of – if people like doing something, but don’t force it on others, it should be fine, I said I agree to that view, with the caveat that ideas need to be debated, civilly. *That should have answered your last question*. But I’ll be more explicit. I will not say that “don’t meditate or don’t do yoga”, that goes against principles of secular humanism. But I will contest any claims which try to paint scientific legitimacy without proper evidence.
No offense intended nor taken.
Thanks.
To Agniveers:
It is clear that Abdullah is a troll/flamer. He is intent on bringing every debate to the lowest common denominator (of calling for the death of infidels/homosexuals/apostates). I suggest that we do not give this guy any recognition whatsoever by even acknowledging his presence. How about just ignoring him and other jihadis? If that does not still lead to a response other than more Quran quotes, banning the IP may be the next alternative.
To Agniveer Webmasters: Is it possible to institute a +/- sign next to each post so that posts with a high enough number of – votes are not displayed at all (similar to youtube?) The downside of this is that agniveer.com may be visited by more number of jihadis acting in concert downvoting all Sanatana Dharmists’ posts.
@KalBhairav:
We are just using his posts to clear/reiterate our point for prospective readers and clarrify the difference between Vedic Dharm and Islamic religion ideology.
@Anir:
As to homosexuality having a genetic origin, it is complex to determine, just like how we have difficulty in genetically pinning down other human phenotypes.
I am not a geneticist. Can you clarify if you are saying that it is complex to determine whether homosexuality has a genetic origin and it is as of yet unknown if it does? If yes, then it seems to contradict your opening statement of this thread:
But how could this article proclaim that homosexuality is not inborn? Does it not know about genetics? About the many number of studies which show that homosexuality is not unnatural and has been observed in many of our fellow species?
So, it is natural/inborn or evidence points to its naturality/inbornness to some extent but not conclusively enough (according to you – I do not have an opinion on whether it is natural/inborn or not AND my arguments in this debate do not depend on which side of this debate I fall) yet science has yet to pin down its genetic origin. Is that right? Or is something being inborn have nothing to do with it being genetic? Pin this question down to my not-so-state-of-the-art knowledge about genetics.
Morality definitely has a biological basis, but only to an extant. From a biological perspective a slave society is just as good as a free society. So morality is something that needs to be reasoned out.
This opens up a can of worms. Define your extant. Why should I agree with your definition of extent and why should Agniveer agree with mine? We probably will not. So, we are back to square one unless we strictly adhere to the biological basis of morality that everyone can agree with and empirically verify/reason out. Since you brought up slavery, I am guessing you are referring to slavery of African Americans in 1700s and 1800s in the US, yes? How about “corporate slavery”? (a simple google search resulted in http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081128000012AACpfQr as the first result). Should morality have to take into account this form of “slavery” too? Is capitalism/libertarianism immoral?
I only said secular humanism supports them, while Dharma opposes them.
To the extent that the video I linked to has some merit in its definition of morality (although you feel that definition is incomplete without some reasoning which probably cannot be agreed upon by all) and using that definition alone I have laid forth an argument questioning homosexuality’s “morality” (as per the video’s definition) and my guess that the maker of that video would probably subscribe to secular humanism himself (he is one of youtube’s famous and prolific atheists…you may already know this), there is a contradiction within secular humanism itself about its support of LGBT rights and the “morality” of it.
I am not a geneticist. Can you clarify if you are saying that it is complex to determine whether homosexuality has a genetic origin and it is as of yet unknown if it does?
I used a word “phenotype” in my previous reply. Look it up. That will clarify things.
If yes, then it seems to contradict your opening statement of this thread:
You read my opening comment, but did not read the follow up comments (in reply to Arya and einstein). If you do, you will see I had agreed that my opening comment was wrong, because it was the epitome of the naturalistic fallacy.
This opens up a can of worms. Define your extant.
I’m not interested in arguments on morality unless you can provide me with some good arguments as to why morality should not be normative. I don’t want another discussion where you are ill equipped to understand what I’m talking about. I don’t mean it in any derogatory sense, but it really is important for you to understand it to see where my arguments are coming from, else we will keep arguing in orthogonal directions. For starters, you can read these two papers (link1, link2) and tell me if agree/disagree with those and importantly, on what points and why.
To the extent that the video I linked to has some merit in its definition of morality (although you feel that definition is incomplete without some reasoning which probably cannot be agreed upon by all) and using that definition alone I have laid forth an argument questioning homosexuality’s “morality” (as per the video’s definition) and my guess that the maker of that video would probably subscribe to secular humanism himself (he is one of youtube’s famous and prolific atheists…you may already know this), there is a contradiction within secular humanism itself about its support of LGBT rights and the “morality” of it.
My response to that is:
1. Read up on the naturalistic fallacy.
2. That video is a response to Christian creationists who think morality cannot exist outside of the Bible.
3. Atheism is just a basic position which says there is no god. It is not a world view.
4. Secular humanists are not a homogenous group where they nod in unison to everything the other guy says.
5. So you are *categorically* wrong in a quite a few ways in assuming that just because the video was made by a guy with whom I agree on some points, I have to agree with everything he says.
Secular humanists are not a homogenous group where they nod in unison to everything the other guy says.
So you are *categorically* wrong in a quite a few ways in assuming that just because the video was made by a guy with whom I agree on some points, I have to agree with everything he says.
Agreed. It is not fair for me to ask you to defend the video of another atheist/secular humanist. I did so only because you made a blanket statement:
I only said secular humanism supports them…
choosing to speak with authority on behalf of the entire philosophy.
choosing to speak with authority on behalf of the entire philosophy..
Non-sequitur.
Read up on secular humanism.
Which part is the non-sequitur? That you are choosing to speak on behalf of the entire philosophy of secular humanism when you make statements like
I only said secular humanism supports them, while Dharma opposes them.
while also simultaneously making statement like:
4. Secular humanists are not a homogenous group where they nod in unison to everything the other guy says.
5. So you are *categorically* wrong in a quite a few ways in assuming that just because the video was made by a guy with whom I agree on some points, I have to agree with everything he says.
Or is the non-sequitur where I conclude that the logical implication of the youtube user’s video is the “immorality” (per his definition) of homosexuality?
Or are both non-sequiturs?
A non-sequitur is where the premise and conclusion do not agree. Your premise was that I made a statement that not all secular humanists agree with each other on all things. Your conclusion was that I was speaking on behalf of secularism. How does the conclusion follow from that premise?
And that conclusion does not even make any sense. I was making a factual statement (that secular humanism supports LGBT right)? How is making a factual statement “choosing to speak on behalf of the entire philosophy”? If I say 2+2=4, I am “choosing to speak on behalf of the entire philosophy of mathematics”?
That is why I suggested that you read up on secular humanism. Had you done that, you would know what secular humanism entails and how my statement was a factual one.
Or is the non-sequitur where I conclude that the logical implication of the youtube user’s video is the “immorality” (per his definition) of homosexuality?
It is a non-squitur, but it has a more specialized meaning – the naturalistic fallacy.
Correcting you,
My premise (P) – your statement (modified slightly for clarity):
Guys belonging to group XYZ are not a homogenous group where they nod in unison to everything the other guy says.
Given this premise and your statement (S):
I only said group XYZ supports them…
The conclusion any student of logic will make is that given P, when S is stated, it is a statement made on behalf of the entire group. So, yes, you ARE making a statement about ALL types of secular humanists thereby choosing to speak on their behalf.
You then conveniently changed your stance to claim that S is actually a TRUE statement that needs no further questioning (2+2 = 4? more like 0 – 0 = 0). To buttress this position you further stated my conclusion about the immorality of homosexuality is also a non-sequitur. Now, earlier you had implied that you disagree with the youtube user’s video. You said that his video only mentions a biological basis of morality while you feel that there has to be some reasoning to go with it. We did not get explicit on this, so there is room for ambiguity. So it will help for further discussion if you clarify where exactly you differ with the user’s video, specifically. Since my logical conclusion about the immorality of homosexuality depends on the definition of “morality” in the video, I contest your claim that this conclusion is a non-sequitur unless we settle the more fundamental issue about your difference (if any) from the youtube user.
Clarifying
The conclusion any student of logic will make is that given P, when S is stated, it is a statement made on behalf of the entire group. So, yes, you ARE making a statement about ALL types of secular humanists thereby choosing to speak on their behalf. further…
The conclusion any student of logic will make is that given P, when S is stated, it is a statement made ABOUT the ENTIRE group. So, yes, you ARE making a statement about ALL types of secular humanists thereby choosing to speak on their collective behalf.
I should not have included
2+2 = 4? more like 0 – 0 = 0
It goes against the spirit of our earlier brief exchange…I apologize.
I only said group XYZ supports them…
Wrong.
I said, “secular humanism supports…” Secular humanism is an ideology, not a group.
That alone invalidates your premise. But even if I had meant “secular humanists support…” your argument still falls apart.
you ARE making a statement about ALL types of secular humanists thereby choosing to speak on their behalf.
For someone to call them self a secular humanist, they must support LGBT rights as that is a subset of individual freedoms. So by the of definition of a secular humanist, my statement is true. Had I made a statement about secular humanists that does not fall under the definition of secular humanism, then and only then is your argument valid.
So you are wrong on two counts -
1. Assuming that I was talking about a group of people instead of an ideology.
2. Ignoring the definition of secular humanist whilst formulating your premise.
You then conveniently changed your stance to claim that S is actually a TRUE statement that needs no further questioning (2+2 = 4? more like 0 – 0 = 0).
Wrong. My statement was extremely relevant as I was talking about an ideology, not a group of people.
I contest your claim that this conclusion is a non-sequitur unless we settle the more fundamental issue about your difference (if any) from the youtube user.
There really isn’t much difference between him and I. But the caveat is that one can point to nature for moral rules only to an extent, but beyond that morality needs to be reasoned out. Justifying/condemning homosexuality based on how natural/unnatural it is a naturalistic fallacy. And if you still want to argue on morality, as I said in my earlier comment, you first need to show that you are in a position to understand my arguments.
Justifying/condemning homosexuality based on how natural/unnatural it is a naturalistic fallacy. This is irrelevant in our context. The origins of homosexuality (and hence its naturalness or unnaturalness or genetic or acquired nature) is precisely what I do not need as a premise for my argument. So, the naturalistic fallacy argument is a straw man.
But the caveat is that one can point to nature for moral rules only to an extent, but beyond that morality needs to be reasoned out.
We can only hope to resolve the question of validity of the conclusion of my thought experiment if we can agree on the premise. Since you have issued a caveat that certain extraneous reasonings need to be applied and also used terms like only to an extent without precisely defining them, unless we have a clearcut set of such rules (which would need to be part of the premise, agreed upon by all) how can we objectively evaluate the situation?
Maybe you/the youtube user can make another video with precisely these caveats/reasonings/details of the precise extent to which moral rules can be used and in what circumstances for the world to see and evaluate instead of pulling them out of an ad-hoc magic hat on a need-to-use basis as you go along.
The issue is far from settled despite your insistence that it is (in your favor).
Since you have issued a caveat that certain extraneous reasonings need to be applied and also used terms like only to an extent without precisely defining them, unless we have a clearcut set of such rules (which would need to be part of the premise, agreed upon by all) how can we objectively evaluate the situation?
That is precisely why I said this:
I don’t want another discussion where you are ill equipped to understand what I’m talking about. I don’t mean it in any derogatory sense, but it really is important for you to understand it to see where my arguments are coming from, else we will keep arguing in orthogonal directions. For starters, you can read these two papers (link1, link2) and tell me if agree/disagree with those and importantly, on what points and why.
I need some assurance that you can understand my arguments and that our discussion will not be about misunderstandings or lack of knowledge of some concepts. I think I’m not being unreasonable in asking that in light of:
1. Your non-sequitur of “choosing to speak on behalf of the entire philosophy”. You misunderstood some of my statements and we had to spend quite a few comments to resolve that misunderstanding.
2. You were quickly able to dismiss my Vogon hypothesis because ETI is a well understood subject as it has been done to death in sci-fi. But you weren’t able to understand why I dismissed your “homosexual alleles will increase” hypothesis just as easily. I understand genetics well enough to do that.
Now you want me to talk about morality. If I do, I will be using arguments from moral philosophy and more importantly, as a rule of thumb in philosophy goes – whatever needs to be said has already been said, I will be linking to a lot of philosophical literature. We were going back and forth for a long while on an easy to understand thing like science where you either you base your arguments on evidence or simply agree that your argument is hypothetical. What do you think will happen when we start talking about morality? So I need to you demonstrate that you can understand moral philosophy.
Questions/clarifications remain:
(1) Statement: “If 100% of humankind practiced homosexuality and did not procreate, that would be the last generation of humankind on earth.”
Throughout our discussion I see that you have chosen carefully NOT to comment explicitly on the truth/falsity of this statement. Can you explicitly state whether this statement is TRUE/FALSE?
(2)I had worried from the start that this debate will turn out to be a debate on what constitutes morality (without quotes) in all its possible generality, which is precisely what I wanted to avoid since I feel it is quite tangential to my argument which would follow from the truth (?) of statement in (1) above. That is why, in all my comments, I had made a conscious effort to use the term “morality” (and its derivatives within quotes, most times stressing that I am using it based on the youtube video’s definition ALONE). Since you said There really isn’t much difference between him and I. and followed that up with two extraneous links it is quite possible that the youtube user left unstated some of the common premises that both of you share (I will study the links when I get some free time). It appears that we have reached a dead end here, in the sense that my choice of the word “morality” (within quotes) has turned out to be quite unfortunate as it is serving to handicap our future debate on this point.
(3)“Justifying/condemning homosexuality based on how natural/unnatural it is a naturalistic fallacy.” This is irrelevant in our context. The origins of homosexuality (and hence its naturalness or unnaturalness or genetic or acquired nature) is precisely what I do not need as a premise for my argument. So, the naturalistic fallacy argument is a straw man.
My statement in (1) above (and my subsequent argument) is independent of homosexuality’s origin and its naturalness/unnaturalness. So, straw man.
(1) Statement: “If 100% of humankind practiced homosexuality and did not procreate, that would be the last generation of humankind on earth.”
Throughout our discussion I see that you have chosen carefully NOT to comment explicitly on the truth/falsity of this statement. Can you explicitly state whether this statement is TRUE/FALSE?
I have explained in quite a bit of detail of what I think of that statement. At the very beginning itself I said that statement has as much validity as Vogons obliterating Earth. Both hypotheses are contingent statements. I can’t get anymore explicit than that. The contingent nature of your hypothesis should have been obvious.
My statement in (1) above (and my subsequent argument) is independent of homosexuality’s origin and its naturalness/unnaturalness. So, straw man
You brought in the morality argument as a justification to your premise “homosexual alleles will increase in frequency” without even establishing a causal link between the two. In the absence of you giving a causal link and in light of what was being talked about in the video, to use your words, “based on the youtube video’s definition ALONE”, I was able to say that your argument is a naturalistic fallacy. Now we can argue on what the video’s definition really entailed and that is where my condition for understanding moral philosophy comes in. The video is about 9 min long and it is nowhere near enough to fully explain where the moral arguments are coming from. So the verdict on my argument being a “strawman” is still out.
@Anir:
We are not going to make headway here unless you can directly answer TRUE/FALSE to:
Statement: “If 100% of humankind practiced homosexuality and did not procreate, that would be the last generation of humankind on earth.”
This is a statement whose validity can be determined based solely on the premise made in this statement itself. Premise: If 100% of humankind practised homosexuality and did not procreate. Conclusion: that would be the last generation of humankind on earth.
There ought to be no need to invoke the crutches of any purported equivalence analogy of any kind to try and avoid answering this question directly.
This statement is the first and most important premise of my argument on homosexuality as you have realized. To the extent that we are unable to agree on the truth/falsity/validity of this premise further discussion is pointless since our premises would differ. Everything else (genetic origin of homosexuality, definition of morality, secular humanism, GLBT rights, Dharma is against it, etc.) is secondary/irrelevant without this agreement. Let me know.
Contingent. Do you know what that word means?
And I’m under no obligation to answer questions with imaginary premises. I will ignore the contingent nature of your hypothesis and answer it as true/false, if you do the same for my Vogon hypothesis and answer this question:
If Vogons exist and they come near to Earth, it will be destroyed. That would also mean the human generation that existed at the moment before Vogon destruction is last generation of humankind.
True or false?
As a pure statement of logic (slightly expanded from your statement by adding more contingencies to fill in some “gaps” without hopefully altering its essence…small note…I still haven’t taken it upon myself to find out what Vogon actually is…but will take your word that they are some form of Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (correct me if I am wrong) with destructive (?) tendencies)
If Vogons (or other forms of ETI) exist (and their sole raison d’etre is to destroy humankind within half a nanosecond of encountering humankind) and they come near to Earth (and encounter humankind), it (humankind) will be destroyed (unless humankind destroys them first). If such Vogons destroyed humankind first that would also mean the human generation that existed at the moment before Vogon destruction is last generation of humankind (as we (current and future members of humankind before Vogon destruction) know it).
This is TRUE.
Thanks.
Ignoring the contingent nature your hypothesis (which makes it purely imaginary having absolutely no real world basis and as such can never be used as an argument in any real world situation), I say that it is true.
@Anir
U r welcome.
The difference between my TRUE agreement with your statement and between your TRUE agreement with my statement is this:
In your statement (expanded/altered by me) there is NO MENTION OF IMAGINARYNESS/PROBABILITY/EVIDENCE/PAST EXPERIENCE/OPINION. I treated it as a pure question of logic without imposing any extraneous pre-existing belief/need for evidence about Vogon existence or the fact that we have not encountered Vogons thus far.
In my statement (expanded by you) you chose to expand it thus: (which makes it purely imaginary having absolutely no real world basis and as such can never be used as an argument in any real world situation).
To quote you from some messages ago:
As to importance of the the thought experiment, for me the current state of affairs don’t justify it. As I said, that it is my opinion (in view of my knowledge of evolutionary biology and population genetics).
So, you chose to impress your pre-existing opinion onto the statement. You also leave open the possibility that future state of affairs may justify it.
I specifically stated that I will answer only on the condition of ignoring the contingent nature of hypothesis. Whatever I had said before as to your hypothesis (my opinion that you quoted) was said with the obvious fact that your hypothesis was a contingent statement. May I ask you why are you are misrepresenting my words?
*May I ask you why you are misrepresenting my words?
As I mentioned I hold my TRUE verdict to be a true and unqualified TRUE verdict without needing to disparage (and bring to bear questions related to likelihood, imaginariness, real-world basis, real-world situation, etc.) the apparent imaginariness and lack of evidence thus far about ETI existence or such possibility in the future.
Your answer, however, ignored the contingent nature of my hypothesis. (That right there makes my TRUE unequal in kind to your TRUE). It also turned out that the reason why you keep harping on the so-called contingent nature of my hypothesis, was based on, using your own words, “the current state of affairs” and your “opinion” about its imaginariness. Do you then wish to take back:
As to importance of the the thought experiment, for me the current state of affairs don’t justify it. As I said, that it is my opinion (in view of my knowledge of evolutionary biology and population genetics).
(and state something to the effect that IN ALL POSSIBLE FUTURE STATES OF THE WORLD 100% HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION WILL NEVER HAPPEN?)
Putting all this together your TRUE is not equivalent to my TRUE. That opens up the possibility, then, that statements inspired by “Vogons” are not equivalent in kind to statements inspired by “100% homosexual humankind” nullifying the purported equivalence of the analogy in the first place.
@KalBhairav,
Your answer, however, ignored the contingent nature of my hypothesis
I said:
And I’m under no obligation to answer questions with imaginary premises. I will ignore the contingent nature of your hypothesis and answer it as true/false, if you do the same for my Vogon hypothesis and answer this question.
Where did I say that I’m answering your question while not ignoring the contingent nature of your hypothesis?
The definition of contingent is this:
In philosophy and logic, contingency is the status of propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation (i.e. tautologies) nor false under every possible valuation (i.e. contradictions). A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false. Propositions that are contingent may be so because they contain logical connectives which, along with the truth value of any of its atomic parts, determine the truth value of the proposition. This is to say that the truth value of the proposition is contingent upon the truth values of the sentences which comprise it. Contingent propositions depend on the facts, whereas analytic propositions are true without regard to any facts about which they speak.
There’s no way for me to say that your hypothesis is necessarily true or false, given that said truthfulness/falseness is contingent upon you providing some facts. Despite that you kept pushing for an answer, which I could not without ignoring the contingent nature of your hypothesis.
That’s why I said, I’m answering your question with the condition that its contingent nature be ignored. That means the requirement of having facts to determine truthfulness of your hypothesis has been waived. That means we are talking about a purely imaginary situation.
And I had to specifically mention that implication in my answer as, as seen from your past comments, you have the tendency to misunderstand my statements (Ex: your non-sequitur of “choosing to speak on behalf of the entire philosophy”).
And yet you are quoting from my past comments where the contingent nature was obvious (at least to me) and muddling them with my statements where I *categorically* stated that I am ignoring the contingent nature.
And the question of “your TRUE is not equivalent to my TRUE” doesn’t even arise. I answered your question with the condition that its contingent nature be ignored. I only asked you to answer my question on Vogon hypothesis first. Did I say that my answer is equivalent to your answer? You *just assumed it*. While I did equate your hypothesis with the Vogon hypothesis, that was before my comment with the condition of waiving the contingent nature of our hypotheses. Why are you quoting things out of context?
I did not disparage your hypothesis in my answer to your hypothesis. While I did disparage it before, I did not do it in my answer. Again, *you interpreted it that way*. I merely stated what follows from ignoring the contingent nature of your hypothesis.
So now you tell me why should I take back my earlier comment? I have been consistent with my stance. I categorically stated the conditions in which my answer is valid. You chose to ignore that condition and went back to a comment where my condition was not valid and then quoted it in a context where my condition is valid.
@Anir:
Headspinning stuff…
Ok. So, after all that where are we? At the risk of being repetitive, let me ask point-blank
Are you stating/implying that IN ALL POSSIBLE FUTURE STATES OF THE WORLD 100% HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION WILL NEVER HAPPEN? (I may be putting words in your mouth and thinking on your behalf and misrepresenting your positions…but we have circled all over the world in our debate here hitting tangents, talking past each other orthogonally, being adhominem at times but simply are stuck at the very beginning itself)
Can you please say yes or no without bringing in contingency/vogons/pink unicorns/other qualifications, etc?
There’s no way for me to say that your hypothesis is necessarily true or false, given that said truthfulness/falseness is contingent upon you providing some facts
Paraphrasing the theme of a popular book:
The lack of evidence of a black swan thus far led folks to believe that all swans were white up until the point in time they found a black swan.
IN ALL POSSIBLE FUTURE STATES OF THE WORLD 100% HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION WILL NEVER HAPPEN?
In my opinion, yes.
@Anir:
Thanks for the honest answer. Not sure what my next move is going to be here since you question my first/basic premise itself…
I don’t know why you quoted the black swan thing. If you thought you found something that contradicts my line of reasoning, you are wrong (like you I too don’t want another round of arguments on this). If somebody said there can never ever exist a black swan, then that’d be a contingent statement. My epistemology, i.e. science, does not make statements of that sort. Whatever statements that are considered true as per my epistemology always have an implicit condition – as long as there is evidence to support it.
Just couldn’t resist (having put in all the effort over the past few days)
If somebody said there can never ever exist a black swan, then that’d be a contingent statement. My epistemology, i.e. science, does not make statements of that sort.
versus:
IN ALL POSSIBLE FUTURE STATES OF THE WORLD 100% HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION WILL NEVER HAPPEN?
In my opinion, yes.
although in your defense you use the word opinion.
I’ll leave it at that…
The word “opinion” is no accident and that statement in no way contradicts my epistemology.
HIV infection is on the rise among young men who have sex with men (MSM) in New York City, according to preliminary data from the Health Department. New HIV diagnoses among MSM under age 30 have increased by 33% during the past six years, the agency reported today, from 374 in 2001 to almost 500 in 2006. New diagnoses have doubled among MSM ages 13 to 19, while declining by 22% among older MSM. The under-30 group now accounts for 44% of all new diagnoses among MSM in New York City, up from 31% in 2001.
read more at:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2007/pr079-07.shtml