Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on August 12, 2004, 02:41:19 pm
-
into the Middle Ages?
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=World&cat=Gays_and_Lesbians
Seems to me that certain frightened little children cannot abide the thought of not getting their own way :(
-
Hmm. I have read this article, but I can't seem to figure how to put the words I wish to say in text.
I agree that the Mayor did overstep his bounds, and I understand that this ruling wasn't whether same sex marriage should be allowed to exist, but rather to see if the mayor was right or wrong, but nullifying the marriages that already took place was childish, in my opinion.
I only hope this will make the SSM groups fight harder for equal treatment in this issue.
-
Nullifying marriages that already exist is grandfathering or whatever isn't it? (can't remember the word, can't remember half of what it is either..)
-
They already have equal treatment. marriage is still defined as a male-female union. There's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman to get the various financial benefits of a legal marriage.
-
If a gay person has to marry someone he/she doesn't want to marry simply to have the same financial benefits as heterosexuals, that's not equal treatment.
-
Except the fact he doesn't love her, which is what marriage is about as well, not that many people seem to remember that.
The thing is, I still see it as no better than 'Blacks only' drinking fountains etc.
I wonder how many of these 'Ban Gay Marriage' people are less concerned about the fact they are married and the same sex, and more concerned with the fact that 'married' means that 'God says it's ok for them to have sex'?
It's so much easier to call them sinners when they are forced to live in Sin.
-
Too easy to exploit. If gay marriages were permitted, then I could easily marry my male roomate and get the tax credit. Whether or not I was ******* his **** wouldn't be anyone's business, so the 'love' thing goes right out the window. Love's got nothing to do with it, legally.
-
On a lighter note....
Originally posted by ionia23
Whether or not I was ******* his **** wouldn't be anyone's business
:lol:
Great use of asterisks.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Too easy to exploit. If gay marriages were permitted, then I could easily marry my male roomate and get the tax credit. Whether or not I was ******* his **** wouldn't be anyone's business, so the 'love' thing goes right out the window. Love's got nothing to do with it, legally.
That's no different than marrying your female roommate to get a tax credit. So what is your point?
-
Legal marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman. Period. Legally, the mayor of SF totally blew it.
I really don't think people get it, so lemme 'splain. Why should a marriage be legal in one state and not legal in another? Excrement. If I get hitched to my fellow boyfriend-thing-whatever in Honolulu, it should still be a legally recognized relationship when I move to "Fags-Must-Die", Texas, should I choose to do so.
I don't give a crap about the morals behind it. Whom you decide to build a life with does not impact me in the slightest, nor anyone else. The law is stupid, but it's still the law. THAT'S what needs to be fixed. Let people's attitudes attend to themselves afterwards.
Translation: Congress, get off your ass and do something about this. It needs to be discussed!
Btw, the roomie and I have written a number of letters to our representatives on the subject. He got an answer back to the effect that the issue 'does need to be addressed at a federal level."
That's a start.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Too easy to exploit. If gay marriages were permitted, then I could easily marry my male roomate and get the tax credit. Whether or not I was ******* his **** wouldn't be anyone's business, so the 'love' thing goes right out the window. Love's got nothing to do with it, legally.
Is that the best you can come up with? Its creative, you get points for that, but minus ten million for plausability. You could just as easily marry your female friends and get the same benefits.
The question that those opposed to gay marriage have to answer is "why not?". If there is no good reason, not counting religious superstitions, why gay marriage should not be allowed, lets hear it.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
-
Originally posted by ionia23
If I get hitched to my fellow boyfriend-thing-whatever in Honolulu, it should still be a legally recognized relationship when I move to "Fags-Must-Die", Texas, should I choose to do so.
Agreed. But not likely to happen. Each state is more interested in competition with eachother than in unifying this nation. Whenever one state votes for something (Massechussettes for gay marriage, or Maryland for handgun bans) another state retaliates (Mississippi for the SSM ban, or Georgia making a law requiring a handgun in every home).
This country is running in circles.
I don't give a crap about the morals behind it. Whom you decide to build a life with does not impact me in the slightest, nor anyone else. The law is stupid, but it's still the law. THAT'S what needs to be fixed. Let people's attitudes attend to themselves afterwards.
Yes, but the current administration is totally against the SSM's and the only possible alternative to Bush is another no spined politician who's afraid to rock the boat, so to speak. The law won't be changed until more people fight it. This isn't much different from the civil rights movement in that respect.
Translation: Congress, get off your ass and do something about this. It needs to be discussed!
Better yet, get a bunch of people in congress who will actually do their job. What we need is a Congress that is less about 'which party do I oppose today', or 'Which corporation is paying for my new home in the mountains of Washington', and more for making this country actually live up to it's title as the greatest nation on Earth.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Is that the best you can come up with? Its creative, you get points for that, but minus ten million for plausability. You could just as easily marry your female friends and get the same benefits.
The question that those opposed to gay marriage have to answer is "why not?". If there is no good reason, not counting religious superstitions, why gay marriage should not be allowed, lets hear it.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
All right. For most of the answer, read up a post. I'll step out on a limb here for debate's sake.
Oh, none of these points will have anything whatsoever to do with so-called "Christian Morality". I am on the Christian side of things and the very suggestion that God looks down on homosexuals with disgust and damnation makes me want to scream. It's backwards, stupid, and totally against what being Christian is supposed to mean.
Yeah yeah, bring up Leviticus 18:22, you go right ahead with that.
1. Legalising same-sex marriages would make explotation of said-institution much easier, for tax purposes. Dubya gave a rather large tax credit this year to married couples (at the expense of single people, like me)
2. Same-sex couples suffer from the same problems that heterosexual couples do, but with the added stigma of a society that has a long way to go twords acceptance. Is it fair to subject the children of said-relationships to the consequences of the decisions made by the parents?
3. Banning same-sex marriages is not the same as banning blacks from marrying (or voting, segregation, blah blah). One is not 'born' gay. (This one is so highly debateable, it isn't even funny).
Of course, all of this is totally irrelevant and flat-out stupid. I agree with none of it. Well, except maybe #3, but that's another debate on it's own.
The law is in place now. Period. That's it. Go change the law. The rest will take care of itself. Put it on a ballot, I'll glady vote to strike it down and extend the privilidges, responsibilites, consequences and benefits to same-sex couples. Never should have been restricted in the first place.
-
Alright, thats fair. But somehow I doubt Dubya would put it to a referendum, cause we can all guess how that would turn out. America, and, I should add also most Western democracies, are rather averse to the concept of a referendum, since it gives the people greater control over their own fate, and thats a no-no, the stupid masses ought to be held in check, or they're liable to make some wrong, improper decisions.
And just so its known, I do not support gay adoption without further study into the issue. Thats no longer between two consenting adults, thew child is involved.
-
Well, I tend towards the thought that people aren't born straight either, but there you go ;)
The question is not whether it was legally do-able to annul those marriages, the question is in the prejudice that led to the courtroom in the first place. Heterosexual couples exist that already exploit the system, being married in name only, getting a Visa etc. This is far from uncommon practice.
The Question is 'why'? If the case goes on to higher courts, then any benefits would probably be suspended until an outcome is resolved, so Gays wouldn't benefit unless they won. The only reason I can see for this is a little one-fingered salute from the Homophobics. Why take it away from them unless you think they have something they are not 'entitled' to? What makes these people so much 'better' than gays that they had to push it to court in the first place? Fear, mistrust of what seems alien to them. I've said it before, but if we can't deal with the seemingly alien in our own society, how the hell can we presume to be ready to deal with the 'alien' elsewhere?
I wonder, I really wonder, how many of these people know what gays are like, not heard, not read, not imagined, but really know, society is too lazy, selfish and scared to accept matters, it is situations like this where the government DOES need to be ramming legaslations down the populous' throat, if they truly believe in what they preach (daft idea, I know).
I know it is the legal requirement, but, as always, we assume that our interpretation of 'Good and Bad' is somehow transformed into 'Right and Wrong', when the two are often completely different things :(
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Alright, thats fair. But somehow I doubt Dubya would put it to a referendum, cause we can all guess how that would turn out. America, and, I should add also most Western democracies, are rather averse to the concept of a referendum, since it gives the people greater control over their own fate, and thats a no-no, the stupid masses ought to be held in check, or they're liable to make some wrong, improper decisions.
And just so its known, I do not support gay adoption without further study into the issue. Thats no longer between two consenting adults, thew child is involved.
There are times when majority control is very dangerous, though. If there was a referendum to throw all asylum seekers into the sea when they arrive in the UK, it'd probably pass.
It's very easy to raise a mob, after all.....
The problem is not so much the system, but the people in it. It's hard to determine which will be easier to change.
-
That's very, very cynical and unfortunately, very, very accurate. There's one minor point I disagree with: over time, the system has become perverted so that it encourages the corrupt in it, and the people have become more corrupt to better work the system.
-
All countries are Democracies. The guy with the most people wins. The only difference is that in some countries the people vote with guns, and Elections are pretty lively.
People will never accept gays of their own accord. It's the primate in us, we need someone to look down on, and gays are so handy for that. However, what is needed is for society to be beaten over the head with it for about 3 years, any movement against gay marriages gets stamped on. Hard.
I will tell you this, give it 10 years and a large percentage of the populatation will think it was their idea in the first place.
-
so because perfect democracy is impossible, we ought to let it slide?
What ought to be done is to educate people and increase, and I mean this in the broadest sense, their consciousness (politcal, cultural, that sort of thing). But what is being done is the exact opposite, because it only entrenches the elites who rule. They're not interested in giving up their power, and as a result, or rather as a cause, they're not intersted in educating the public. Look at the time and effort that most people dedicate to the stupidest things. People know more about Survivor than they do about history or politics. Seriiously, I can hardly watch TV for half an hour anymore without getting pissed at the state of affair of the human race.
aldo, what you said is true only so long as people are ignorant. Fortunately, it seems that people in general are becoming more and miore so, despite the best efforts of the ruling elite.
-
It seems the printed word has stopped being a media to transfer information from one generation to the next, and become a means of transferring opinion from one person to another. People are naturally lazy of forming an opinion, and we trust the written word.
By beating people on the head with it, I am not talking Martial Law or anything, I mean putting people in situations where they HAVE to come to terms with the fact that it is here to stay. Make people who attack gays attend Homophobia centres etc, treat meetings of Anti-gays as you would treat meetings of the Klan etc :)
-
for those of you outside the states, this was the expected reaction, the mayor himself knew this was going to happen, its almost a mechanical action. this is all part of the political dance that is involved in makeing these sorts of changes, now it's time for the SSM folks to make the next chanlenge eventualy pushing it into the US supreem court.
-
The US supreme court has already said that SSM is a state based thing.
Effectively, it's a similar as a legal situation to slavery in the US.
History repeats itself.
Coming up in the next episode of America: Abraham Lincoln II and the Second American Civil War! :p
-
I guess that makes Bush the second Stonewall, as in: "dumb as a".
-
Originally posted by ionia23
The law is in place now. Period. That's it. Go change the law. The rest will take care of itself. Put it on a ballot, I'll glady vote to strike it down and extend the privilidges, responsibilites, consequences and benefits to same-sex couples. Never should have been restricted in the first place.
The problem is that you can't simply say "Change the law" and it will be done. That's not how things like this work. This issue has to become a bigger and bigger issue until it either becomes an election issue (unlikely) or the supreme courts are forced to make a final ruling on it.
Things like this are the only way to make this a big enough issue.
Originally posted by Flipside
Well, I tend towards the thought that people aren't born straight either, but there you go ;)
:lol:
-
Hmmm, the idea of same-sex marriages has come up in Australian parliament recently too. Interesting...
-
Seriously, you guys are all behind the times. Bickering over issues long resolved over here :p
Once again, I'm proud to be Dutch. Especially when I look at the other countries in the world, including the 'allmighty' America. :p:D:drevil:
Mark my words, one day we will become the Second Atlantis and curbstomp you all for being so backwards!
(Hell, we're already halfway there cuz technically we're already 'under the sea' :p)
-
Yep, if you hadn't accepted your dykes you'd be screwed ;)
-
And in the future, when some advanced civilization finds records from the time of the Dutch Empire, they'll all choke to death trying to pronounce the words, and that will be mankind's final act of vengance ;) ;)
-
What was that old story about a Dutch lad sticking his finger in a dyke?
:eep:
-
It was the only way to stop it from leaking everywhere.
Okay, that's simply gross.
Recent incident at a bar. Me, drunk to stupidity. Stereotypical classic "bull-dyke" (pardon, please) at the bar giving a dissertation on The Evil That Is The Male Species.
I look over: "You know, if you hate men so much, how come you're trying so hard to be one?"
BAD idea :). But buckets of fun.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
It was the only way to stop it from leaking everywhere.
Okay, that's simply gross.
Recent incident at a bar. Me, drunk to stupidity. Stereotypical classic "bull-dyke" (pardon, please) at the bar giving a dissertation on The Evil That Is The Male Species.
I look over: "You know, if you hate men so much, how come you're trying so hard to be one?"
BAD idea :). But buckets of fun.
What were you at the GAY BAR! GAY BAR (http://www.geocities.com/andrews_lyrics/gay_bar.html)! for in the first place?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
What were you at the GAY BAR! GAY BAR (http://www.geocities.com/andrews_lyrics/gay_bar.html)! for in the first place?
heee, t'werent a gay bar, my friend. neighborhood bar. It was one of those moments when I said something in my head just in time to realize it came out of my mouth.
Truth stings like a *****, don't it :)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Yep, if you hadn't accepted your dykes you'd be screwed ;)
Well, just for your information, we're building dykes across the world as we speak. Dutch experts are currently overseeing the construction of dykes in America, China and a ****load of other countries.
WE WILL RULE THROUGH DYKES!
:nervous:
Ok, that's just wrong in so many ways...
But seriously, slightly on topic... Why is it that Holland is so much more socially liberal then almost the entire world? Everytime something comes up about euthanasia, gay marriages, soft drugs, etc etc in other countries I just get the urge to point and laugh because of their... ass-forwardness instead of trying to be at least a little bit progressive.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
But seriously, slightly on topic... Why is it that Holland is so much more socially liberal then almost the entire world? Everytime something comes up about euthanasia, gay marriages, soft drugs, etc etc in other countries I just get the urge to point and laugh because of their... ass-forwardness instead of trying to be at least a little bit progressive.
Well, did you legalize soft drugs before everything else?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, did you legalize soft drugs before everything else?
Eh? What? :blah:
-
[q]
Well, did you legalize soft drugs before everything else?[/q]
:lol:
On a serious note:
In legal terms this ruling was correct. However, it _is_ unfair on the parties involved on the ground.
Forget marriage for a second, perhaps a union with equal legal standing could be created specifically for any couple (of any sexual persuasion so long as they were an unrelated couple) to be joined in?
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]
Well, did you legalize soft drugs before everything else?[/q]
:lol:
On a serious note:
In legal terms this ruling was correct. However, it _is_ unfair on the parties involved on the ground.
Forget marriage for a second, perhaps a union with equal legal standing could be created specifically for any couple (of any sexual persuasion so long as they were an unrelated couple) to be joined in?
Well isn;t marriage by definition a religious thing?
If so, why the hell is it on the statutes of a supposedly secular (nation) state?
-
Historically it's not necessarily religious - only the christian, muslim, etc ceremonies to make it happen are. The Ancients (no FS references lads :p) had marriage between a man and a woman in much the same vain only with different or no religious context.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Historically it's not necessarily religious - only the christian, muslim, etc ceremonies to make it happen are. The Ancients (no FS references lads :p) had marriage between a man and a woman in much the same vain only with different or no religious context.
...as well as marriage between men and men as well as women and women. (the Greeks and Romans are good examples of this)
Really this whole idea of claiming that historically that marriage has been between a man and a woman is just trying to justify bigotry in the same way that "white man's burden" was used.
-
Well, I can understand why marriage would be between man and woman for the purposes of reinforcing the parental group (i.e. because human children need one to survive, unlike most animals)...but that reasoning is going back thousands of years, to the beginning of human evolution - we've moved on a bit since then methinks.
-
Interesting side topic:
I cannot honestly understand homosexuality, in any way. I don't understand how it's happened. Sex in general existed for the continuation of the species (however we dress it up with romance), so why does nature allow a practise which stops procreation in an individual human?
-
Hmm, I'm not so sure that romance is a dress or whatever, a charade. I think that love has become, or I assume that it has *become* since animals don't AFAIK exibit love, part of human nature.
Even if you and your spouse are incapable of procreating, or even if you just have no intention to, love iws one of the most powerful and dare I say, basic emotions. I mean basic as in, when you start stripping away logic and reason, and start going towards animal nature, I would say love would be one of the last things to go.
I think that homosexuality is not so much part of the procreation instinct as it is the pleasure instinct. Obviously, two people of the same sex aren't going to be procreating, so I think that its part of the human instinct that finds sex pleasurable. My theory is that, without any social inhibitions and conditioning, people are naturally bi. Of course, I find the thought of sex with a man disgusting, and so I guess to most of you ('cept anon and Tiara), but I'm not really certain that I was born that way. Kids generally have much less inhibitions about who they're "playing around with" than adults, so it stands to reason that its society that imposes the "straight" view on people.
-
sex is used as a socal bond in many socal primate speiciese, most notably the bonobo, second most closely related primate.
and given that gayity has been taboo in many civilisations it's easy to see how a gay gene could show up a lot more often in our speices, if your gay and it's genetic, but you act straight becase getting burned at the stake just isn't your thing, odds are that your gay gene is going to get passed on a lot more than it otherwise would, ironic no?
-
Originally posted by vyper
Interesting side topic:
I cannot honestly understand homosexuality, in any way. I don't understand how it's happened. Sex in general existed for the continuation of the species (however we dress it up with romance), so why does nature allow a practise which stops procreation in an individual human?
Cause nature doesn't work for the good of the species or the good of the individual. You ask why would nature allow it to exist? Well why does nature allow genetic diseases like Huntingdon's or other genetic diseases?
-
eh, generaly it doesn't, we're defying nature a whole lot, we live three or four times longer than were suposed to and nobodys reproductive futures are effected by there genetics anymore.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Interesting side topic:
I cannot honestly understand homosexuality, in any way. I don't understand how it's happened. Sex in general existed for the continuation of the species (however we dress it up with romance), so why does nature allow a practise which stops procreation in an individual human?
Homosexuality isn't just limited to Human beings. And from that we can conclude that it is in fact somewhat natural as it also occurs in species that only have instinct and no intelligence to speak of.
And 'nature', as you call it, doesn't 'allow' stuff. It doesn't control living beings. Yes, they are a part of it, but not under the control of nature.
If we and every living being were, then why do we murder eachother? Why would we go to war? Why would certain people rape others 'for fun'?
In my view, Humans are above nature in the sense of individuality. We can choose to be something or not to be. We can choose to do or not to do something. But yet, we are so stupid that instead of actually using that gift to prosper, we use it to kill eachother. To fight for no real reason. We designed weapons to destroy the world 50 times over. I don't see any other animal do that.
Also Vyper, you don't have to understand homosexuality. Like many things in life, you cannot understand certain things. Just don't be an ass about it.
-
I think the question he was asking was what sort of evolutionary reason explains it, it does seem like something that would get removed from the gene pool quite fast.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I think the question he was asking was what sort of evolutionary reason explains it, it does seem like something that would get removed from the gene pool quite fast.
Well, if there is a gay gene it might just be recessive in some way that only causes it to become 'active' in certain combinations... y'know, the same way someone can be red-haired if there parents are both black haired (or something like that). Possibly in a similar way as to how people can end up with extra X or Y chromosomes.
Of course, if bisexuality was common in the early days (i.e. of humanity), then it's possible a recessive 'gay gene' was spread out amongst the small population and has remained ever since.
Or even simply a common mutation of the genes which control the procreation drive and whatnot.
(Albeit, genetics aren't my strong point)
-
[q]I think the question he was asking was what sort of evolutionary reason explains it, it does seem like something that would get removed from the gene pool quite fast.[/q]
Exactly, because unless it can be argued that it benefits human evolution and continuation of the species, it's no more a part of normality than the Diabetes that means I have to inject insulin each day. It's a mistake on nature's part.
Btw, I'm making a theoretical argument so no flaming about this statement ok?
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]I think the question he was asking was what sort of evolutionary reason explains it, it does seem like something that would get removed from the gene pool quite fast.[/q]
Exactly, because unless it can be argued that it benefits human evolution and continuation of the species, it's no more a part of normality than the Diabetes that means I have to inject insulin each day. It's a mistake on nature's part.
Btw, I'm making a theoretical argument so no flaming about this statement ok?
Well, we don't even know if there is a gay gene, let alone what the effect of it is. On and individual level, though, it's not damaging to a person in the way any genetically inherited flaw is. Evolution, after all, is based around the survival of the fittest - those with defective genes reproduce less (for various reasons), which the gay gene would not really impact on a physical level.
i.e. other than changing the persons sexual preference, it doesn't affect their ability to reproduce in any way. If a homosexual person wants to have children, there is no genetic barrier to it.
-
[q]If a homosexual person wants to have children, there is no genetic barrier to it.[/q]
No genetic barrier no, but a practical one. Without medical intervention to create a child it's impossible since they have no motivation to copulate with a member of the opposite sex.
-
All the homophobes I've ever discussed the matter with have given the Adam-and-Steve 'argument'. Hurrah for religion.
Dude at work was explaining how he can't resist the urge to beat up gay people. I pointed out that if we turned the clock back forty or fifty years he'd be getting the beatings due to his black skin. He countered this with 'gayness is just wrong'...
-
Humanity is just wrong :doubt:
-
Funny how gay marriage continues to piss of so many people. It's just incomprehensible.
Ever since Belgium legalised gay marriage last year the issue hasn't really come up again. Two men or two women marrying is not something worthy of news after the first few times (after that it gets reduced to two people marrying, and after a while, maybe two people getting a divorce). People get married every day, big deal. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Funny how gay marriage continues to piss of so many people. It's just incomprehensible.
Ever since Belgium legalised gay marriage last year the issue hasn't really come up again. Two men or two women marrying is not something worthy of news after the first few times (after that it gets reduced to two people marrying, and after a while, maybe two people getting a divorce). People get married every day, big deal. :rolleyes:
Finally some one who understands :doubt: Is it really so hard to comprehend that the government or society in general has exactly **** to say about what people do as long as it doesn't affect others?
If two people want to marry, regardless of gender, let them. Nobody is forcing you to be a witness, part of it or even to hang out with them.
And for peopl waving the 'it's just wrong' argument around... There are A LOT of things that make a gay marriage look like a divine event.
Hell, when it came on the news here in Holland for the first time it was portrait and seen as a good thing in the name of personal and social freedom. I really can't see how people just refuse to acknowledge that it is a fact of life and that you won't get it to go away just by saying they can't get married. It's just 100% plain stupidity.
-
I love how anything you believe to be correct is a fact of life to be accepted Tiara, while everyone else's opinion are a case of stupidity.
No wonder you keep thinking you win the arguments on here. :lol:
-
Originally posted by vyper
I love how anything you believe to be correct is a fact of life to be accepted Tiara, while everyone else's opinion are a case of stupidity.
No wonder you keep thinking you win the arguments on here. :lol:
Yes, and you are a moron. :doubt:
Just because 'certain' people are as thick headed that they can't accept simple facts of life like gay marriage doesn't mean I have to be like that.
My opinion (Note: opinion, not fact) is that they are wrong 100%. You can't erase a fact of life, and gay people are a fact of life, just by making something illigal. If anything, it has the exact opposite effect.
I hope that you got that, nitwit. And I also hope that you can see that I litterally hate people being so stupid when it concerns issues like this. People that want to limit social and personal freedom are the ones that don't belong. Not gay people.
-
Here I was engaging in a debate about the slightly more scientific side of things and you have to bring personal feelings into it into it...
[q]Yes, and you are a moron. [/q]
Thanks. :)
-
Time for a more detailed answer.
Natural selection does not select the best genes for a species or for an individual. Due to the way NS works selection occurs at a genetic level. All the genes care about is propagating copies of themselves. If the surrounding enviroment is good for that set of genes then they will get passed on. If the genes have an effect that causes them to be less likely to be passed on then natural selection will slowly prune those genes away.
I'll bet only a few people noticed the important words in that - surrounding enviroment.
The fact is that due to the fact that gay people have needed to keep themselves in the closet there hasn't been much of a selection pressure against being gay. Sure there is a minor pressure against it because lots of gay men and women die single rather than get into a hetroisexual relationship but enough didn't to help pass on the gene. Also notice that even though the gene may not have been expressed it may be possible to cary it. IF there is a gay gene your brothers and sisters have a 50% chance of carrying it even if they are completely straight.
In addition to this they may be some qualities to being gay that have helped nullify the selection pressure against it. For instance gay men are supposedly less prone to violence than straight men. I've got no figures to back that up but if true the fact that they are less likely to have gotten themselves killed in wars and bar brawls could have been enough to even the scales.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Here I was engaging in a debate about the slightly more scientific side of things and you have to bring personal feelings into it into it...
Because to me this is personal. I have friends that are gay. And when people start sprouting utter bull**** about their way of life it pisses me off quite a bit.
Anyway, in your 'scientific' side, socio-political studies litterally point out that the social and political repurcussions in a modern society that come with limiting social freedoms like this, are detriment to a nation as a whole.
The only true reason for such things happening is either bigotry or religion. I condemn bigotry to the fullest but I just cannot comprehend that a religion that supposedly worships an all-loving god would exclude other Human beings just because their way of life differs from theirs. This, in a nutshell, is basically why Atheism is growing around the globe and most notably in the Western world.
-
[q] And when people start sprouting utter bull**** about their way of life it pisses me off quite a bit.[/q]
I'm questioning why they've survived the evolutionary process not whether they have a moral right to be what they are you know.
-
Or, at the very least, a kind of self-defined spiritualism :)
I have some very good friends who are gay, one of them has been married, and divorced once before. they are two of the nicest people I know to be honest, and excellent musicians to boot :) They are also some of the most interesting people to talk to because they are far more tolerant of the fact that homophobics exist than Homophobics are of them.
The older of the two knew he was gay from about the age of 12, just as he entered puberty, when all of us find out about our sexuality. Alas, this was about 50 years ago and the only view society gave him of gay men was 'dirty old men in trench coats'. Oddly enough, that vision hasn't changed for many in the last 50 years. It wasn't till the Hippy Era in the 1960-70's that he got any measure of acceptance.
It was Society that drove gays into grimy clubs in alleys in the West End, it was Society that chased gays calling them perverts, setting light to buildings, whilst they were still in them, simply for a collection of assumptions and rumor, still the main information technique as far as gays are concerned.
Yet, despite this treatment, and worse, Gary is still a very patient, non-judgemental man. Despite all this, even today he can't hold hands with his partner when he is out because of 'repercussions'.
Personally, I think these people have earned the right to be themselves after so many years.
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]If a homosexual person wants to have children, there is no genetic barrier to it.[/q]
No genetic barrier no, but a practical one. Without medical intervention to create a child it's impossible since they have no motivation to copulate with a member of the opposite sex.
Simple - the drive to reproduce. Look at, for example, gay couples who adopt or who have children via a donor (sperm for lesbians, in particular). In the past there wasn;t the technology for the latter, and possibly not a system to allow the former, so it'd be achieved via a 'double life' or bisexuality. i.e. sex for pleasure, and sex for procreation taking place under different instincts / urges.
Certainly, it's not unheard of for married men or women who already have had children via their heterosexual relationships, to come out of the closet.
And there's an argument that social conditions contribute to this, by making homosexuals ashamed / discriminated against and thus forcing them to act out in a heterosexual relationship.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Personally, I think these people have earned the right to be themselves after so many years.
:nod:
Also, as a sidenote, gay people have existed for thousands of years. Dating back to as far as the Roman Empire (or even before) where older men took pleasure in younger boys and only used women to have children. Hell, many parents would be glad to see their kid be taken by a rich guy full knowing what would happen in those times.
And Christian priests have been abusing boys for longer then you know all in 'the name of God'.
In other words; homosexuality has survived for millenia and can be considered somewhat a constant amongst Humanity. Only because we were blinded by prejudice for so long, it is only know that it has become public knowledge.
-
on a side note, i am in no way affiliated with the religious nut cases who would oppose homosexuality, I'm just a cold-hearted bastard who is examining this from a "benefit to our gene pool" point of view.
-
That's entirely understandable.
I think that when it comes to humans, the effects of natural selection are being dulled to a great extent because civilization (under normal operating conditions) permits all its individuals to survive. If homosexuality is in fact linked to heredity, it would seem to suggest that it's probably not as common among wild animals. (Homosexuals constitute an estimated 11% of the human population.)
With that said, I think it's possible that human sexuality is partially shaped by the way society interprets it. A person certainly doesn't choose to be gay, but I would hesitate to conclude that it's purely genetic.
-
Or, it could be that the creative drive of our own homosexual element, a combination of masculine and feminine in a single person, is what pushed us out of the trees in the first place.
Maybe it is the higher proportion of Homosexuals that have distinguished mankind from other creatures?
-
No because without traditional intercourse and family units, man kind could not have built the civilization it has.
-
Originally posted by vyper
No because without traditional intercourse and family units, man kind could not have built the civilization it has.
Well... throughout our history we have moved further and further from family units - delegating education, health and to an extent moral control to a government system (educational, hospital and polcie services). In a modern society, the concept of having an entire group band together to care for young ala in 'native' tribes is almost entirely alien - and this has been a process that has taken place over many, many years.
and traditional intercouse is essentially simply a physical act. It doesn't require heterosexuality per se, just the physical ability to perform.
I wouldn;t say homosexuality has been responsible for human development... I don;t think you could pigeonhole any individual genetic or behavioural factor to that, especially when we know so little about how we started and why.
But I would think that it has not been directly detrimental in such a way as to require its removal from the gene pool.
-
Or, it could be that the creative drive of our own homosexual element, a combination of masculine and feminine in a single person, is what pushed us out of the trees in the first place.
Well I can be pretty girly but I'm as straght as they come.
-
Taken from Lethal Weapon (sortof)
I'm a modern man, I cried in bed last night!
Who were you with?
I was alone, that's why I was crying!
-
Well, look at it this way....
Straight couples achieve a kind of immortality through their children, gay couples do not. Maybe in primative man, the need to immortalise themselves when they could not transferred into cave painting. Possibly later on, this same need to preserve part of themselves went on to produce writing etc?
It's no sheer coincedence that homoesexuality is largely involved with the art and literature world.
Possibly it's because 10% of us had a need to immortalise ourselves through other means that the other 90% of us profited?
-
umm... unlikely...
-
LOL To be honest, I just made it up as I typed it, but it's no less' valid' than any other theory when you get right down to it, just not as easily acceptable to our egos ;)
-
well you've gone from saying gays are ok, to the sudgestion that the decision on wich orafus to use for sexual gratification somehow makes you a superior human.
to wich I say; unlikely
-
And that's the problem Bobb, people seem to think being 'gay' is just about the sexual orifice, which isn't exactly true, theres a whole lot more to it than that, 'has sex with another of the same gender' is the dictionary term for gays, certainly, but theres a lot more to being gay than that.
As for the theory, it seems to me that if we are to entertain the theory that gays are some kind of genetic screwup in the human race, we may as well look at things from the other concievable side as well ;)
Edit : After all, women can use that orifice too ;)
-
no, being gay is nothing further than sexual preference, anything else is just someone trying to get attention. granted that socal preasures may cause a gay person to be signifigantly diferent than they otherwise would be, the only thing that being gay means is that you prefer someone of the same gender.
and the other point was how did they manage to survive when the behavior is inherantly counter productave were reproduction is concerned. the only thing I can think of is that socal preasures forced many to act in a manner not in line to thereinstincts, that's the only way a gay geniology could thrive as it does.
-
Only if homosexuality is genetically transferred from one generation to another. Evidence suggests that homosexuality appears more or less randomly, there have been links found to certain DNA sequences etc, but I'm certainly not aware of any evidence to suggest that homosexuality is hereditary, like heart disease.
And as for being gay, there I have to disagree, we are not talking about a normal 'male' phsyche here, gays, particuarly one half of a gay relationship tend towards far more feminine thinking. Indeed, possibly the only 'feminine' point of view in some societies, even if at that stage of history, they may have had to hide the fact, though not so in Greek and Roman history.
Gays tend to be more artistic, more devious (sorry Tiara, but you know it's true) They can also be more vicious and self-motivated. ;) Gays don't just act differently to straight people, they think slightly differently too.
-
can you prove any of that?
can you prove that you arn't just accepting some stereotype?
I'm a fairly artistic, manipulative person and I oftine find I think a whole lot more like women than other men, but when I see a guy I don't feel aroused, I feel threatened more than anyhting from a sexual point of view, I see them as competition.
-
Exactly Bobb, when you see men, you do feel threatened, and when men see women, they feel the need to impress, it's perfectly normal behaviour, for straight people. :) For Gays, it's a different way entirely. I've spoken in-depth to gays about their lives, I'm not saying this out of any real belief that gays are superior to us in any way, as I say, but I do most certainly believe the world is viewed in a slightly different manner by gays, and I also believe that this different point of view has certainly helped us become who we are today.
-
you don't think it's more likely that there being given an outcast status simply causes them to behave in a diferent manner?
you->sexuality
not
sexuality->you
it's not something that defines a person it's simply a minor atrabute (well the orientation is, sexuality in general is quite perasive) it's just that we come from a society that untill quite recently utterly regected people based on that atribute.
the only diference between a gay person and a heterosexual is wich gender they orient themselves with. that's it, that is the 'defineing' quality.
-
Well, I think we will have to agree to disagree, for me, at least, 'defining' does not neccesarily mean 'all encompassing' :)
-
now I didn't say 'all encompassing' my point is it isn't anything more than what it is, but if you don't feel like continuing this fine
-
Originally posted by Flipside
more devious (sorry Tiara, but you know it's true)
Even though it's a fact that nobody can be more devious then I am, why do you think I have an army of gay bodyguards? :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Even though it's a fact that nobody can be more devious then I am, why do you think I have an army of gay bodyguards? :p
Tips on interior decoration?
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Even though it's a fact that nobody can be more devious then I am, why do you think I have an army of gay bodyguards? :p
You think they're bodyguards but it's actually just that TCO's booked in for the dutch version of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
You think they're bodyguards but it's actually just that TCO's booked in for the dutch version of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy :D
We already have that... :p So, no go :D
Well, we had it. Thankfully they cancelled the show :D
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Tips on interior decoration?
Particularly on the rear entrance...
-
:lol:
To be honest Bob, it;s not that I have to no wish to continue, it's just the simple fact that you have yourself stated that your definition of homosexuality is 'a straight person who is gay'. My definition is something different entirely, so the two of us banging heads about it only wastes time and energy that could be adding shadows to Freespace Open ;) hehe
-
This whole thing about banning gay marrage just reminds me as to how hippocritical the US REALLY is. It invades other countries to "spread freedom", yet at every opportunity tries to take away "freedom" from it's own citizens (PATRIOT Act, PATRIOT Act 2, banning gay marrage, etc).