Gay Church Employee loses Temple Recommend and Job

[Jeff K.]

Well, I didn't call them 'exceptions'.

But - to use your term - these 'exceptions' probably have solid evolutionary utility. (They certainly do in such examples as bee and ant hives, where almost all individual organisms in any given colony don't reproduce...)

For example, the evidence shows that the more boys a mother has, the chances that the next boy born to that mother will end up with homosexual tendencies increase.

This points towards homosexuality being a mechanism that controls population growth.

Under-population is not the only danger facing a species. Over-population is also a danger - and all species have some method of controlling it.

You mean where a species consists of two sexes and suddenly every single member of that species - within a single generation - became completely uninterested in sex, or 'turned gay', or something of this kind...?

Errr - no. Such a species wouldn't survive. Obviously.

What's the point in asking the question...?

Semilogo made a statement implying if everyone were homosexual we would still exist as a species. That is not the case.

Of course then a conflated asexual production with a lack of attraction to a species of the opposite sex.

Maybe he needs to think on it a bit?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Semilogo made a statement implying if everyone were homosexual we would still exist as a species. That is not the case.

Ok - looking back in the thread, it looks like the conversation was touching on artificial insemination...?

Right - I guess I get the point of the question now

[bookofmormontruth]

I know of plenty of species where only a sub-set of individual organisms within any given group are required to reproduce for the species to effectively survive.

There is simply no 'rule' in nature that says all - or even most - individual organisms of a species must reproduce for a species to be 'successful'.

Homosexuality is present in all kinds of mammal and bird species (which suggests to me some kind of association with higher brain functions) - species which have survived perfectly well for millions upon millions of years.

Just because a certain mammal mates with the same sex or a tree doesn't mean they are wired to be homosexual or are attracted to trees. Animal species will try to mate with anything, but nature will never allow for their survival if they really had an attraction to their own sex. How can you argue that this is even physiologically possible?

I had a neighborhood dog that would "hump" anything it could find including humans. I wouldn't call this dog a homosexual or any other mammal doing the same.

[Jaybear]

Semilogo made a statement implying if everyone were homosexual we would still exist as a species. That is not the case.

Of course then a conflated asexual production with a lack of attraction to a species of the opposite sex.

Maybe he needs to think on it a bit?

Its Semlogo, not Semilogo.

He is correct. In such a world, there would be no accidental pregnancies, but people would still have children.

You are conflating the desire to have sex, with the desire to have children.

[bookofmormontruth]

This is not necessary.

Sorry, no intention to offend.

Let me rephrase.

Nope. There is absolutely no evidence unless you resorted to dishonesty and stated that there was evidence.

[bookofmormontruth]

Actually, our ancestors did very poorly, and barely managed to survive, and died out in large numbers when food sources dried up or when there was a drought or very cold winter. Specialization is one of the keys to the success of modern humanity.

Homosexuality is obviously a part of God's plan, as it is common to almost every intelligent species. You can disagree about the morality of it, but God obviously is the author of homosexuality, if you accept that He is the author of life.

They still survived didn't they? And they didn't have poets, doctors or accountants which is the claim you were making to have a species survive. Even in modern times, we die out in large numbers, but if we had to go back to "basics" of survival - we wouldn't need poets, doctors or accountants. We would need food storage!

According to scriptures and prophets, homosexuality is not part of God's plan in bringing His children into the world. God is also not the author of the sin which homosexuality is defined as by said scriptures and prophets. And just because a dog or any other species "humps" anything in its sight, doesn't make them a homosexual. Show me one example other than humans, where a mammal is only "attracted" to their own sex?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I had a neighborhood dog that would "hump" anything it could find including humans. I wouldn't call this dog a homosexual or any other mammal doing the same.

Neither would I No doubt the dog in question is probably hetrosexual - but occasionally 'finds relief' from whatever happens to be around.

Humans can do the same thing sometimes - usually their hands prove to be most convenient method. (And yes - even hetro-sexual humans do this. I don't think they use their hands sometimes because they are actually homosexual, or are attracted to their own hands...!)

You know if a particular animal (including a human) is homosexual if they actively avoid intercourse with members of the opposite sex and actively engage in intercourse with members of the same sex.

This is exactly what is seen - as a minority behavior - in all kinds of animal species. Including humans.

And that kind of behavior doesn't match your (ermm - shall we call it the) 'random rubbing' theory...

nature will never allow for their survival if they really had an attraction to their own sex

As a majority trait - agreed.

But as a minority trait (or - more specifically - a trait related to over-population control) it can actually have evolutionary benefits. See my previous posts.

How can you argue that this is even physiologically possible?

See above.

Sorry, no intention to offend.

Let me rephrase.

Nope. There is absolutely no evidence unless you resorted to dishonesty and stated that there was evidence.

Haha! That's funny man...

[bookofmormontruth]

For example, the evidence shows that the more boys a mother has, the chances that the next boy born to that mother will end up with homosexual tendencies increase.

This points towards homosexuality being a mechanism that controls population growth.

Under-population is not the only danger facing a species. Over-population is also a danger - and all species have some method of controlling it.

That is pure speculation, which you have that right.

My own speculation is that the environment has influence over genes (epi-genetics). If that is true then God only allows the natural course of our world to cause homosexuality, but doesn't send "homosexual spirits" into the world. Does He love them any less? Of course not, but we can't escape what the scriptures and prophets have said on the matter.

Why I have this speculation: My mother grew up with 3 friends in Ferron, Utah. They all moved away from Ferron and got married and had kids. The first born of my mom and her friends became homosexual which is absolutely baffling and amazing to me. The environment (toxins) which include endocrine disrupters and xeno-estrogens have more of a profound effect than we truly know.

De-popluation control is an entirely different issue.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

That is pure speculation, which you have that right.

My own speculation is that the environment has influence over genes (epi-genetics). If that is true then God only allows the natural course of our world to cause homosexuality, but doesn't send "homosexual spirits" into the world. Does He love them any less? Of course not, but we can't escape what the scriptures and prophets have said on the matter.

Why I have this speculation: My mother grew up with 3 friends in Ferron, Utah. They all moved away from Ferron and got married and had kids. The first born of my mom and her friends became homosexual which is absolutely baffling and amazing to me. The environment (toxins) which include endocrine disrupters and xeno-estrogens have more of a profound effect than we truly know.

De-popluation control is an entirely different issue.

Well - it least it seems like we both agree that external, environmental factors can 'cause' homosexuality, even if we might disagree on the details.

I don't share your belief in 'God' through, so I guess it's up to you what you think is 'enforced by the scriptures and the prophets'.

[bookofmormontruth]

Neither would I No doubt the dog in question is probably hetrosexual - but occasionally 'finds relief' from whatever happens to be around.

Humans can do the same thing sometimes - usually their hands prove to be most convenient method. (And yes - even hetro-sexual humans do this. I don't think they use their hands sometimes because they are actually homosexual, or are attracted to their own hands...!)

Then with that example, why can't the same thing be said with other species having "relief" on the same sex? There would have to be a long term study to follow this behavior, not some random video showing two monkeys finding "relief" on each other.

You know if a particular animal (including a human) is homosexual if they actively avoid intercourse with members of the opposite sex and actively engage in intercourse with members of the same sex.

This is exactly what is seen - as a minority behavior - in all kinds of animal species. Including humans.

And that kind of behavior doesn't match your (ermm - shall we call it the) 'random rubbing' theory...

Show me the evidence of where this is found other than in humans?

[Jeff K.]

Its Semlogo, not Semilogo.

He is correct. In such a world, there would be no accidental pregnancies, but people would still have children.

You are conflating the desire to have sex, with the desire to have children.

Again, show me a species that has survived in which one sex has no attraction to another.

[bookofmormontruth]

Well - it least it seems like we both agree that external, environmental factors can 'cause' homosexuality, even if we might disagree on the details.

I don't share your belief in 'God' through, so I guess it's up to you what you think is 'enforced by the scriptures and the prophets'.

You don't have to answer, but as an atheist - what attracts you so much to the LDS Church?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

There would have to be a long term study to follow this behavior, not some random video showing two monkeys finding "relief" on each other.

Show me the evidence of where this is found other than in humans?

Well, I would say this book would be a good starting point for your research...

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EftT_1bsPOAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Animal+homosexuality&ots=dE8J5muyze&sig=o-5FxI2XEgLKt7JrXv85CrEj1Hw#v=onepage&q&f=false

This book specifically addresses your point - and documents 'exclusively homosexual individuals' as opposed to just instances of homosexual behavior.

You don't have to answer, but as an atheist - what attracts you so much to the LDS Church?

I was raised a Mormon.

[Jaybear]

Again, show me a species that has survived in which one sex has no attraction to another.

Not relevant. Unless you can show me a species that has built a spacecraft.

Gay people manage to find a way to have children now. Do you really think that if everyone suddenly became gay, gays would lose either (1) their desire to have children; or (2) the knowlege of how procreation occurs?

[semlogo]

Semilogo made a statement implying if everyone were homosexual we would still exist as a species. That is not the case.

Of course then a conflated asexual production with a lack of attraction to a species of the opposite sex.

Maybe he needs to think on it a bit?

It's sad that you think you can score by misspelling my user name. You couldn't even think up a good misspelling.

Plenty of gay men and women have the desire for children. They have kids all the time. Perhaps you should think about this more before endeavoring to offer your thoughts in public again.

[semlogo]

Just because a certain mammal mates with the same sex or a tree doesn't mean they are wired to be homosexual or are attracted to trees. Animal species will try to mate with anything, but nature will never allow for their survival if they really had an attraction to their own sex. How can you argue that this is even physiologically possible?

I had a neighborhood dog that would "hump" anything it could find including humans. I wouldn't call this dog a homosexual or any other mammal doing the same.

You're quite mistaken. Do some research, instead of just guessing.

[semlogo]

They still survived didn't they? And they didn't have poets, doctors or accountants which is the claim you were making to have a species survive. Even in modern times, we die out in large numbers, but if we had to go back to "basics" of survival - we wouldn't need poets, doctors or accountants. We would need food storage!

According to scriptures and prophets, homosexuality is not part of God's plan in bringing His children into the world. God is also not the author of the sin which homosexuality is defined as by said scriptures and prophets. And just because a dog or any other species "humps" anything in its sight, doesn't make them a homosexual. Show me one example other than humans, where a mammal is only "attracted" to their own sex?

We're doing much better now because we specialized. If you're satisfied with barely surviving, always on the brink of death, good luck to you.

God created homosexuality. He must have done so for a reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

[bookofmormontruth]

Well, I would say this book would be a good starting point for your research...

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

This book specifically addresses your point - and documents 'exclusively homosexual individuals' as opposed to just instances of homosexual behavior.

Thank you for the suggestion. I am open to any research, but I don't have time to read a book. Do you have any studies to read from pubmed?

I am also open to the idea that environmental factors are also effecting the animal kingdom. In fact we know they are, but in regards to homosexuality - definitely plausible.

Sounds like we agree more than anything. Now, how open are you in coming back to the LDS Church?

[bookofmormontruth]

We're doing much better now because we specialized. If you're satisfied with barely surviving, always on the brink of death, good luck to you.

God created homosexuality. He must have done so for a reason.

http://en.wikipedia....vior_in_animals

http://en.wikipedia....sexual_behavior

Most people in the world today are on the brink of death which I am definitely not satisfied with. So much for "specializing" helping those people.

I appreciate the wikipedia links, but not a valid source sorry.

[bookofmormontruth]

You're quite mistaken. Do some research, instead of just guessing.

wikipedia research?

[Jeff K.]

Not relevant. Unless you can show me a species that has built a spacecraft.

Gay people manage to find a way to have children now. Do you really think that if everyone suddenly became gay, gays would lose either (1) their desire to have children; or (2) the knowlege of how procreation occurs?

Imagine for a moment, a self indulgent speicies which has no attraction to the opposite sex. The birth rate of such a species in which an artificial means is the only way hazards a horrific end. In its most natural state, our species, like most, does not need hospitals or surgury rooms to propagate itself in sufficient numbers for long term growth and viability. Imagine how a lack of desire leads to a rapid reduction in medical investment, research into prenatal and post natal car, fighting disease for the young. Now imagine suddenly complicating the scenario. Birth rates falling drastically and going into the negative. Age of giving birth increasing as people reluctantly have children (which impacts on their personal hedonism). The age at which pregnancy stops also diminishes in years as evolution catches up to society.

A good flu pandemic, a reversal of technology, say a dark age, a plague, and suddenly you are left with a scattered diminished population with no desire to reproduce and mostly unwilling to take the necessary steps. The plague killed as much as half of Eruope. A scattered population, low birth rate, a pandemic, and no desire to continue the species...

Yes, extinction is easy in that case. Tribes have willed themselves out of existence that way. Semi would do the same.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Thank you for the suggestion. I am open to any research, but I don't have time to read a book. Do you have any studies to read from pubmed?

Not sure what pubmed is...?

But I'll point you towards a specific set of data from the book - just to maybe get you started? (Of course you'd need to read through the whole book to see the full extent of evidence, take account of all the nuances etc. - but anyway...)

At the top of Page 180 of the book I linked to, they show some data from studies on ram homosexuality.

From the book:

"Among the rams studies by various authors, four main phenotypes have been described: hetrosexual, bisexual, homosexual and asexual; the last phenotype do not show sexual interest in either ewes or other rams. Table 5.2 summaries the relative frequencies of the different phenotypes found by various authors. Overall, exclusively homosexual rams account for 8.6% (range 7.4% - 9.5%) of all rams in the populations studied. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain such homosexual behavior in rams, ranging from prenatal hormonal effects, to genetic mutations and postnatal social mechanisms..."

I've bolded the particularly relavent part. Notice the term 'exclusively homosexual'. As is explained in the very first section of the book, this term very specifically means that the animals so termed actually avoid sexual contact with members of the opposite sex, even when it is readily available. Instead, they 'exclusively' prefer sexual contact with members of the same sex...

Sounds like we agree more than anything.

Surprisingly (or maybe not too surprisingly...?) - yeah, I think we actually agree on quite a bit...

Now, how open are you in coming back to the LDS Church?

Well, I go for blessings, baptisms etc. And I usually get involved in the annual stake Christmas choir every year. I quite enjoy that...

...I can't see me getting more involved than that. Would you really want me to if I honestly don't believe LDS claims...?

But - honestly - nice of you to ask through. Cheers!

[semlogo]

Imagine for a moment, a self indulgent speicies [sic] which has no attraction to the opposite sex.

What does self-indulgence have to do with anything?

Yes, extinction is easy in that case. Tribes have willed themselves out of existence that way. Semi would do the same.

I'll kindly remind you that you don't speak for me.

[semlogo]

wikipedia research?

Any research from you would be a huge step.

[semlogo]

Most people in the world today are on the brink of death which I am definitely not satisfied with. So much for "specializing" helping those people.

I appreciate the wikipedia links, but not a valid source sorry.

No, they're not. But those that are are living in primitive societies have not specialized, and are doing poorly as a result. Thanks for backing up my point.

Whoever told that wiki isn't "valid" was teasing you.