Pastor Says

[thir]

Pastor Says Parents Should Punch ‘Girly’ 4 Year Olds

“Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male.”

“And when your daughter starts acting to Butch you reign her in. And you say, ‘Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.’”

http://www.care2.com/causes/pastor-says-parents-should-punch-girly-4-year-olds.html

One thing I have never understood is why you have break and punch people into being what is Godgiven/natural' -? It is on a par with many laws and speeches and arguments..Why do you have to work so hard to make people behave naturally?

[sub_sequent]

What terrible things are said and done in the name of religion. And what damage is done.

Not only to poor children being treated like this or to relationships between parents and children that will surely fall apart when those kids realise their sexual orientation.

Since when are kids only acceptable when they fall into our 'pattern' of what is 'normal'. ?

It scares me that there are people that will blindly follow this blind.

Absolute nonsense!!

[Thorne]

Why do you have to work so hard to make people behave naturally?
Well, for one thing, too many people just can't view homosexuality as being 'natural'. They have to view it as an abomination, something to be feared and stamped out. Because it's different. Because "those people are not like US!"

In short, it's ignorance and superstition and dogmatism, in varying combinations. And besides, the Bible says it's okay to kill "those people". You know, the same places that say it's not right to eat ham or shellfish, or to wear clothes of blended fabrics, or to get tattoos. Yeah, God doesn't like those things, either.

[Thorne]

Not only to poor children being treated like this or to relationships between parents and children that will surely fall apart when those kids realise their sexual orientation.
Parents have thrown there kids out of their homes over such things, and in some cases have even killed them for it! Religious groups have fought against anti-bullying legislation around the US because their beliefs give them the right to bully kids for such things. It's insane, really.


It scares me that there are people that will blindly follow this blind.
It's the people who are leading those people who scare me.

[denuseri]

You hardely need a religion being manipulated by an asshole or group of assholes to find this kind of bigotry in action amongst any cultural group.

Its my opinion that homophobia completely transcends religious belief as well as politics and philosophies.

[Thorne]

You hardely need a religion being manipulated by an asshole or group of assholes to find this kind of bigotry in action amongst any cultural group.

Its my opinion that homophobia completely transcends religious belief as well as politics and philosophies.
Well, it may not require a religion exactly, but it certainly does require some kind of religious-like dogma to generate the kind of hatred being spewed by the right in the US. And let's face it, in the US at least, it is the religious organizations who are fanatically trying to prevent equality for gays, just as it was the religious organizations (primarily in the South) who fanatically maintained that slavery was sanctioned by God!

It may not require a religion for bigotry, but few things other than religion can inspire that kind of fear and hatred of their own children!

[thir]

Well, for one thing, too many people just can't view homosexuality as being 'natural'. They have to view it as an abomination, something to be feared and stamped out. Because it's different. Because "those people are not like US!"


I wasn't just thinking of homosexuality, but about gender roles and other roles that are, in fact, considered natural by various parties. If they are natural, why is so much work needed to cram people into those roles?

[Thorne]

I wasn't just thinking of homosexuality, but about gender roles and other roles that are, in fact, considered natural by various parties. If they are natural, why is so much work needed to cram people into those roles?
Yes, I know. I said homosexuality, but I should include gay, lesbian, trans-gender, bi-sexual, or any other non-heterosexual lifestyle.

Not sure what you mean by "why is so much work needed to cram people into those roles?" I'm going to assume you mean the work done by the LGBT community to gain acceptance. But they are not cramming people into those roles, they are trying to have their rights recognized rather than have them denied for being in those roles. It's not all that different from the battle the African-American community had to (and still must) fight to gain acceptance as equal members of our society. The ONLY rationale for deny rights to LGBT people is a religious one. The BIBLE says it's bad! JESUS hates queers!" Except that Jesus never said a damned thing about homosexuality. He did, however, give tacit approval to slavery. And those parts of the Bible which DO seem to say something about homosexuality almost always speak ONLY of man/man sex, and not woman/woman sex. And they also say an awful lot about other things which are wrong, but which modern Christians don't really hold to.

[denuseri]

Well I am all for every religion dropping the more antiquated parts of its dogma. Might be why I converted to Bahai...shrugs.

In any event...I postulate that its not the fault of any "religion" in and of itself...but the miss use of religion by a few bigots to influence others into being homophobic and ass hatty....which if these people were indeed practicing what the Bible tells them to do...they would instead drop the meanie behavior and go about loving their neighbors and being pacifists.

Lets not forget the Nazi's and KKK and Neo-Naazi's and Communists etc....all had very staunch anti homosexual stands.

So did "pagan" Rome where as the Legions were concerned (pretty much a death sentence in the legions to be found out as a homosexual back then.)

[Thorne]

Well I am all for every religion dropping the more antiquated parts of its dogma. Might be why I converted to Bahai...shrugs.
Of the three Middle Eastern religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, ALL of their dogma is antiquated!


In any event...I postulate that its not the fault of any "religion" in and of itself...but the miss use of religion by a few bigots to influence others into being homophobic and ass hatty....
But that's just it, denuseri! Religions require their followers to believe things on faith, not on reality. This cannot happen unless you convince people that rational thinking is evil. And once you accept the irrational and unreal as true, you are easily misled by the evil bigots. So yes, it IS the fault of religion, or at least of the type of thinking which faith in a religion requires.


which if these people were indeed practicing what the Bible tells them to do...they would instead drop the meanie behavior and go about loving their neighbors and being pacifists.
Which parts of the Bible should they believe? The parts that tell them to love their neighbors? Or the parts that tell them to kill their neighbors and take their women and children as slaves? And aside from a few moral points which are common everywhere, even without religion, why should we rely on the insanity of late bronze age to early iron age shamans to determine what's right in the modern world? Do you really think it's acceptable that a woman should be stoned to death if she's found not to be a virgin on her wedding night?


Lets not forget the Nazi's and KKK and Neo-Naazi's and Communists etc....all had very staunch anti homosexual stands.
And let's not forget that, except for the Communists, they were, and still are, all heavily steeped in the Christian religions. The Communists simply replaced traditional religions with a cult of leader worship, the same kind of thing which is still happening in North Korea and Cuba. At least with the Communists, you knew that your god was real.

When your religion tells you that you have to accept what some person tells you about what your god wants you to do, because you aren't important enough for your god to actually tell you directly, rational thinking would tell you to step back and question his claims. Religious thinking tells you to just silence your doubts and say, "Sounds great, Pat! Where do I send the money?"

[thir]

You hardely need a religion being manipulated by an asshole or group of assholes to find this kind of bigotry in action amongst any cultural group.

Its my opinion that homophobia completely transcends religious belief as well as politics and philosophies.

I think it all hangs together - it has got to have come from somewhere sometime, and I think that has to be religion. Religious ideas live on after the religion itself may have taken a back seat, people are just not very aware of it.

[thir]

Yes, I know. I said homosexuality, but I should include gay, lesbian, trans-gender, bi-sexual, or any other non-heterosexual lifestyle.

Not sure what you mean by "why is so much work needed to cram people into those roles?"


I mean the roles that are seen as normal/gods will/decent/natural - and if people do not act 'naturally' as per the ideas of such authorities, all kinds of pressure is applied, according to the laws and habits of said society.

If you are gay, and people want to make you straight, if you do not conform to gender roles, if you want to live in another way etc great presssure is brought on to 'cram' you into the (usually) quite small box labelled 'gods will' or 'natural'.

[Thorne]

If you are gay, and people want to make you straight, if you do not conform to gender roles, if you want to live in another way etc great presssure is brought on to 'cram' you into the (usually) quite small box labelled 'gods will' or 'natural'.
That's because such people are "perverts" and "evil" and "Satan's spawn" simply because they are different than "good people."

In other words, if you don't think like they do, talk like they do, love like they do, pray like they do, and basically have the moral sense of ancient goat herders, you're obviously not even human!

[StrictMasterD]

Pastor Says Parents Should Punch ‘Girly’ 4 Year Olds

“Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male.”

“And when your daughter starts acting to Butch you reign her in. And you say, ‘Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.’”

http://www.care2.com/causes/pastor-says-parents-should-punch-girly-4-year-olds.html

One thing I have never understood is why you have break and punch people into being what is Godgiven/natural' -? It is on a par with many laws and speeches and arguments..Why do you have to work so hard to make people behave naturally?
Interesting yiou should post this this was on the News Last Night, the Pastor was on TV last night and disavowed he ever said that, he was told it was video taped his reply was "The TAPE is wrong, I never said any of that"
He then went on to say he was misunderstood, then FINALY said he was wrong in saying what he did, wonder if he carries an Etch A Scetchwith him as wel, I guess his replies depend on who he is talking to

[Thorne]

the Pastor was on TV last night and disavowed he ever said that, he was told it was video taped his reply was "The TAPE is wrong, I never said any of that" He then went on to say he was misunderstood, then FINALY said he was wrong in saying what he did,
A sadly routine experience:
1-Make asinine statement, and have it show up on the news.
2-Deny making any such statement.
3-When evidence shows that you DID make the statement, claim you were taken out of context.
4-Make a not-pology saying you're sorry if anyone's feelings were hurt, but deny having said or done anything wrong.
5-Claim that YOU are the one being persecuted, because the "Liberal Media" is telling everyone what you said.

We see it all too often, especially among the religious and the politicians.

[thir]

Interesting yiou should post this this was on the News Last Night, the Pastor was on TV last night and disavowed he ever said that, he was told it was video taped his reply was "The TAPE is wrong, I never said any of that"
He then went on to say he was misunderstood, then FINALY said he was wrong in saying what he did, wonder if he carries an Etch A Scetchwith him as wel, I guess his replies depend on who he is talking to

Well, the video shows what he said clearly enough, including giving parents permission from him personally to treat their children this way.

But I find it slightly encouraging that he had to take it back.

[Thorne]

But I find it slightly encouraging that he had to take it back.
Don't be encouraged. Chances are that he's even now trying to find out who posted that video so that he can throw that person out of his congregation, if he doesn't do worse. He will then make certain that no one is admitted to his services with electronic equipment capable of recording what he's saying. After all, how can he lie for Jesus if everyone is going to call him on his lies?

This may not be exactly how he handles it, of course. Each of these creatures (er, preachers, excuse me) is different. But the general idea is likely pretty close to what will happen. And chances are he'll blame gays for all the trouble anyway.

[Punish_her]

You hardely need a religion being manipulated by an asshole or group of assholes to find this kind of bigotry in action amongst any cultural group.

Its my opinion that homophobia completely transcends religious belief as well as politics and philosophies.

Thank you for bringing this up. This is one of the most infuriating things I've found about anti-religious people.
I'm not religious, but it is completely unfair to take one example and say "see how bad religion is!!??"
saying this reflects the average christian's mentaility is a crock of shit. has violence been done in the name of God? yes, in the name of Allah? yes, in the name of Yahweh? yes. Has it been done by staunchly anti-religious people? of course, but nobody says that because Mao, Stalin, and Hitler didn'tgo to church every nonbeliever is a psychopath. Even emongst animal rights groups you'll find violent, intolerant extremists

[Punish_her]

I think it all hangs together - it has got to have come from somewhere sometime, and I think that has to be religion. Religious ideas live on after the religion itself may have taken a back seat, people are just not very aware of it.

not at all, people don't like one another because they're different and that's all there is to it: they're just different. The Japanese committed horrible crimes against the Chinese in WW2 and the Koreans for the better part of the 19th century and Japan was a staunchly anti-Christian place. Homosexuality is a prticularly easy target because it does seem unnatural to many (for example, if everyone was a homosexual, the human race would die out). But the reason does not matter.
Furthermore, historically, places that were highly tolerant of homosexuality were notably mysognynistc as well: ancient greece being an example. They were okay with homosexuality because they viewed women as inferior to men, and for men to be happy with love it would need to be with an intellectual and moral superior (hence, the relationships were older man/young boy, with a teacher/student dynamic). women were essentially used for breeding and domestic duties

[Thorne]

but nobody says that because Mao, Stalin, and Hitler didn'tgo to church every nonbeliever is a psychopath.
You're kidding me, right (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/16/pope-benedict-xvi-atheist-extremism)? RIGHT (http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/HitlerAtheist.htm)???

Read some comments whenever a story mentions atheism, especially when they do something worthwhile. Read some of the comments written about, and to, Jessica Ahlquist by supposedly good Christians. There are a shitload of people out there who really do think that atheists are immoral psychopaths who secretly work for Satan.

Yes, people have been killed in the name of Christ. Yes, people have been killed in the name of Muhammad. NO, no people have ever been killed in the name of atheism. Because there is nothing to kill over! Atheism is, simply, a lack of belief in gods! No dogma, no supernatural beings, no rules and regulations. JUST NO BELIEF! Which, according to an awful lot of "good" theists, makes me worse than Hitler, or Stalin. In fact, about the only ones who are less accepted than atheists are rapists! Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to know how tolerant Christians are.

[Thorne]

The Japanese committed horrible crimes against the Chinese in WW2 and the Koreans for the better part of the 19th century and Japan was a staunchly anti-Christian place.
But also a very spiritual (i.e., religious) culture where the Emperor was considered divine!

if everyone was a homosexual, the human race would die out
Did it ever occur to you that homosexuality may be nature's way of telling us that there are too many people on the planet already? If we don't stop breeding like rabbits we're going to die out anyway, from lack of resources.


Furthermore, historically, places that were highly tolerant of homosexuality were notably mysognynistc as well
Almost EVERY culture, with few exceptions, have been misogynistic! It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has everything to do with religious based proscriptions on women.


women were essentially used for breeding and domestic duties
Sounds like America before 1970. And it sounds suspiciously like what the Republicans seem to want us to go back to.

[Punish_her]

You're kidding me, right (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/16/pope-benedict-xvi-atheist-extremism)? RIGHT (http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/HitlerAtheist.htm)???

Read some comments whenever a story mentions atheism, especially when they do something worthwhile. Read some of the comments written about, and to, Jessica Ahlquist by supposedly good Christians. There are a shitload of people out there who really do think that atheists are immoral psychopaths who secretly work for Satan.

Yes, people have been killed in the name of Christ. Yes, people have been killed in the name of Muhammad. NO, no people have ever been killed in the name of atheism. Because there is nothing to kill over! Atheism is, simply, a lack of belief in gods! No dogma, no supernatural beings, no rules and regulations. JUST NO BELIEF! Which, according to an awful lot of "good" theists, makes me worse than Hitler, or Stalin. In fact, about the only ones who are less accepted than atheists are rapists! Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to know how tolerant Christians are.

oh please, he's been quoted as saying "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."
hitler saw religion as a propaganda tool due to the First Reich's mutually-beneifical relationship with the Catholic Church in the MediEval time. Hitler was sooooo pro-religion, he systematically went about reducing or removing christian influence in nazi germany, such as replacing christian references in christmas carols with pagan references.
and you're argument is inherently flawed. you state that religion is a cause for misery and pain and suffering because people have been killed in the name of god(s) and that nobody has been killed by aetheists, but that is mere equivocation. the real point you would need to prove is that ATHEISM WORKS AS A DETERRENT TO VIOLENCE. you can't say that 2+2=5 by proving that 2+2 does not equal 3

[Punish_her]

But also a very spiritual (i.e., religious) culture where the Emperor was considered divine!

Spiritual in the sense that it was completely fascist (ie personal well-being subservant to a monarch), which shows that secular extremism not only exists, but can cause as much damage as religious extremism.


Did it ever occur to you that homosexuality may be nature's way of telling us that there are too many people on the planet already? If we don't stop breeding like rabbits we're going to die out anyway, from lack of resources.

Not in the slightest. if it's genetic, then it existed in our gene pool long before we became 6 billion strong, and back when we were a mere 5,000 bipedals we needed all the numbers we could muster considering how poorly equipped we are to survive in the wild.


Almost EVERY culture, with few exceptions, have been misogynistic! It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has everything to do with religious based proscriptions on women.

What's the evidence for that? Maybe societies are historically patriarchal because everytime they encountered a matriarchal one, it was destroyed through conflict. The Celts were historically matriarchal and they were conquered and absorbed by the romans then the saxons then the angols. the south american indigenous tribes were matriarchal and they were nearly exterminated by the spanish and portoguese. the africans tribes are thought to have been matriarchal and they were enslaved and colonized if patriarchal societies tend to be more aggressive and technologically advanced (which would have been enormously beneficial from the beginning of time to 150 years ago), then of course there will be more of them.


Sounds like America before 1970. And it sounds suspiciously like what the Republicans seem to want us to go back to.

you mean that time when women were statistically happier and more satisfied with life before the sexual revolution?
here's an interesting question if religion is so damaging to women? Why is ther enormous evidence that a polygymous society is beneficial to women?

[thir]

Thank you for bringing this up. This is one of the most infuriating things I've found about anti-religious people.
I'm not religious, but it is completely unfair to take one example and say "see how bad religion is!!??"
saying this reflects the average christian's mentaility is a crock of shit. has violence been done in the name of God? yes, in the name of Allah? yes, in the name of Yahweh? yes. Has it been done by staunchly anti-religious people? of course, but nobody says that because Mao, Stalin, and Hitler didn'tgo to church every nonbeliever is a psychopath. Even emongst animal rights groups you'll find violent, intolerant extremists

You certainly have a point in that, to the best of my knowledge, homosexuals are persecuted in Cuba.

But on the other hand, right now the pope is going great guns with tageting gay people, even to blaming nuns for taking care of the need and poor, instead of blaming gays for being gays.

"Her group was also cited in the Vatican document, along with the Leadership Conference, for focusing its work too much on poverty and economic injustice, while keeping “silent” on abortion and same-sex marriage"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/us/vatican-reprimands-us-nuns-group.html?_r=2


Pope: Same-Sex Marriage Threatens “Humanity Itself”
http://www.care2.com/causes/pope-same-sex-marriage-threatens-humanity-itself.html

Pope: Gay Marriage is ‘Insidious and Dangerous’
http://www.care2.com/causes/the-pope-gay-marriage-insidious-and-dangerous.html

Hurricane Katrina: Divine Retribution Against Gays? Pope Doesn’t Object.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/hurricane-katrina-divine-retribution-against-gays.html#ixzz1uDyr1iKV

Pope Tells US Bishops to Fight Gay Marriage, Cohabitation

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/pope-tells-us-bishops-to-fight-gay-marriage-cohabitation.html#ixzz1uDzVKdku


It is clearly the fundamentalist religious making all the trouble - but they do make themselves heard, not least now.

David Trosch : "Sodomy is a graver sin than murder.

Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church)

"If you got to castrate your miserable self with a piece of rusty barb wire, do it."

"Hear the word of the LORD, America, fag-enablers are worse than the fags themselves, and will be punished in the everlasting lake of fire!"

"You telling these miserable, Hell-bound, bath house-wallowing, anal-copulating fags that God loves them!? You have bats in the belfry!"

"American Veterans are to blame for the fag takeover of this nation. They have the power in their political lobby to influence the zeitgeist, get the fags out of the military, and back in the closet where they belong!"

"Not only is homosexuality a sin, but anyone who supports fags is just as guilty as they are. You are both worthy of death."


Gary Potter (Catholics for Christian Political Action)
"When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil."


Jerry Falwell (1933 - 2007)

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharoah's chariotters."

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

And so on and so forth.

[thir]

Spiritual in the sense that it was completely fascist (ie personal well-being subservant to a monarch), which shows that secular extremism not only exists, but can cause as much damage as religious extremism.


I would guess that we can all agree that facist societies are not exactly fun either.



Maybe societies are historically patriarchal because everytime they encountered a matriarchal one, it was destroyed through conflict. The Celts were historically matriarchal and they were conquered and absorbed by the romans then the saxons then the angols. the south american indigenous tribes were matriarchal and they were nearly exterminated by the spanish and portoguese. the africans tribes are thought to have been matriarchal and they were enslaved and colonized if patriarchal societies tend to be more aggressive and technologically advanced (which would have been enormously beneficial from the beginning of time to 150 years ago), then of course there will be more of them.


You seem to me to label any society that isn't dominated by men as a matriarchy, but I think that is an over simplification. I also read you as seeing every conquest of a country (of which there have been countless during history) as owing to being lead by a matriachy.




you mean that time when women were statistically happier and more satisfied with life before the sexual revolution?


Interesting. What statistics are those?



here's an interesting question if religion is so damaging to women? Why is ther enormous evidence that a polygymous society is beneficial to women?

What evidence? This is the first I have heard of this, especially since polygamy is often not even voluntary for women.
That, to the best of knowledge, also goes for the mormons, where men marry several much younger women, often under 15. There was a program with Dr Phil I saw one boring day in which he complained bitterly that nobody interveded, though a significant number of brides were under age.

[Thorne]

oh please, he's been quoted as saying "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."
And how is that different from religion? Like Stalin and Mao, that's simply replacing worship of a god with worship of the state, or the leaders. It's still religion, just repackaged.


hitler saw religion as a propaganda tool
As do almost all leaders, even now. It's a built in mind-control mechanism, inflicted upon children by their own parents from birth. Just tweak it a little, make sure that your god sees your country as the promised land, your people as His chosen people, and you have an easy way to control your population. Virtually every religion teaches that it is necessary to be submissive to your god, to your leaders, to your "betters". Blend the religion with patriotism and you can keep vast numbers of people subservient to your will. Even when you are demonstrably insane!


due to the First Reich's mutually-beneifical relationship with the Catholic Church in the MediEval time. Hitler was sooooo pro-religion, he systematically went about reducing or removing christian influence in nazi germany, such as replacing christian references in christmas carols with pagan references.
Yes, the Nazis created the Reich Church, using it to supplant the Christian churches, both Catholic and Protestant. Doesn't matter, though. It was still a religious organization, and used the trappings of religion to influence the people of Germany. As I stated above, several times, when you can convince people that thinking for themselves is a bad thing, you don't have to worry about them rebelling against you. Virtually every religion I'm familiar with preaches that irrational belief is far superior to rational thinking.


and you're argument is inherently flawed. you state that religion is a cause for misery and pain and suffering because people have been killed in the name of god(s)
Not exactly. People are killed for many reasons, mostly for greed. Religion makes it easier for leaders to justify those killings. If you're killing your neighbor so that the local Baron can confiscate his land, it's easier to justify it by claiming it's God's will.


and that nobody has been killed by aetheists,
No, again. Atheists are just as capable of killing as anyone else. I said that no one has ever been killed in the NAME of atheism. You don't have huge armies marching across the land killing for no gods.


the real point you would need to prove is that ATHEISM WORKS AS A DETERRENT TO VIOLENCE.
Why would I have to do that? Atheism is NOT a belief system! It's not something that can be used to justify any other position. It's simply, and solely, a lack of belief in gods! ANY gods! Those who want to commit violence, whether theist or atheist, will find a reason to do it. The difference is that the theist will claim he's doing his god's will. And too many other theists will agree with him!


you can't say that 2+2=5 by proving that 2+2 does not equal 3
It is the theist who is claiming that 2+2=5, not the atheist. We don't always have to add +1 for our invisible friend in the sky, after all!

Ultimately, it is people who commit violent, criminal acts, regardless of faith. As an atheist, I cannot justify such acts as being God's will. I cannot claim that mumbling about my 'sins' in a darkened booth and saying a few prayers will absolve me of the guilt of committing those acts. I cannot say that my god wants me to shoot everyone with a crooked nose. I have to have clear, rational reasons for committing any violence. But when you denigrate clear, rational thinking; when you praise those who put aside rational thinking for a belief in an imaginary being; when you instill in children an abject fear of disobedience to this invisible being; you are creating the conditions for irrational, sectarian violence. If GOD tells you to kill everyone with a crooked nose, it would be a sin NOT to do it! If GOD tells you to make slaves of your enemy's women and children, who are you to deny Him? And, most insidiously, if GOD didn't make you rich and powerful, you MUST accept your fate, be subservient to your Masters, live in poverty and pain, so you can go to heaven someday. A heaven that no one has ever seen.

And oh, yes! God needs your money, children! Ten percent. Every week. BEFORE taxes!

[Punish_her]

You seem to me to label any society that isn't dominated by men as a matriarchy, but I think that is an over simplification. I also read you as seeing every conquest of a country (of which there have been countless during history) as owing to being lead by a matriachy.

incorrect reverse logic, not every conquered nation was a matriarchy, but every matriarchy was conquered. not the same



Interesting. What statistics are those?

from upenn: http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/Female_Happiness.pdf
freakonomics: http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/10/01/why-are-women-so-unhappy/
huffington post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511.html


What evidence? This is the first I have heard of this, especially since polygamy is often not even voluntary for women.
That, to the best of knowledge, also goes for the mormons, where men marry several much younger women, often under 15. There was a program with Dr Phil I saw one boring day in which he complained bitterly that nobody interveded, though a significant number of brides were under age.

well that's just a crock of shit. contrary to what some people think, women cannot be forced into marriage. not even the mormons do that, as they give the girl the chance to leave the religion at any time (furthermore, they often force to leave for a period of time around 16 so she can decide what she truly wants for herself). John Stossel had a feature about polygamy and sister wives, and they seemed happy and even advocating it. but here's some evo psych for you:
we are a historically polygamous psecies, geneticists have shown we are decided from 2 to three times as many women as men. think about it in these terms:
would the average woman want to be ryan reynald's third wife? or john smiths first and only wife? i rest my case
and before you say "that'sdumb, nuh-uh!" http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/the-paradox-polygamy-ii-why-most-women-benefit-polygamy-an it's completely true
furthermore, dr phil is not there to actually confront any real issues, he's there to entertain and get ratings, most of which are from women

[Thorne]

well that's just a crock of shit. contrary to what some people think, women cannot be forced into marriage. not even the mormons do that, as they give the girl the chance to leave the religion at any time
Which generally means leaving her family, too. ANY sanctions constitute coercion, you know. Telling a young girl that she's free to go out on her own if she doesn't want to do as she's told is no different than threatening her with stoning. It's one of the 'features' of religious training.


(furthermore, they often force to leave for a period of time around 16 so she can decide what she truly wants for herself)
I know the Amish do something like this, but I wasn't aware that the Mormons also did it. But again, having to give up everything you've ever known, your church, your family, your friends, in order to have some freedom of choice in who you marry is still coercion.


we are a historically polygamous psecies, geneticists have shown we are decided from 2 to three times as many women as men. think about it in these terms:
Well, considering that many cultures practiced polygamy, and even those who didn't sometimes allowed rulers the right to bed women on their wedding nights, it's not a surprising finding. You also have to take into account the idea that even in supposedly monogamous societies, men tended to 'spread the wealth'. An ancient Roman man would only have one wife, who would bear his heirs and keep his house, but he would generally have at least one mistress, more if he could afford it, to see to his sexual needs. And even when it is not culturally acceptable, men tend to make use of mistresses and prostitutes. Not too surprising that there would be more female lines of descent than male, then.


would the average woman want to be ryan reynald's third wife? or john smiths first and only wife?
A bigger question might be whether someone like Ryan Reynolds would accept an 'average' woman as ANY wife? Having fame (though I admit, I had to look him up, and I still don't recognize him) and wealth, he is able to get almost any women he wants. Why would he settle for less than perfection? But there are plenty of women who would rather have the stability of a John Smith than have to play second or third fiddle.

Yes, there is an obvious genetic benefit to having more than one wife, providing you can care for all of them, and all of the children. The benefits of having more than one husband can be great as well, though not as genetically beneficial. In a culture where the men are considered providers, having more than one such provider would be of immense benefit to wife and children. Why don't we see more people pushing for wives with multiple husbands, then? Or households with multiple wives AND husbands?

Primarily because we men don't like to share our property. And, historically, women have always been considered property. In many parts of the world, they still are. And denying them the right to choose their own health care, to choose whether or not to have children, is little more than telling them that they are still property, even in an 'enlightened' society like ours.

[Punish_her]

it's coercion no matter how you look at it. if my friend wants to get married to a girl i hate and i tell him "if you marry her, im not gonna see you again" that is coercion in your book. but saying "you can't say you won't see him again, because that is coercion"is still coercion. you can't force someone to accept someone else unconditionally. the amish and mormons have every right to turn their back on someone who leaves them.

women would much rather share men than men share women because of the evopsych behind each of the sexes. If 10 women share one wealthy man, they can each father his child and he can (resources willing) provide for them. 10 men sharing one woman is the opposite. she will only father a child with one of them, then nine men are supporting another man's genetic legacy without having one of their own.
women who are more tolerant of the idea of sharing men will not be weeded out of the genetic battleground to the same extent a man who shares his women will be.
Monogamy is more benficial to men because 9 of wives the one wealthy man could have had are being displaced to 9 other men who were before without a mate.Every man down the ladder gets something he wouldn't before, while every woman must trade down after the small pool of dersirebale men are taken.

[Thorne]

it's coercion no matter how you look at it. if my friend wants to get married to a girl i hate and i tell him "if you marry her, im not gonna see you again" that is coercion in your book.
It is attempted coercion on your part, certainly. If I were your friend, though, I'd be more than happy to tell you to kiss off!


the amish and mormons have every right to turn their back on someone who leaves them.
But the women don't necessarily WANT to leave them! They simply want the right to choose for themselves! The fact that the religion REQUIRES them to submit to their fathers, or brothers, or husbands, is where the problem lies. And remember, they wouldn't just be leaving their church. In many, if not most, cases, they would be exiled from their own families as well.


women would much rather share men than men share women because of the evopsych behind each of the sexes. If 10 women share one wealthy man, they can each father his child and he can (resources willing) provide for them. 10 men sharing one woman is the opposite. she will only father a child with one of them, then nine men are supporting another man's genetic legacy without having one of their own.
Unless she has one child for each husband. With so many providers, she certainly wouldn't need to work outside the home. She could be a veritable baby factory if she wished. Or perhaps she just wants to be able to fuck all night without worrying about having a limp dick interfere with her fun. The point is, SHE gets to decide. And men, generally, don't like that.


women who are more tolerant of the idea of sharing men will not be weeded out of the genetic battleground to the same extent a man who shares his women will be.
If humans ONLY mated for procreation that might be true. But with modern medicine, a man could insure that any children would be his, but still share her if he wished.


Monogamy is more benficial to men because 9 of wives the one wealthy man could have had are being displaced to 9 other men who were before without a mate.Every man down the ladder gets something he wouldn't before, while every woman must trade down after the small pool of dersirebale men are taken.
The only benefit of monogamy for men is the lower cost of maintaining a household. If he can afford it, polygamy would be more beneficial for any individual male. And in the genetics game, it is the Alpha male who's seed tends to dominate. He doesn't want the others to propagate at all, so it's in his interest to deprive them of wives. And, to a certain extent, women tend to be attracted to Alpha males, as they would be considered genetically superior, whose children would be likely to survive into adulthood, in order to continue the genetic line. Of course, modern morality, not to mention modern psychology, has changed us all. For the better, I should hope. After all, we aren't strictly animals anymore.

[Punish_her]

But the women don't necessarily WANT to leave them! They simply want the right to choose for themselves! The fact that the religion REQUIRES them to submit to their fathers, or brothers, or husbands, is where the problem lies. And remember, they wouldn't just be leaving their church. In many, if not most, cases, they would be exiled from their own families as well.

you can't force someone to accept someone else. if my father had told me that if I didn't go to college in x state, he wouldn't have helped me pay for it, he's completely within his rights to do that. if my father tells me if i was gay he wouldn't talk to me, he's completely free to do that. it's not coercion, it's just someone being whiney they don't get their way.


Unless she has one child for each husband. With so many providers, she certainly wouldn't need to work outside the home. She could be a veritable baby factory if she wished. Or perhaps she just wants to be able to fuck all night without worrying about having a limp dick interfere with her fun. The point is, SHE gets to decide. And men, generally, don't like that.

this is the most illogical thing i've ever heard. CUCKOLDED MEN DON'T LAST IN THE EVOLUTIONARY GENE POOL! if you're really this much of a self-hating man, i pity you


If humans ONLY mated for procreation that might be true. But with modern medicine, a man could insure that any children would be his, but still share her if he wished.

this happens, they're called swingers


The only benefit of monogamy for men is the lower cost of maintaining a household. If he can afford it, polygamy would be more beneficial for any individual male. And in the genetics game, it is the Alpha male who's seed tends to dominate. He doesn't want the others to propagate at all, so it's in his interest to deprive them of wives. And, to a certain extent, women tend to be attracted to Alpha males, as they would be considered genetically superior, whose children would be likely to survive into adulthood, in order to continue the genetic line. Of course, modern morality, not to mention modern psychology, has changed us all. For the better, I should hope. After all, we aren't strictly animals anymore.

the 5,000 years of society is a comically short amount of time compared to the primordial ooze we all crawled out of. only a fool would believe that a nice guy gets laid as much as an outlaw biker

[Thorne]

you can't force someone to accept someone else. if my father had told me that if I didn't go to college in x state, he wouldn't have helped me pay for it, he's completely within his rights to do that. if my father tells me if i was gay he wouldn't talk to me, he's completely free to do that. it's not coercion, it's just someone being whiney they don't get their way.
It is attempted coercion. Your father is using his authority to try and force you to do as he wishes. Unless you can afford to pay for your own college, if you don't do what he wants you risk not getting the education you want. If you were gay, he wouldn't speak to you (which might actually be a good thing!) But what if he tells you that if you don't marry the old widow next door he'll toss you out on your own? And you're only 14 years old? What real choice would you have? Sometimes, submitting is the safer choice. That doesn't make it any less coercive.


this is the most illogical thing i've ever heard. CUCKOLDED MEN DON'T LAST IN THE EVOLUTIONARY GENE POOL! if you're really this much of a self-hating man, i pity you
They do if they are also cheating on their wives! And I don't hate myself. I respect women. Even married one. JUST one.


this happens, they're called swingers
Yes, it does happen. But it's a lot riskier if the husband can't insure that his wife won't get pregnant by another man.


the 5,000 years of society is a comically short amount of time compared to the primordial ooze we all crawled out of. only a fool would believe that a nice guy gets laid as much as an outlaw biker
Except that the outlaw biker is prone to live hard and die young. And the women he's using aren't likely to live long, either. Certainly not if they get pregnant and lose their appeal. The 'nice' guy will tend to live longer, and therefore have more opportunity for sexual encounters, and far more likelihood of having healthy, viable offspring.

One thing evolution demonstrates is that anti-social, even criminal, activity is not necessarily a positive trait. People like that don't tend to propagate nearly as often or as successfully as more normal, acceptable males. Yes, alpha males will have a better chance of mating with the most desirable females. But in human terms, at least, one of the more desirable characteristics of a prospective husband and father is stability. And outlaw bikers don't typically have that.

[thir]

Thank you for bringing this up. This is one of the most infuriating things I've found about anti-religious people.
I'm not religious, but it is completely unfair to take one example and say "see how bad religion is!!??"
saying this reflects the average christian's mentaility is a crock of shit. has violence been done in the name of God? yes, in the name of Allah? yes, in the name of Yahweh? yes. Has it been done by staunchly anti-religious people? of course, but nobody says that because Mao, Stalin, and Hitler didn'tgo to church every nonbeliever is a psychopath. Even emongst animal rights groups you'll find violent, intolerant extremists

Mao and Stalin did, if I am correct, go heavily against religion, but Hitler called upon it - Kinder, Kirche, Kuche, women making soliders for Der Faterland, working in the kitchen, and being churchgoers were good women. Why the church? Because it keeps them in their place. In a lot of former facist contries (like for instance Spain) the Catholic church was heavily in bed with the facist regime, both getting more control by the alliance. So much so, that it is only in recent years that that grip is loosening. That is why the could for instance do the baby stealing thing for so many years, in even now these crimes are not to justice, though they might be.

The debatre here is not about your individual church goer or religious person, but about the social impact on society, as a society, by dogmatic religions. I would like to mention the Pope's many very anti this and that policies, while many individual nuns and priests, and just your individual religous person, choose to go another way.

[thir]

incorrect reverse logic, not every conquered nation was a matriarchy, but every matriarchy was conquered. not the same


I do not get this. Most of cilivilisations that have been in history have been conquered, whether matriarchy or not!



from upenn: http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/Female_Happiness.pdf
freakonomics: http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/10/01/why-are-women-so-unhappy/
huffington post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511.html


upenn: "Diener (2000) notes that one of the hallmarks of subjective well-being is that it
is subjective, stating that “objective conditions such as health, comfort, virtue, or
wealth” are “notably absent” and, while influencing subjective well-being, “they
are not seen as inherent.” This aspect of subjective well-being makes understanding
what is behind declining female happiness a challenging task, yet decoding the
paradox identified in this paper may be the key to a better understanding of subjective
well-being."

freakecnimics: "3. There was enormous social pressure on women in the old days to pretend they were happy even if they weren’t. Now, society allows women to express their feelings openly when they are dissatisfied with life.

4. Related to No. 3 in the preceding paragraph: these self-reported happiness measures are so hopelessly garbled by other factors that they are completely meaningless. The ever-growing army of happiness researchers will go nuts at this suggestion, but there is some pretty good evidence (like this paper by Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan) that declarations of happiness leave a lot to be desired as outcome measures.

Stevenson and Wolfers don’t take a stand on what the most likely explanation might be. If I had to wager a guess, I would say Nos. 3 and 4 are the most plausible."

huffingtonpost: says clearly that the trend is that men start out sad but become happier as they get older. women start out happy, but get sadder as they get older.
Is that hard to understand??



well that's just a crock of shit.
contrary to what some people think, women cannot be forced into marriage.


What planet are you living on?? Of course they can, and are!



not even the mormons do that, as they give the girl the chance to leave the religion at any time (furthermore, they often force to leave for a period of time around 16 so she can decide what she truly wants for herself).


So, the choice is leave all you have been told is right and proper, and your family, and your society and everything you know, or go out into the unknown in a world you do not know?

The two teenagers who had run off and who were in the show, said they missed their families horribly, but could not stand being married at 15 with someone they hardly knew.



John Stossel had a feature about polygamy and sister wives, and they seemed happy and even advocating it. but here's some evo psych for you:


I do not know who John Stossel is, but know myself of one group that lived happily polygamy and have heard of others. Noone says is it wrong or impossible, given voluntary participation by all.



we are a historically polygamous psecies


Nonsense!



, geneticists have shown we are decided from 2 to three times as many women as men.


I do not understand what is meant by this



think about it in these terms:
would the average woman want to be ryan reynald's third wife? or john smiths first and only wife? i rest my case


You lost me here. Do you mean the mormon's John Smith? But most people would like to be one man's wife, as we see in countries where you can choose.



and before you say "that'sdumb, nuh-uh!" http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/the-paradox-polygamy-ii-why-most-women-benefit-polygamy-an it's completely true


"Contrary to popular belief, most women benefit from polygynous society, and most men benefit from monogamous society. This is because polygynous society allows some women to share a resourceful man of high status. George Bernard Shaw (who was one of the founders of the London School of Economics and Political Science where I teach) put it best, when he observed, “The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first rate man to the exclusive possession of a third rate one.”"

LOL - what nonsense! Most women want to be a 10th wife rather than having one for themselves? Do you see women of today clamouring to get polygamy relationships???

There is a poly group who wants group marriages, but that is with every concievable combination.



furthermore, dr phil is not there to actually confront any real issues, he's there to entertain and get ratings, most of which are from women

So you think women are entertained by a show showing how bad polyamory is? You know, I think you are right there.

[thir]

the 5,000 years of society is a comically short amount of time compared to the primordial ooze we all crawled out of.


Agreed! And no one - noone - knows how groups and societies were organises in those distant times.



only a fool would believe that a nice guy gets laid as much as an outlaw biker

Then call me a fool, because that is exactly what I think.

Anyway, you keep talking about marriage and getting kids, and who do you think most women would want to marry? According to your line of reasoning, the one who would help support the kids.

Honestly, I think there is a sort of misunderstanding between men and women in these matters. Some men seem to think that being a criminal or off society violent person is macho, and that that will attract women. But I think that the things that (might) give points between men are not neccesarily the things that (might) score with women.

[leo9]

Did it ever occur to you that homosexuality may be nature's way of telling us that there are too many people on the planet already? If we don't stop breeding like rabbits we're going to die out anyway, from lack of resources.

Actually, this is one of the reasons I point out to sociobiologists for an evolutionary argument for homosexuality. Most mammals that live in groups have some mechanism for limiting the population, usually by having only certain individuals breed. Given that communal childcare seems to be part of human evolution (for instance, women without children can lactate if they suckle somone else's baby regularly,) it would be pro-survival for a clan to have a percentage of males who not only aren't interested in mating but have more "feminine" behaviour, and are therefore more likely to help with childcare.

I don't actually believe this theory, because it depends on assuming that stereotypical "gay" behaviour is genetically determined. But sociobiologists do believe that such minutiae are not only genetically programmed but have survived unchanged since we were cracking flints in Olduvai Gorge, and it amuses me to turn their logic back on them.

[leo9]

Not in the slightest. if it's genetic, then it existed in our gene pool long before we became 6 billion strong, and back when we were a mere 5,000 bipedals we needed all the numbers we could muster considering how poorly equipped we are to survive in the wild.


The population pinch had a massive effect on our evolution, because of genetic drift in a small group. But it didn't put a premium on breeding, otherwise we wouldn't have come out of it with more dependent infants with longer childhoods. And a percentage of homosexual individuals isn't actually any bar to breeding. One male is all a clan really needs to keep the females fertilised (why some other primate species live in harems,) and before the turkey baster was invented, any lesbian who wanted a child badly enough could shut her eyes, grit her teeth and lie still for the few minutes necessary.

And we were never poorly equipped to survive, otherwise we wouldn't have spread all over the world before we got past the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. On the contrary, most cultures that don't get rid of their surplus population by migration or war have had to evolve ways to limit their fertility, such as restrictions on marriage, taboos on sex, exposing female babies or the like.

[leo9]

contrary to what some people think, women cannot be forced into marriage.That would be news to the special units in every police force in this country set up to protect young Asian women from forced marriages. And we're not talking about just the emotional force a family can bring to bear, we're talking about girls who know they will be hunted down and killed if they run away. Still, no pressure, right?

not even the mormons do that, as they give the girl the chance to leave the religion at any time (furthermore, they often force to leave for a period of time around 16 so she can decide what she truly wants for herself)."You have a perfectly free choice, dear. You can do what God wants, or you can leave your home and your family and the one true Church and damn your soul to Hell forever. Up to you."

[leo9]

Or perhaps she just wants to be able to fuck all night without worrying about having a limp dick interfere with her fun.There is, actually, a theory that the reason women find it harder to orgasm than men is that they're not evolved for just one partner; evolution designed them to orgasm after the third or fourth fucking. Of course that would place it way back in the days when we still had a mating season.
And, to a certain extent, women tend to be attracted to Alpha males, as they would be considered genetically superior, whose children would be likely to survive into adulthood, in order to continue the genetic line. One of the biggest fallacies in pop evolution is that there is one "best" genotype. The world doesn't stay the same, and no Alpha Male is perfect for everything. In Selfish Gene terms it's actually a better strategy for a female to breed with several different males, so that whatever qualities happen to be most useful to the next generation - strength, speed, cunning, a good thick coat - at least one set of her genes will be paired with that.

[Punish_her]

Agreed! And no one - noone - knows how groups and societies were organises in those distant times.



Then call me a fool, because that is exactly what I think.

Anyway, you keep talking about marriage and getting kids, and who do you think most women would want to marry? According to your line of reasoning, the one who would help support the kids.

Honestly, I think there is a sort of misunderstanding between men and women in these matters. Some men seem to think that being a criminal or off society violent person is macho, and that that will attract women. But I think that the things that (might) give points between men are not neccesarily the things that (might) score with women.

incredibly, unequivocally false. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/27/MNGMTBVFQJ1.DTL

[Punish_her]

That would be news to the special units in every police force in this country set up to protect young Asian women from forced marriages. And we're not talking about just the emotional force a family can bring to bear, we're talking about girls who know they will be hunted down and killed if they run away. Still, no pressure, right?"

thats cmparing apples and oranges and i assumed that sex slavery via gunpoint, kidnap, and violence is obviously beyond the realm of a mormon girl becoming the second wife of a well off, affluent man

[Punish_her]

There is, actually, a theory that the reason women find it harder to orgasm than men is that they're not evolved for just one partner; evolution designed them to orgasm after the third or fourth fucking.

the prevailing theory is that a girl who had too much pleasure from sex would impregnate too often, therby putting her and her children's life in harm's way given her vulnerability during the gestation. this is why the clitoris is outside the vagina


One of the biggest fallacies in pop evolution is that there is one "best" genotype. The world doesn't stay the same, and no Alpha Male is perfect for everything. In Selfish Gene terms it's actually a better strategy for a female to breed with several different males, so that whatever qualities happen to be most useful to the next generation - strength, speed, cunning, a good thick coat - at least one set of her genes will be paired with that.

i beg to differ. strength, speed, and physical fitness are good in any climate- this is why women prefer a higher shoulder to hip ratio. furthermore, being intelligent is a nonissue. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385342160/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=spacforrent-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0385342160 there is no time where a woman will leave a fit, healthy man for a fat man just because it gets cold. the reverse would be true, she has limited eggs and doesn't want to waste them with duds. this is why humans have less genetic diversity than other mammals though we have more numbers. there is a certain set of traits that all females from nearly every culture finds attractive, things like syymetry, distance between eyes relative facial width and so on. and to hammer it home, we are descended from 2 to 3 times more females than males, so the genetic winners amongst the y chromosomes were a select few, not women breeding with a diverse group of men

[Thorne]

There is, actually, a theory that the reason women find it harder to orgasm than men is that they're not evolved for just one partner; evolution designed them to orgasm after the third or fourth fucking.
My personal theory is that most women have difficulty reaching orgasm because their mates don't know HOW to make them orgasm. I'm still gathering data on that, though! :)


The world doesn't stay the same, and no Alpha Male is perfect for everything. In Selfish Gene terms it's actually a better strategy for a female to breed with several different males, so that whatever qualities happen to be most useful to the next generation - strength, speed, cunning, a good thick coat - at least one set of her genes will be paired with that.
I can see that as a valid survival strategy. One part of the problem IMO is that the human race is short-circuiting evolution, allowing those with poor survival characteristics to survive due to artificial intervention (medicine). I'm not saying this is a bad thing, morally speaking. Just saying that it might not be in the best interests of the human race, ultimately. I certainly wouldn't want to set up genetic tribunals to determine who should be allowed to reproduce!

[thir]

Leo9
"Did it ever occur to you that homosexuality may be nature's way of telling us that there are too many people on the planet already? If we don't stop breeding like rabbits we're going to die out anyway, from lack of resources."

Punish Her
"Not in the slightest. if it's genetic, then it existed in our gene pool long before we became 6 billion strong, and back when we were a mere 5,000 bipedals we needed all the numbers we could muster considering how poorly equipped we are to survive in the wild."

I do not follow this argument. If our genes were exactly the same as then , we would still look like those bipedals and Darwin with his ideas of slowly but ever changing genes would be all wrong.

[thir]

incredibly, unequivocally false. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/27/MNGMTBVFQJ1.DTL

Do you think that the women who wants to marry a criminal on death row for fame value are representative for the female sex?

If so they would not get proposals in tens, but in millions.

[thir]

"That would be news to the special units in every police force in this country set up to protect young Asian women from forced marriages. And we're not talking about just the emotional force a family can bring to bear, we're talking about girls who know they will be hunted down and killed if they run away. Still, no pressure, right?"


thats cmparing apples and oranges and i assumed that sex slavery via gunpoint, kidnap, and violence is obviously beyond the realm of a mormon girl becoming the second wife of a well off, affluent man

Why is that comparing oranges and apples? The topic was coercion, and a forced marriage is coercion, or at the extreme end of coercion. Also in DK there is a lot of trouble with forced marriages from cultures where the parents have traditionally arranged the marriages. The girls (they are usually quite young) run away, with the risk of either fending for themselves at an early age, or ending up a victim of an 'honour' killing. Also the boys end up in this situation, except they do not get killed, but they are likewise under a lot of presure. I have personal knowlegde of one such girl, who is still in hiding while trying to figure out how to get an education while avoid getting killed.
Many cannot handle that - they get married.

Why is a mormon girl always getting an affluent man? Does this mean that there are a lot of poorer men who never get married? In programs I have seen, a lot of the affluence came from a number of wifes working outside the family, and bringing their wages home, while the rest takes care of the home and children.

Anyway, if she is coerced, I do not see what affluence or not matter, but she could be wife no 6 or 7. How fun do you think it is for a girl of perhaps 15 to be married to a man 3 or 4 times her age? Do you think she gets enough attention, love, sex? Does any of them? Money isn't everything, and anyway in this day and age people can earn their own money.

[Thorne]

I do not follow this argument. If our genes were exactly the same as then , we would still look like those bipedals and Darwin with his ideas of slowly but ever changing genes would be all wrong.
No one is saying we are exactly the same now as then. And IF there is a genetic predisposition for homosexuality, there's no reason to think it wouldn't be a more recent mutation, though we know there were homosexuals existing at least in Biblical times, at least for the last 10,000 years. That's an eye-blink in terms of genetic mutation rates, though.

But not all genetic changes need be slow. Environmental stresses, including overcrowding, can speed changes along far more rapidly than previously believed. Still, you're talking many generations to see even small changes. Not something you will see in a single lifetime.

[Punish_her]

Do you think that the women who wants to marry a criminal on death row for fame value are representative for the female sex?

If so they would not get proposals in tens, but in millions.

women don't like nice guys. if you dont know that by now, i pity you
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20065652-10391704.html

[Punish_her]

"That would be news to the special units in every police force in this country set up to protect young Asian women from forced marriages. And we're not talking about just the emotional force a family can bring to bear, we're talking about girls who know they will be hunted down and killed if they run away. Still, no pressure, right?"



Why is that comparing oranges and apples? The topic was coercion, and a forced marriage is coercion, or at the extreme end of coercion. Also in DK there is a lot of trouble with forced marriages from cultures where the parents have traditionally arranged the marriages. The girls (they are usually quite young) run away, with the risk of either fending for themselves at an early age, or ending up a victim of an 'honour' killing. Also the boys end up in this situation, except they do not get killed, but they are likewise under a lot of presure. I have personal knowlegde of one such girl, who is still in hiding while trying to figure out how to get an education while avoid getting killed.
Many cannot handle that - they get married.

Why is a mormon girl always getting an affluent man? Does this mean that there are a lot of poorer men who never get married? In programs I have seen, a lot of the affluence came from a number of wifes working outside the family, and bringing their wages home, while the rest takes care of the home and children.

Anyway, if she is coerced, I do not see what affluence or not matter, but she could be wife no 6 or 7. How fun do you think it is for a girl of perhaps 15 to be married to a man 3 or 4 times her age? Do you think she gets enough attention, love, sex? Does any of them? Money isn't everything, and anyway in this day and age people can earn their own money.

jesus christ, in that case any marriage is coercion. what if the guy gets down on one knee and the girldoesnt want to hurt his feelings, coercion.
what if a girl gives the guy and ultimatum of marriage or seperation, coercion.
what if a guy wants to get a divorce but the girl will get most of his assets so he just lives in a shitty marriage, coercion

[Punish_her]

No one is saying we are exactly the same now as then. And IF there is a genetic predisposition for homosexuality, there's no reason to think it wouldn't be a more recent mutation, though we know there were homosexuals existing at least in Biblical times, at least for the last 10,000 years. That's an eye-blink in terms of genetic mutation rates, though.

But not all genetic changes need be slow. Environmental stresses, including overcrowding, can speed changes along far more rapidly than previously believed. Still, you're talking many generations to see even small changes. Not something you will see in a single lifetime.

there are some documented cases of man on man action in the wild, bonobos are horny monkeys and the men frequently engage in sexual escapades, but even then, the entire population sis considered "bi-sexual" because its more for sex and a social bonding mehcanism

[Thorne]

So you're admitting that it's a naturally occurring state, even among other species? Then what's the objection to it in humans? Homosexual marriage wouldn't just be for sex, obviously. They can do that without the hassle of marriage. So there is a social issue there. Hell, there are plenty of heterosexual marriages which don't necessarily involve sex. Why are people so squicked by what might be happening behind closed doors of homosexuals? And it's almost always MALE homosexuality which bothers them. You seldom hear them talking about lesbians. I guess that's not so icky, is it?

[denuseri]

Leo9
"Did it ever occur to you that homosexuality may be nature's way of telling us that there are too many people on the planet already? If we don't stop breeding like rabbits we're going to die out anyway, from lack of resources."

Punish Her
"Not in the slightest. if it's genetic, then it existed in our gene pool long before we became 6 billion strong, and back when we were a mere 5,000 bipedals we needed all the numbers we could muster considering how poorly equipped we are to survive in the wild."

I do not follow this argument. If our genes were exactly the same as then , we would still look like those bipedals and Darwin with his ideas of slowly but ever changing genes would be all wrong.

It's not so much the genes themselves as the switches being turned on or off to activate them...which can be influenced by environment (and our environment is more than just a matter of climate and general locality IE dessert, arctic etc but also urban and social settings including levels of affluence effecting one's immediate surroundings and it is rapidly changing as we proceed through the modern era).

[thir]

women don't like nice guys. if you dont know that by now, i pity you
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20065652-10391704.html

Ehm - I happen to be a woman myself - If you were aware of that, I am a bit puzzled your remark -?

I do not choose my partners according to whether they are 'nice' or 'bad', sounds a bit juvenile to me, actually, not to say oversimplified. Not many people are all 'bad' or 'nice', that seem quite a two dimenisonal view of humans.

Anyway, this one survey said:

"Who did the gals go for? The study showed they preferred guys who looked proud or moody and ashamed. But the guys were most sexually attracted to women who looked happy, and least attracted to those who appeared proud and confident."

No figures given.

"But Beall pointed out in the statement that the people in the study weren't asked to evaluate men on the basis of whether they might make a good mate. "We wanted their gut reactions on carnal, sexual attraction," he said."

UBC says about this:

"Very few studies have explored the relationship between emotions and attraction, and this is the first to report a significant gender difference in the attractiveness of smiles. The study, published online today in the American Psychological Association journal Emotion, is also the first to investigate the attractiveness of displays of pride and shame."

"He [Alec Beall, a UBC psychology graduate student and study co-author]says previous studies have found positive emotional traits and a nice personality to be highly desirable in a relationship partners."

"While this study focused on sexual attraction between heterosexual men and women in North America, the researchers say future studies will be required to explore the relationship between emotions and sexual attractiveness among homosexuals and non-Western cultures."

"Overall, the researchers found that men ranked women more attractive than women ranked men."

Underlinings are mine.

http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2011/05/24/happy-guys-finish-last-says-new-study-on-sexual-attractiveness/

Not such a one-sided result as you would have it, I think. These US women (representative, or taken from students?) seem to like shamed and proud men equally - a bit confusing really. As for the pride, I found the pic they showed to be 'happy' and showing off muscles as well as 'proud', and it would be fun to see what women and men from other cultures would choose.
As for all the interpretations and ideas the researchers come up with, they are just that - ideas.

[thir]

It's not so much the genes themselves as the switches being turned on or off to activate them...which can be influenced by environment (and our environment is more than just a matter of climate and general locality IE dessert, arctic etc but also urban and social settings including levels of affluence effecting one's immediate surroundings and it is rapidly changing as we proceed through the modern era).

But you are still saying hat the genes we have are the same as millions of years ago. According to Darwin this is a rank impossibility - the law of evolution is change according to a mix of random mutations and changing circumstances.

I assume (correct if wrong) that you mean the 'hard-wired' idea that genes in our brain are exactly the same as then, and that they are so detailed that they can decide our behaviour now, with these 'switches'. No one have been able to prove that such 'switches' excist, they are just an idea - in the face of the many seriously working biologist who tear their hair and point out that genes can not express such detailed behaviour.

[thir]

jesus christ, in that case any marriage is coercion. what if the guy gets down on one knee and the girldoesnt want to hurt his feelings, coercion.


The decision is hers and not coercion - unless the family is threatening to kill her if she refuses. Coercion is a pressure from the outside.
Or are you suggesting that a person can coerce him- or herself??



what if a girl gives the guy and ultimatum of marriage or seperation, coercion.


?? I do not understand - marriage or seperation?



what if a guy wants to get a divorce but the girl will get most of his assets so he just lives in a shitty marriage, coercion

Then he himself decides beween comfort and freedom, doesn't he? Again, coercion by defintion comes from the outside, and from people.

However, if the wife had said: 'if you break this marrage, I will make sure you never see the children again' - that is a threat or attempting to coerce him to stay in the marriage.

[thir]

My personal theory is that most women have difficulty reaching orgasm because their mates don't know HOW to make them orgasm. I'm still gathering data on that, though! :)


A complex thing indeed ;-)
At least until one has managed to wriggle out of various counter-productive ideas imposed in an early age. Or can by-pass them with the help of various bdsm styles ;-)



I can see that as a valid survival strategy. One part of the problem IMO is that the human race is short-circuiting evolution, allowing those with poor survival characteristics to survive due to artificial intervention (medicine). I'm not saying this is a bad thing, morally speaking. Just saying that it might not be in the best interests of the human race, ultimately. I certainly wouldn't want to set up genetic tribunals to determine who should be allowed to reproduce!

What are the best survival traits, and are they in the best long-term interest oif the human race?

I cannot help thinking of some of the most brilliant physicist minds trapped in a wheelchair. Or the woman without legs who finished a marathon - will power worthy to pass on? Sick people who can beget healthy survivors?

I think immediate survival is not the same as the interest of the species, and even in the very beginning, handicapped people were taken care of - at least in some places. Who knows, maybe they knew things of importance, or could take care of the children, or were good story-tellers?

[Punish_her]

The decision is hers and not coercion - unless the family is threatening to kill her if she refuses. Coercion is a pressure from the outside
Or are you suggesting that a person can coerce him- or herself??

someone else's expectations of you,from the outside

?? I do not understand - marriage or seperation?

what's not to get, tie the know or take a hike


Then he himself decides beween comfort and freedom, doesn't he? Again, coercion by defintion comes from the outside, and from people.

and she'll seize is assets because of court systems, from the outside

[denuseri]

But you are still saying hat the genes we have are the same as millions of years ago.


Um...nope I did not.

According to Darwin this is a rank impossibility - the law of evolution is change according to a mix of random mutations and changing circumstances.

Its perhaps more helpful at least in layman's terms if you think of the gene as a line of code...the switches (in combination with a bunch of other things) that are active today make up what you are today...a great deal if not almost all of that old code is still there...it (depending upon what switches were on and off at the time) made up what your ancestors were in the past. With each and every exchange of dna that produces a new offspring tiny little sometimes imperceptible changes do take place (in some cases a variety of factors can cause rampant changes or even a switch being disconnected or miss-connected etc) but the overall line of code (including the old code) for the most part remains.

I assume (correct if wrong) that you mean the 'hard-wired' idea that genes in our brain are exactly the same as then, and that they are so detailed that they can decide our behaviour now, ( oh I didn't say they alone decide...the decision making process of a mind is complex...not so complex we don't know how it works mind you, just complex...and we have found that one's brain chemistry and overall physiological programing play a much larger part in the process than most people are comfortable discussing because they get overwhelmed and tend to think that science is telling us we are just like any machine etc and that our programing and built in responses largely guide our choices and that free will ...may just be illusion after all... its real enough tough...at least from our own perspectives) with these 'switches'. No one have been able to prove that such 'switches' excist, (um actually they did some time ago now...prove they exist...though not at all in the way your portraying them) they are just an idea - in the face of the many seriously working biologist who tear their hair and point out that genes can not express such detailed behaviour.

Like I said...the genes themselves are not expressing the behaviors.

[Punish_her]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/science/genes-play-major-role-in-primate-social-behavior-study-finds.html?_r=3

[Alchemystic]

I read as much as my head could handle, so if I missed someone else making the points I am about to, I apologize.

1) Mankind has been hijacking religion and manipulating it to control and subvert the masses for as long as there have been humans walking the earth. A favorite tactic amongst the thumpers is to cherry pick scripture to prove whatever. Here is but one telling example of thousands: "Children obey your parents." If you went to a Christian church as a child, you heard it, over and over and over. What most don't realize is that this pillar of good christian parenting is an incomplete instruction. Those who quote it never continue with the second part: "and parents do not anger your children, lest you turn them unto darkness." The complete verse paints a different picture than the partial one most of us had crammed down our throats.

2) I challenge anyone to find anywhere in the canon, a condemnation of homosexuality from the divine. Neither God, God's child, nor the holy spirit is ever heard to say one word against homosexuality. The only such scripture is in Leviticus, which was and is a handbook of sorts for the Priests. It is a human that says, "when a man layeth with another man, as with a woman, it is an abomination." Again, it's what is left out that makes the difference. The verses before and after the oft quoted portion all deal with what is proper behavior within the sanctuary on a day of worship. In plain language, what is basically being said is, "Hey, no buttfucking in the pews on Sunday." From this passage we are told, quite erroneously, that being gay is an "abomination". Twisting scripture to exclude and condemn an entire group of people, all of whom are just as much "God's Children" as those doing the condemning? Now that's an abomination all it's own.

3) There are no genes governing gender preference. None whatsoever. Current theory is that hormonal antagony within the womb informs gender preferences for the fetus. We know that there are many examples of same sex sexual dynamics all across the planet. Nature doesn't seem to care if anyone's gay or not. There is no law or theory that says everything that happens has to be for some kind of evolutionary purpose. Nature itself seems to enjoy diversity. Human beings looking to validate their own prejudices will cling to whatever is available to justifty their views. Anything is preferable to having to admit being wrong. Spiritual belief or non-belief, and what anyone does with their sex organs are personal matters that are really nobody's business. Why we as a society spend so much time on these private issues is beyonnd me. Are we so insecure that we have to force belief and practice on each other, so we can feel better about ourselves? When will we evolve beyond that? The sooner the better.

[Thorne]

1) Mankind has been hijacking religion and manipulating it to control and subvert the masses for as long as there have been humans walking the earth.
Not hijacking, inventing! Charlatans are constantly finding new ways to separate the flock from their money, and keep them from thinking about reality. Religion is not some object that people can bend and twist. It's a psychological tool meant to control people, and as such has been used properly by shamans since its formation.


2)...Twisting scripture to exclude and condemn...
A favorite tactic of fundamentalists. For every 10 priests reading a verse of scripture, you can get 12 different interpretations, depending on the bogeyman of the day.

Here's a picture (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r747uOVuNwU/TWAQJgN2exI/AAAAAAAAAUw/K7Wu7QVApuY/s1600/leviticustattoo.jpg) of a guy with the verse from Leviticus tattooed on his arm. Yet it seems he ignored the verse from the very next chapter that says, "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you:" (lev19:28). As is usual, it's only the things that they don't like that scripture condemns. Everything else is just "suggestions".


3) Human beings looking to validate their own prejudices will cling to whatever is available to justifty their views. Anything is preferable to having to admit being wrong. Spiritual belief or non-belief, and what anyone does with their sex organs are personal matters that are really nobody's business.
Except that controlling such things is the easiest way to control a population. That's the whole point of religion (and politics, too), to maintain control. For the benefit of the leaders, of course, not the people.


Are we so insecure that we have to force belief and practice on each other, so we can feel better about ourselves? When will we evolve beyond that? The sooner the better.
Amen!

[Punish_her]

ironically from the devout atheist who feels compelled to discredit religion at every turn . . . a blinding flash of irony

[Thorne]

From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amen)
a·men
   [ey-men, ah-men]
interjection
1.
it is so; so be it (used after a prayer, creed, or other formal statement to express solemn ratification or agreement).
adverb
2.
verily; truly.

Nothing necessarily ironic about it. I was simply agreeing with your wish:
When will we evolve beyond that? The sooner the better.

Just because the churches have appropriated the word for their own use doesn't mean that it is ONLY a religious word!

Still, it's nice to know that my efforts are appreciated.

[Punish_her]

i didnt really follow any of that buuuuuuuut
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-05-religion-replenishes-self-control.html - religion evolves because it reinforces fitness-increasing behaviors

[Thorne]

i didnt really follow any of that buuuuuuuut
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-05-religion-replenishes-self-control.html - religion evolves because it reinforces fitness-increasing behaviors
As the article notes, this is all preliminary. VERY preliminary. There are many different ideas about the usefulness of religion, or more precisely, religious-tyoe thinking. People need to be able to recognize danger. Our minds tend to see things in randomness, seeking familiar patterns, especially dangerous ones. Religions tend to use this ability of the mind to convince people that things exist, whether or not there's any evidence for those things. And many religions, the big three certainly, place a high premium on frightening believers into behaving in unnatural ways. If you are afraid for your immortal soul, you will naturally be inclined to exhibit self-control. But who places the value on these social behaviors? The same people who tell you that it would be sinful to perform such acts.

I'll wait to see where this line of exploration goes, but it wouldn't surprise me that there are many other means of achieving the same results without using religion. Rampant, mindless patriotism comes to mind, for one.

And a little googling comes up with this: (http://io9.com/kevin-rounding/) a more detailed report.

Among other things, they say that "[Improved self-control] could have been caused by other confounding constructs coactivated by the religion prime, such as morality concepts or death-related concerns." And, "In a more general sense, religion may be more of a cultural construct; it could be that the idea of an omniscient god has something to do with it, but it might not be the whole story."

As I said, this might be something, or it may simply be one of many actions which could get the same results. It's still very preliminary. And I would be interested to see the results when done by someone who was not himself primed to accept religion. (Mr. Rounding is Catholic.)

In any event, the possible fact that the human mind might be predisposed to believe in fairy tales says nothing about the veracity of those tales.