Sexual orientation (hetero/homosexuality) has been proven to be genetic, with changes occurring in utero within the last stages of pregnancy prior to birth. How does this affect religious doctrine, and religion in general? Thoughts?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Proven?
I'm lost as to why this has to be completely genetic or completely choice. It seems to me it is some combination of the two, and I fail to understand why that is not an acceptable answer.
Proven?
Science does not prove. Science builds models that help us to connect the dots. Please cite your source. From what I have read, every human on the planet has the potential to be homosexual. There is no identifiable gay gene. You are talking about environmental metholation patterns and no study, as of yet, has produced conclusive empirical results. Study samples have been too small. Even with the appropriate genes activated, is it not a given fact that a specific child will actually be gay. If you think you have something better than the video I have provided, please share.
https://www.lehmiller.com/blog/2017/8/9/does-everybody-have-a-gay-gene
From late 2017
Science periodical overview
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2155810-what-do-the-new-gay-genes-t...
NIH funded study
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15736-4
The NIH has this last year funded multiple genetic sexual orientation studies in both males and females. I imagine we will have a far wider database in two years time or so, depending on these studies N. There may be environmental or hormonal/biological changes that play a role in the person's eventual sexuality other than the present in utero genetic markers...this is not yet known. I also heard of a study that is looking for genetic markers for immoral behaviour...look out! Totally unrelated research, but very interesting...I will post as soon as information is available on that front.
I was hoping to spur conversation on the line of how this may affect religious view?...or...how this will play with respect to a deity declaring homosexuality a sin, within several religious doctrines?...or...how do you think certain religions may deal with this? Might this even invalidate any religions altogether?
Sorry if I have offended anyone.
That's not what you said in the OP. "Human sexual orientation proven to occur in utero & Religion."
" There may be environmental or hormonal/biological changes that play a role in the person's eventual sexuality other than the present in utero genetic markers...this is not yet known."
Backtrackiing? This is what the video I posted indicates as well. There are still a whole lot of factors to explore and eliminate including the environmental.
Well, no...this study identified two different genetic regions, and two specific genes, on chromosomes 13 & 14, that on a GWAS, such a large variance between the subject groups, basically shows a very strong probability of genetic based sexual orientation. We also have to keep in mind the moderate (40%) heritability of homosexuality as well, which is a genetic factor separate, but can be added to probability. However the sample size is small, and even though associated with areas of the brain previously identified with homosexuality through disease, is not a guarantee of homosexuality. The data is very strong for genetic sexual orientation initiation in utero during final epigenetic processes...but is weak in sample size.
Did you not LISTEN!!! The study was too small to make any conclusions!!!! Pay attention!~ It's methodology was also questioned. You DO NOT GET PROOF out of such studies.
Well, the p values are very strong. I don't think probability will decrease with higher sample size.
doG, you may not ‘think’ increased sample size will decrease the probability, however, what you think in no way effects test results. In other words, it appears you’re jumping the gun.
That was my thought. We are gonna get there eventually, just not there yet.
I think its a moot point seeing the null hypothesis is slapped down with a strong p value...but ok. How about my original questions with respect to Religion?
I can not speak for Atheism or Atheists. Homosexuality is not an atheist topic of discussion. My opinion is that it is a completely natural phenomena. I have heard statistics that 10% of all mammals are born homosexual. All species. What does that mean to me regarding religion. Easy! Religions are wrong. God is an idiot, once again, for creating homosexuals, who in many cases love him and are religious, so he and his followers can hate them.
What does it mean for religions - NOTHING AT ALL, The bible tells them to hate and so they hate. It's just that simple. The bible is the word of god. Horshit! Excuse me I sneezed.
@doG
Assuming sexual orientation is proven genetic and with changes occuring in utero in the last stages of pregnancy:
Then religions need to assume that god intended for some people to be gay. Religion should allow for gay marriage and stop ostracizing these people. They will also need to go back and edit their holey babbles (holy bible) to reflect this fact. Of course I imagine many religious folks will argue until blue in the face that the "scientific facts" are wrong.
On another note, if sexual orientation is strictly genetic (I doubt it is,) and it occurs right before normal birth, A study into premature babies should prove to be very very illuminating in terms of proving this or not. I imagine also people would of already noticed, as in, all premature babies are hetrosexual, with no homosexuals, or vica versa, and we would all already know about it.
I don't doubt genetics play a strong role, but I think environment does as well. The amount of pressure especially on those that feel gay to suppress those thoughts or hide them can be immense. (Threat of death in some cultures!)
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
"I don't doubt genetics play a strong role, but I think environment does as well. The amount of pressure especially on those that feel gay to suppress those thoughts or hide them can be immense. (Threat of death in some cultures!)"
LFTW,
Simply due to the nature of human evolutionary biology, environmental input is a given, I would think...so I agree. Assuming said true, the genetic brush stroke of what is likely a continuum of scale from hetero to homosexuality depending on said genes (and highly likely others), is damning to the credibility of any religion that vilifies homosexuality. Islam comes to mind. Death to homosexuals for the way that god designed them? IMHO, this would be a significant nail in the coffin of many religions. What sort of christian response from the apologetic wigglers do you think?
@doG
Oh yeah strongly agree there, this is one of the many many nails in the coffin for religion. Although this one is particularly brutal in all the misery and death religion has pushed on a small minority of people for being born the way they are.
What sort of response do I expect from your typical christian religious apologist?
I would expect 2 likely different answers based on experience:
1. God is perfect, gay people are a sin and it is taken over by the devil. They must be confronted and "saved."
2. The more common response: "I do not personally have any problem with gay people, I am friends with "gay person x" and my particular group/religion is tolerant towards gay people." When in reality there will likely be zero "out of closest" vocal gay people in their congregation, and obviously their particular church is part of a much bigger religion that still commits atrocities and intolerance towards gay people in other churches or parts of the world. They may personally say they do not attack gay people, but they still support a religion that does. A church in a liberal city like San diego may openly welcome gay people, but the same church different priest/building in mississippi would form a lynch mob almost instantly if a gay person dared to show up at their church.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Hi Guys, New to the site. I believe any online format is an incredibly inefficient tool for conversation, but I LOVE having these conversations with fellow Christians and Atheists alike so much that I am willing to try. I just wanted to add my thoughts on this topic. Let me say this before my comment, I am an Orthodox Christian. This is different from mainstream Catholicism, and VERY different from Protestantism. The reason I say this is because these groups have different explanations for these issues, which I agree, seem illogical. I will do my best to illustrate our perspective on the issue.
According to the Orthodox Church, the overarching theme is the belief that God intends for us to be like Him. He gave us the Holy Spirit in the Garden of Eden, and we were his most prized creature. He gave us abilities that no other creature on the planet has. Now, the common thing surrounding ALL things in the universe is that there are conditions for survival. If these conditions aren't met, they perish and cease to exist in the same state. The obvious is living things need water and food. Even inanimate objects have conditions. If you are a wooden chair, make sure you are sitting balanced before someone sits on you, and don't go near fire. If these conditions are met, then the object continues to exist in the state in which it was intended to be. Humans also have conditions, obviously. Now the difference in thinking between Atheists and religious people, are where these conditions come from. Atheists believe through time and evolution we develop a sense of right and wrong by trial and error and growth of intelligence. Religious believers admit that those conditions are provided to us by God, as He is the only one who knows what it would take!
*I know I'm getting off point but there is soooo much I want to add. I will come back into focus here.
If you take the belief that conditions are provided by God, then it only makes sense to do your best to adhere to those conditions, right? This is an analogy to the way the "rules" in the Bible work. They may seem harsh, or illogical, or outdated, but the belief is these conditions are EXACTLY what humans need in order to "survive", or to get back to our original state of being prior to the fall. As society begins to be more accepting of homosexuality, and as more evidence comes to show that some individuals are born homosexual (which I believe btw, I studied genetics/biology in college), that the conditions in the Bible must be wrong. The argument is either religious folk have to become more lenient in their understanding of said conditions (as most modern protestants do) or try to dispute the science (also as some extreme Christians have done). The fact is, when you adhere to the conditions provided to us by God in the Bible, it really becomes irrelevant what the science says. This doesn't mean the science is wrong. It just means it doesn't change the fact that "you have to do a certain thing". The condition didn't say "Don't be gay because it's all a choice", it simply prescribes the advice of don't be gay because it is in direct opposition to what it takes to return to our original state. There isn't necessarily an easy justification by God WHY this matters to saving the soul, (although I will make an argument why below) but then again, we are fools to think we can know as much as God. If He created us, only He knows EXACTLY what we need.
Let me add this. Yes, our Church speaks against homosexuality. But it also speaks against heterosexual sex before marriage with the same intensity. It also speaks against masturbation. The reason is (other than God said so) because the conditions point to the fact that frequent thoughts, actions, regarding anything sexual in nature is harmful to our well-being. Not that sex itself is inherently evil, but overuse merely for pleasure can LEAD to something worse. Remember Adam and Eve in the Garden? They were naked, and they didn't get turned on. Sex wasn't a thing. It wouldn't have been necessary had we remained in the same state. It only became necessary after the fall, in order to propagate. Too much of anything is a bad thing, and sex is the same way. These conditions are placed on us for the same reason we are told to fast certain periods of the year. Because fasting takes our thoughts away from pleasurable foods and refocuses our minds on the truly important spiritual aspects of ourselves. So it is with sexual things.
So long story short, I am a Christian, and I believe homosexuality is an act that takes us further from God, and hurts our soul. It does not matter to me what the science says, but not because I am a religious zealot, but because it is truly irrelevant.
Curious to what you guys think, open to criticism (preferably well meaning questions).
"The reason is (other than God said so) because the conditions point to the fact that frequent thoughts, actions, regarding anything sexual in nature is harmful to our well-being. Not that sex itself is inherently evil, but overuse merely for pleasure can LEAD to something worse."
I'm curious: Do you believe that individuals that are infertile and incapable of having children should also be banned from having sex for their whole lives? And/or women who have gone through menopause?
I'm curious: Do you believe that individuals that are infertile and incapable of having children should also be banned from having sex for their whole lives? And/or women who have gone through menopause?
This is a great question, and I appreciate you asking. Although I am not going to pretend I am a Priest with all of the answers, I can do my best to explain my thoughts.
Although some Christian groups proclaim that sex is inherently immoral, or solely for propagation, we do not. My original point was trying to express that, like anything that benefits us, as long as it is used properly and modestly, then it is okay. Eating food is a good thing. Eating too much food is not. Also, eating the wrong food is harmful to our physical bodies. Sex is inherently good, but only if done in the correct manner.
Having sex knowing you can't conceive is not inherently bad. But the point is not to get carried away. This is the same for heterosexual couples that can conceive.
Hope that is sufficient, if not, let me know.
@HumbleThinker
I see. I must have misunderstood. I read your explanation above as saying that the reason homosexuality takes us further from God is because it is impossible to procreate in homosexual relationships, which leads to overuse of sex for pleasure. If it's possible to avoid that kind of overuse in a heterosexual relationship that can't procreate, it would be possible in a homosexual one as well.
Can you explain again how homosexuality takes us further from God?
You need to start your own thread. "One point at a time is more easily discussed that a trashcan of garbage." Such a typically Christian response. One blind assertion after another.
"I believe homosexuality is an act that takes us further from God."
Then why did God create homosexuals.
Homosexuality is an "ACT."
Prove that there is a god.
Prove that you have a soul.
The only clear reference to same-sex sexual activity and same-sex orientation is to be found in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Paul is writing to ensure that the Roman believers will welcome him and his preaching when he comes and not be put off by his critics. As typical, Paul begins with common ground: the faith they affirm together (Rom 1:3-5) and the sin they together condemn (Rom 1:18-32). He could have singled out various sins, but he chose to take same-sex relations as his example (Rom 1:24-28).
Jesus himself never condemns same sex relationships and even hails the homosexual Roman Centurion as the most faithful he has ever seen. Paul's version of Christianity does not match the view of Jesus.
Yikes, this is aggressive. Typical Atheist response. (jk) Although I have read your comments on multiple other threads, and you seem to regularly respond in this manner. You know how people generally don't like Christians shoving their faith down peoples throats? People also don't like overly aggressive, ad-hominem comments. I'm going to avoid this one for now, because your questions make less sense than my "trashcan of garbage".
@HumbleThinker
Welcome to Atheist Republic debate boards!
Curious, why do you think any online format of communication is incredibly inefficient? I would argue it is very efficent, but yes some subtleties such as facial patterns, (like showing sarcasm, seriousness etc) are lost in a text only format, but the written word has its advantages too. A written record, a pace that allows everyone to respond on their own time, and a sort of "forced" people taking turns instead of talking on top of each other. (Which ups the chances that people will actually listen to each other instead of simply argue their point irrespective of what the other person says.) Also all the written record is highly useful to go back to for reference.
How do we know our original state? Reading your post, i can surmise you think our original state was like god? Is god hetrosexual? How do we know that? Maybe he is also sometimes homosexual? How do we know? How can we possibly know what a supposed "timeless" all powerful all knowing being sexual preferences are? Obviously god as described does not "reproduce at all" like humans right? So to imitate god we should all be asexual?
Furthermore why would god need 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 eyes etc? He is timeless and not of this world right? No gravity, no light etc plus an all powerful being would use something better than human like eyes? Why do religions insist he looks much like humans and decided to make his "favorite creation" look like himself? And if god likes to create humans to the likeness of himself, why are some people born missing limbs, or hair etc, did god decide he randomly wants some people to not look like him as much? What skin color is god? Why would "god" create multiple skin color types if he created humans in his image?
It is? That is contrary to everything I read. Except for extreme cases. All the people that spend their lives studying human psychology would tell you a life with no sex, no masturbation is actually quite harmful. What if someone cannot find a healthy partner for sex that is willing to marry them right away? What if someone does marry as soon as they turn 18, but on the wedding night the spouse unfortunately dies? No sex or masturbation whatsoever for that person until they find someone else that will marry them and wait until the night after the marriage ceremony? How much sex is too much sex for a married couple? If the couple is not yet trying for kids is sex wrong? I think lots of knowledgeable people that spend their lives studying this subject would also state that having sex only a few dozen times in one entire life with zero masturbation is also very unhealthy.
If we weren't in the same state? You and I would not be alive if we stayed in the same "supposed" state as adam and eve were. Would the garden of eden support all 7.5 billion of us alive today + the 100 billion people that have lived? (We would not die of old age in eden right?)
That would truly be great if that was true, but obviously it does matter to you, it is very relevant to you, enough for you to make an account and post here about it. If it did not matter to you at all, you would be perfectly fine if their were gay people, heck they could even be your friend or you could marry one if it was truly "irrelevant" to you. I argue it is very relevant to you.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Hi LogicFTW, I appreciate the carefully crafted and genuinely curious comment. I am happy to do my best to address these.
First off, what you say about the efficiency of these forums is true, but (maybe due to my poor vocabulary and graceless use of the english language) I find it incredibly difficult to converse in this manner. As you can see already, trying to reply to everyone who replies, while staying on track and pointed is extremely difficult. Especially on topics this deep and wide, I do not believe it is truly helpful. I only do it because I can't help myself : )
You make a good point with your next couple of comments. Let me add some more theology here before I address the point. When we say we were created in the image/likeness of God, we are not talking about our physical beings. God does not have a body like ours. He does not have arms and legs. "He" is genderless. What was given to us is the Holy Spirit, something which is totally unique to humans. Dogs, cats, lions, bacteria do not have the Holy Spirit in them. It is the Holy Spirit that makes us like God (I know this seems like a weak description, but I am still trying to understand it!) Here's the thing. As part of our biology and being an intellegent creative thinking human, we can't help but try to visualize the object of discussion. This is a helpful tool when trying to understand something, however it can also make it difficult if trying to understand the EXACT thing. If I described to you the chair I'm sitting in as black, comfy, has wheels, and two armrests, what would you visualize? How do you know you are picturing it correctly? Now try this experiement with something that is so beautiful, so powerful, all knowing, non physical. How can this be done? As far as describing God as the bearded guy in the sky, it is really the easiest way to picture His reality. Language is also a limiting factor. In the Book of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1: 4-28), he has visions of angels. The description is really interesting. It talks about gold and silver and brass, and multiple heads of animals, and wings, and wheels of eyes. Now, if you notice a pattern in these descriptions, the language used is that of the most brilliant, beautiful, and strong material and animals that our language has words for. Can I say that is EXACTLY what these angels looked like? sure, maybe. But I doubt it. I believe they are more glorious than that. But how would you describe it?
To your point on no sex being harmful. I believe these things you say to be true to some extent. I will say, my wife stayed a virgin until we married at 24, never having even masturbated. There are monks/nuns that are 90 years old that have never had sex. Obviously, they are fine. But in most cases, that is very hard to do. Having sex is a biology urge, and maybe one of the strongest we have. Eating food is a strong urge too, and we need it to survive physically, but we still have periods where we eat very little. Here's the thing. Many of the practices that we have INTENTIONALLY hurt our bodies. Fasting, long prayer when sleep is needed, abstaining from sex under certain conditions. These things all wear us out. But the idea is that it is a small sacrafice that provides spiritual benefit. That is what I meant by "harmful to our well-being". Harmful to our spirits.
Your point about staying in the same state is a very very good question. I do not know the answer, and any respectable church would not proclaim to know the answer, because it is not provided to us. All we know is what DID happen, not what COULD have happened. To remain consistent though, I will say that it is possible that Adam and Eve would have been the only people to exist in this manner. Like I said, they weren't having sex in the Garden, so how would they have children? Also a possibility is that God would create more. Why couldn't He?
To your last point. My statement was true. Let me repeat it here. It does not matter to me what the science says, but not because I am a religious zealot, but because it is truly irrelevant. I am not meaning sharing my views on the topic aren't relevant, of course they are for the reasons you mentioned. My whole point here is that what the science says about homosexuality will not change the church's view on homosexuality. When Newton discovered how gravity works, it didn't change the nature of gravity.
Hope this helps, that was a lot to address. And I'm sure I didn't do a great job with it so feel free to follow up.
@HumbleThinker
Apologies for the delayed response, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me.
I appreciate you taking the effort.
So you are saying: "when god made us in his image" he meant more spiritually and intellectually, not physically.
I would visualize a black, comfortable chair with armrest and has wheels, the chair I am sitting in right now looks like that, to me anyways. But I would assume quite a few basic things that are highly likely to be correct, like sturdy enough to hold a person's weight, has a place for the butt to rest, that the wheels are no more than 4 inches tall (probably more like 2 inches) and likely I would have mostly nailed the chair's appearance, maybe not enough to find said chair in a used chair warehouse somewhere, but I could safely say I would recognize it at least be a chair. I do not know for sure I am picturing it correctly but I would be very confident in some base attributes of it, especially the ones described, it sounds like god cannot be described like this at all. You cant say he is about 6 foot, 2 arms 2 legs etc, all you can really say is your god idea is very beautiful powerful and all knowing. The latter 2 being not very helpful for visual description, "how do you make something look all powerful and wise?, big muscles and glasses, sort of an aged white/silver hair look people commonly associate with people of wisdom (old?)
What about yourself? Did you stay virgin until married? I noticed you mentioned just your wife not both of you. Did you ever masturbate before getting married? Have you still never masturbated? I think most monks/nuns are just fine, but are all of them? Do they perhaps have heightened rates of sexual deviancy acts compared to the normal population? Interestingly many powerful religions block the study and data collection of this sort of data.
Ah, harmful to the spirit. And who makes the rules on what is and is not harmful to the spirit, is it perhaps religious books and religious leaders that tells us what is harmful or not? Are these books and religious leaders vigorously peer reviewed? Why would you take a spiritual leader and/or book over a carefully peer reviewed finding based on careful study and experimentation and data collection?
I am sure an all powerful being capable of anything certainly could create more, but would he create 100 billion plus people and expand eden to fit em all? Why would he do that? Is there a certain number when a god with his eden plan decide, hey ya know, I got 100 billion of these now, maybe that's enough? Do you think you or I would be "alive" in this scenario? How different would we be if we were created by god instead of born to parents?
I like your honesty. And I agree, I do not see the church changing their view on it unless they was enormous pressure to do so. Where religious adherence/attendance drops, as people choose to visit more tolerant versions of the religion, causing one type of religion to begin to die out as another similar religion that is highly accepting of lgbtq to rise. Obviously this will never happen completely, but I have noticed the churches that at least minimize their anti lgbtq stances seem to have greater congregation numbers. In much of the US the non denominational churches seem to be doing quite well, while the older more rigid style of churches seem to be slowly fading away unless they adapt as their followers increasingly die of old age or other causes.
Nope but it did greatly change humans understanding of it, and opened the door to many more useful understandings with the basics of gravity explained. We can actually make highly accurate machines that throw things by tossing equations utilizing the math behind gravity to fill in the necessary information to get accuracy. To send stuff to earth's outer atmosphere people have been able to utilize Newtons basic gravity equations + a whole lot more math to know how much fuel to put in a rocket based on the rocket's total lift off weight and aerodynamics.
You did just fine.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I don't see how biological causes would change the church's view on homosexuality at all. For Christianity, the doctrine of original sin essentially states that every single human is naturally born with sinful urges, but God still says that the punishment of unforgiven sin is hellfire and damnation. Having a biological predisposition to addiction or aggression doesn't take the sin out of drunkenness or violence, either. It seems silly that anyone would think God would say, "Oh my dear! Homosexuals can't help but be homosexual? My bad, that's totally cool then."
Completely agree. Then you have persons like me who have suffered an exceptionally severe traumatic brain injury and cannot think as fast as they used to and actually need the time to think through what they wish to say. I used to be able to debate without notes and just did a Robin Williams ad lib. BTW: Did you know Robin Williams never had written scripts for the movies he starred in? He would ad lib his parts right off the cuff.
My family members are wholly familiar with my brain injury and will use that to their advantage by tag teaming me between each other so I could not get a word in edgewise. For a good example, just watch Deepak Chopra in the informal discussions he has had. His method is to constantly interrupt who is speaking to make his point so the other could never complete their point.
Having written discussions like these allows me the time I need to plan out what I am wanting to say. I even use an ASCII DOS-text editor called HTML-Kit to write my thoughts. The thing I love about HTML-Kit is that I can type my thoughts, edit them, even insert the tags for bold and italics and blockquote, etc. without having to type those tags which would completely derail my thoughts. It also allows me to insert HTML Entities without having to type them, which also could derail my thoughts.
The only part about this form of communication is exactly what Logic said, “facial patterns, (like showing sarcasm, seriousness etc) are lost in a text only format.” In fact, I used HTML-Kit to type this response. Then all I had to was Ctrl+A (select all), then Ctrl+V (paste). Easy peasy.
rmfr
@arakish
I consider Robin Williams to be a genius and especially a comedy genius. RIP Robin Williams.
I may need to check out this HTML-Kit.
Did you hit ctrl c too? Or do you have ctrl+A to also do the copy?
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@ LogicFTW Re: “Did you hit ctrl c too? Or do you have ctrl+A to also do the copy?&rdquo:
Thanks for that catch. Yes, it is Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C, switch apps, Ctrl+V. You know how Alzheimer's can be...
rmfr
From the perspective of atheism which relies on evolution to explain the origin of humans, how can homosexuality be explained? If evolution is the way humans came to be, why are there still humans who practice homosexuality.
The theory of evolution is not a tenet of atheism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your hidden postulate: that homosexuality is genetic, is also not a tenet of atheism.
It has been theorized that homosexuality may benefit the family and community, which could lead to those with similar genes successfully procreating more often. Homosexuality could also be a variant of bisexuality, which is seen in over a thousand animal species, so it must have some benefit.
Pages