Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on August 14, 2005, 03:00:55 pm
-
It would be godwin if it weren't for the exception clause [for validity]
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html
-
Extremists are stupid. Both ways.
Factually, well. I hope we all judge things the way we see them.
-
As a Jewish Christian (aka Messianic Jew), I've said to someone I am friends with and discovered was gay, "I do not hate you. I think that your lifestyle is wrong and is a sin, but that doesn't mean I'm going to shun you."
It's along the same lines as preached in our church here: Love the Muslims, hate Islam. It's a matter of keeping things in the right perspective. I'm not without sin - far from it. I'm in no position to judge anyone; from my POV, only someone without sin is worthy to judge.
Anyway, I think that got sidetracked. The comparisons between anti-semetism and anti-homosexuality are valid to a point - they sound the same. However, from the perspective of a Bible-believing Christian (not those nominal "My parents were Christian for a few minutes last August, so I guess I am too" people), homosexuality is sin. Being Jewish is not.
That, however, does not excuse the misplaced hatred and fear most Christians have towards homosexuals. As if they don't sin themselves - hah. Our attitude should be that of Jesus - one of correction in love and mercy, not rejection in hatred and judgement.
Anyway, that's my two pence. I think I qualified my statements in all the right places, so if there's something I said that you disagree with, please read it again to make sure I said what you think I said. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I've said to someone I am friends with and discovered was gay, "I do not hate you. I think that your lifestyle is wrong and is a sin, but that doesn't mean I'm going to shun you."
I'm sure that made them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
But I don't really care, so I'm not going to argue over this.
-
Sandwich that's fine - you're being tolerant. I think you foolish for believing in that which you have no evidence to support, but you are not attempting the violate the rights of others which makes you mostly harmless
-
I would say both anti-semitism and homophobia are equally wrong and equally illogical, and that you can't justify prejudice based upon what any book says - whether purporting to be holy or otherwise - especially because all books are written by men and are subject to the prejudices of men.
(or, er, women)
EDIT; I'd say it's wrong to say 'I don't hate you, but you're still wrong' with this sort of thing (it's different from stuff which can be proven to be wrong, like murder or similar), because in saying so you provide a degree of justification for hatred, intentional or otherwise. Saying something is a sin is essentially saying 'you'll be punished by God' and I think implying anyone desrves to be punished for something as trivial as homosexuality is simply wrong. Especially when the justification for that punishment comes from a belief system adopted by a person.
-
I think I'm going to agree with Sandwich on this one. I simply don't understand why people have such an unusual fear of homosexuals. I've got friends who are homosexual, and though I don't like the idea that they are so, I'm still friends with them.
Christians who hate homosexuals shouldn't be regarded as the Christian community as a whole. While homosexuality[/u] is looked down on by the church, homosexuals[/u] shouldn't be.
Homosexuality is just like any other sin. While the ideas of cheating on your spouse or murder might float around in your head, I consider it much worse (and an actual sin) to act on your thoughts, to actually cheat on your spouse, murder someone, or steal. We can't be perfect, but God does ask us to strive to be so, and that involves holding back from our sinful thoughts.
I don't believe homosexuals are evil. If I had to hate homosexuals for being so and acting so, then I would have to hate myself and everyone else in the world. Thus, if a homosexual doesn't act on his/her urges, then I believe that he is not sinful in this sense.
-
Well, my opinion differs in that I don't believe the urge is a sin, whether acted on or not. It's 'weird', from the perspective of a heterosexual, but I don't view it as being hurtful, wrong or indeed unnatural.
That's my position on the matter.
-
I am not that good in expressing my self in these debates. But my stand is simple: I don't hate anyone unless they have done something to me or to my loved ones. If they have then they will certanlly feel my hate.
-
nuclear1: people don't have "homosexual urges" they simply are homosexual
religious egocentrism... oui
-
Originally posted by Kazan
nuclear1: people don't have "homosexual urges" they simply are homosexual
I think he means (to paraphrase) it's "ok" to be attracted to people of the same sex, just not to act on it. Similar to the justification the (Protestant) church uses for gay clergy - it's ok as long as they're celibate
Which IMO is still pretty unfair.
-
It's their business if they want to have homosexual relationships or consentual gay sex. "It's okay to have thoughts, but not to act" is a pretty stupid stance on homosexuality.
-
All I can say is don't force your way of life on me and I don't care. Although I will admit I don't agree with homosexuality but I don't hate the people that are. The only reason for me to hate someone is the same as windrunners if they hurt me or my loved ones then they're hated.
-
Swantz: no homosexuals are trying to force their way of life onto you so i don't know why you felt the need to make that statement...
... unless you had bought into antihomosexual bigot's propaganda about the "homosexual agenda"
-
I didn't say they were trying to I'm just sayin as long as they don't (which I'm not saying they are) I'm fine with 'em doing whatever they want.
Plus I'm being general with that statement.
-
Originally posted by Swantz
I didn't say they were trying to I'm just sayin as long as they don't (which I'm not saying they are) I'm fine with 'em doing whatever they want.
Plus I'm being general with that statement.
Nah, yer fine.
Kazan just sometimes gets a bit... wound up (no offense Kaz).. about these sort of things.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
It's their business if they want to have homosexual relationships or consentual gay sex. "It's okay to have thoughts, but not to act" is a pretty stupid stance on homosexuality.
That only sounds strange until you realize that that's exactly how US law works in this regard. Banning homosexual thoughts would be dangerously 1984-esque... but homosexual acts are still banned, Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
nuclear1: people don't have "homosexual urges" they simply are homosexual
what about bisexuals?
-
Annorax: the SCOTUS has repeatedly struck down anti-sodomy laws
Originally posted by aldo_14
Kazan just sometimes gets a bit... wound up (no offense Kaz).. about these sort of things.
yeah i'm a ***** about people's right's being respected :D
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
what about bisexuals?
they're bisexual.. which is completely different from either
-
I have sexual urges towards Kazan.
-
You can't bring any special credence to any belief just by bringing religion into the argument; that 'being Jewish is sinful' is just as valid a belief that 'being a(n active) homosexual is sinful' - it's just that the latter has been established and accepted for longer.
Personally I have contempt for people preaching their disdain for gays, but I wouldn't take away their right to do it. That doesn't mean I won't speak out against it with equal passion though - had a shouting match in Birmingham with some megaphone-touting soapbox preacher who was screaming his bile against gays to people passing by, and it was nice to have a couple of bystanders join in with me as well. I don't think there are many people at all who subscribe to the sort of propaganda described in that article - the world has been overly progressive in its legalisation and protection of gays and no amount of activists are going to have a lasting, broad effect to the opposite of that.
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
I have sexual urges towards Kazan.
People don't have "sexual urges towards Kazan", they simply are Kazexual.
Hooray for Kazual sex!
-
lol black
SadisticSid: there are a lot of people here in the US that subscribe to that **** - 38 states have passed state laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying
-
*embraces his destiny*
-
lol ZB :D
i think my fiance would be annoyed with Kazual Sex not involving her
-
Oh come on. We can all share.
-
Kaz: compare the situation now with that of decades ago; it's in broad global decline and even those US will follow the trend eventually - also I see gay marriage as a VERY trivial thing compared to the broader spectrum of gay rights equality
-
Meh..I don't have anything against one or the other.. I don't hate them..
but from my POV homosexsuals are sick people (damaged gene) and therefor deserve compassion, not hatered.
and I do hope that gene therapy advanced enough to fix that damage.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Kaz: compare the situation now with that of decades ago; it's in broad global decline and even those US will follow the trend eventually - also I see gay marriage as a VERY trivial thing compared to the broader spectrum of gay rights equality
Don't confuse gay marriage with fair rights to gay partners, though. The issue of being married in a church is kind of a side issue to that of, for example, having the spousal privelges extended to married couples.
Originally posted by TrashMan
but from my POV homosexsuals are sick people (damaged gene) and therefor deserve compassion, not hatered.
Eep.
I'd say that's complete bollocks, but I'm off to bed justnow. I'm sure someone will point out the lack of any 'gay gene' (plus wonder exactly how such a gene would exist for thousands of years across both sexes), the lack of any implication this gene is 'damaging' in a measurable way (i.e. in order to be classified as 'sick' or genetically disordered), and incidences of homosexuality in bonobos(SP?), sheep, and other wild animals.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
homosexsuals are sick people
Could you elaborate on that one for the rest of the class please?
-
*pulls down protective eyeware and prepares for a very bright flame-war* :cool: <<
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Don't confuse gay marriage with fair rights to gay partners, though. The issue of being married in a church is kind of a side issue to that of, for example, having the spousal privelges extended to married couples.
I'm not confusing them - just pointing out that a lot of people see marriage or some sort of state recognition of partnership as the end-all of gay rights.
TrashMan, if being gay was purely genetic then natural selection would've bred out all but a minute percentage of us. Genetics may have something to do with it but I doubt it's as simple as flicking a biological switch. I put greater emphasis on the environment we're brought up in as a determining factor.
-
BTW, on the issue of couples' tax benefits and allowances, I'd prefer it that neither gay or straight couples were eligible - after all, why does having a piece of paper from the registry office mean you contribute to society, especially when it can be anulled at will? Couples who raise children are a different story; you need to reproduce to keep the population from declining, which would have disastrous effects for a nation - so it'd be justifiable to benefit them in some way, especially when raising children can be so expensive.
-
well then in that case it's practicly a choice.
this seems like a genetic thing, given how I do beleive there is documented diferences in the structure of the brain (though this could just as equaly likely be from harmonal stuff during pregnancy) and things of that nature. however I doubt the distinctions are as black and white as Kaz was makeing it sound.
as for getting selected out, that might have gotten a help ironicly from the prudey customs of many cultures, were homosexuals that would have otherwise taken a same sex mate were forced to act against there nature and mate with someone of the opposet sex, though it seems like humans have an exadurated level that even that wouldn't completely acount for, not supriseing seeing as the second most closely related animal (the bonobo) is the most "hell yeah I swing that way!" one on the planet. but evolution sometimes works in less than streightforward way, perhapes haveing a homosexual in your family does, or at one time did, provide some sort of evolutionary advantage.
however if homosexuality is in fact a disadvantage as it does on the surface at least apear to be, then the best way to get rid of the problem would in fact to do nothing about it, let people live life the way they want to live, if they have some sort of tendancy twards a disadvantagus lifestyle then they will become extinct in a few generations.
but whatever the case may be it has about as much baring on weather a person is 'good' or 'bad' as does being right or left handed.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Annorax: the SCOTUS has repeatedly struck down anti-sodomy laws
The Supreme Court has repeatedly blocked enforcement of anti-sodomy laws that only apply to homosexuals. I seem to recall them encouraging states to pass new anti-sodomy laws that apply to everyone.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
but whatever the case may be it has about as much baring on weather a person is 'good' or 'bad' as does being right or left handed.
:yes:
-
Hey wait a minute...
What's wrong with sadism, masochism or prostitution?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'd say that's complete bollocks, but I'm off to bed justnow. I'm sure someone will point out the lack of any 'gay gene' (plus wonder exactly how such a gene would exist for thousands of years across both sexes), the lack of any implication this gene is 'damaging' in a measurable way (i.e. in order to be classified as 'sick' or genetically disordered), and incidences of homosexuality in bonobos(SP?), sheep, and other wild animals.
A) [re: aldo] A mutation at location Xq27 is present in 100% of true homosexuals. the contraverse is not true however - only 70% of individuals with said mutation are homosexual [which shows it's not a single-trigger]
B) [re trash] Homosexuality is not a 'sickness' Trashman
-
Originally posted by Annorax
The Supreme Court has repeatedly blocked enforcement of anti-sodomy laws that only apply to homosexuals. I seem to recall them encouraging states to pass new anti-sodomy laws that apply to everyone.
you recall incorrectly - the antisodomy laws were struct down as invasions of privacy
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Hey wait a minute...
What's wrong with sadism, masochism or prostitution?
A) sadism/masochism - so long as it's safe, sane and consenual - absofraginglutely nothing
B) prostitution - absofraginglutely nothing [so long as the woman is doing it willingly]
-
Okay, now I've read the discussion and the linked article, and wow. I never realized what a dick Pat Robertson was. He seems so innocuous.
Seriously, I just don't get people's dislike of gay people. So they like their own gender. Its like disliking someone for likeing chocolate ice cream (actually I totally get that. There are no flavors but vanilla and butter pecan, damnit!). Its just... illogical.
Originally posted by Kazan
A) sadism/masochism - so long as it's safe, sane and consenual - absofraginglutely nothing
B) prostitution - absofraginglutely nothing [so long as the woman is doing it willingly]
Why does it have to be a woman? I can sell my body too, damn you!
-
first id like to point out that the story of sodom and gamorah or however its spelled, is one of the most misinterpreted stories in the bible. its still the primary referance used for anti-gayness from the religious perspective. the story states that the people of the two cities are full of sin, yet in seems intentionally vauge about what those sins are. the part where the angry crowd was trying to "know" the angels, makes me think the people more or less wanted to wintess a miricle than get laid. it is the offering of the virgin daughters that tend to give people the idea that the story had anything to do with sexuality. i remember reading somewhere that the virgins may have been ment as a blood sacrifice rather than the popular interpretation. i believe the moral of the story was ment to be anti-rape or anti defiance of god and not anti-gay. i find it appaling that certain versions of the bible replace the line "to know them" with "to have intercourse with them". religious leaders will always try to instill their own interpretations of their texts upon their people. people in leadership tend to have issues with pride and arrogance wich tend to leat to bigotry. then you still have factors of language translation and any editing that may have occured durning cannonization. i am by no means a bible expert, i dont even believe in god, but it is a very valid point. anyone with a pre-existing hatred will always look for a justification for it in their religion, and if this happens with a religious leader it tends to affect a good majority of that leader's people.
my next point is marriage, which i think sould be strictly a religious thing and shouldnt have anything to do with government. the only exception should be tax cuts and other binifits for people with children (regaurdless of the orentation of the parents). also giving adoption rights to gay couples would be binifitial to society.
i also think it is wrong to label gay people as sinners. to call somone a sinner seems to be rather offensive to some people, gay christians for example. iirc the bible seems to say more about leaving judgments up to god than it does about being gay. if being gay was so bad you would find more referances to it in the bible, and in far less vauge context. it seems less sinfull to be gay, yet have an honest relationship, than it would to be a straight cheater. it seems also to be a violation of rights to deny people the right to an intimite relationship, simply on the grounds of homosexuality. the church saying its ok to be gay, so long as you dont have sex, seems rather unfair.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
BTW, on the issue of couples' tax benefits and allowances, I'd prefer it that neither gay or straight couples were eligible - after all, why does having a piece of paper from the registry office mean you contribute to society, especially when it can be anulled at will? Couples who raise children are a different story; you need to reproduce to keep the population from declining, which would have disastrous effects for a nation - so it'd be justifiable to benefit them in some way, especially when raising children can be so expensive.
Nah, not if it it's a gradual decline. Japan's population is in decline and you don't see them falling to pieces.
Originally posted by Bobboau
well then in that case it's practicly a choice.
this seems like a genetic thing, given how I do beleive there is documented diferences in the structure of the brain (though this could just as equaly likely be from harmonal stuff during pregnancy) and things of that nature. however I doubt the distinctions are as black and white as Kaz was makeing it sound.
as for getting selected out, that might have gotten a help ironicly from the prudey customs of many cultures, were homosexuals that would have otherwise taken a same sex mate were forced to act against there nature and mate with someone of the opposet sex, though it seems like humans have an exadurated level that even that wouldn't completely acount for, not supriseing seeing as the second most closely related animal (the bonobo) is the most "hell yeah I swing that way!" one on the planet. but evolution sometimes works in less than streightforward way, perhapes haveing a homosexual in your family does, or at one time did, provide some sort of evolutionary advantage.
however if homosexuality is in fact a disadvantage as it does on the surface at least apear to be, then the best way to get rid of the problem would in fact to do nothing about it, let people live life the way they want to live, if they have some sort of tendancy twards a disadvantagus lifestyle then they will become extinct in a few generations.
but whatever the case may be it has about as much baring on weather a person is 'good' or 'bad' as does being right or left handed.
Well, said! Ironically, you were thought to be a bad person a long time ago if you were left handed.
-
actualy that's sort of why I used that reference.
I wish we had more fundies around here, I want someone to chalenge me damnit!
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
this seems like a genetic thing, given how I do beleive there is documented diferences in the structure of the brain (though this could just as equaly likely be from harmonal stuff during pregnancy) and things of that nature.
About a year ago, the results of a study of twins raised in heterolingual vs homolingual environments were announced. They studied twins adopted by seperate families and compared the brains of homolingual twins (both twins were raised speaking the same language) and heterolingual twins (twins were raised speaking different languages). As a control, they studied twins who grew up in the same household.
In gross detail, non-seperated twins and homolingual twins showed similar structures in the linguistic centers of the brain. However, heterolingual twins showe differences in gross and fine detail in the structures of the linguistic centers of their brains.
If something as ephemeral as language can determine the physical structure of the brain then anything can. The root determiner of sexual identity and preference is likely to be something more complex than the mere structure of the brain, or genes themselves, or society, etc. There's too many fiddly bits here to even consider which one might contribute, really.
-
mik we can locate "strong determinates" like the xq27 mutation
-
Originally posted by Kazan
A) sadism/masochism - so long as it's safe, sane and consenual - absofraginglutely nothing
B) prostitution - absofraginglutely nothing [so long as the woman is doing it willingly]
i have to disagree. both of theese have such a negative effect on society, a lays the groundwork for **** like child abuse, and b has the side effects of propagating stds and typically involve organized crime. you honestly think that people are responsible enough to carry out that kind of behavior in a safe manor? not all humans are as bright as you and i you know :D
Originally posted by mikhael
About a year ago, the results of a study of twins raised in heterolingual vs homolingual environments were announced. They studied twins adopted by seperate families and compared the brains of homolingual twins (both twins were raised speaking the same language) and heterolingual twins (twins were raised speaking different languages). As a control, they studied twins who grew up in the same household.
In gross detail, non-seperated twins and homolingual twins showed similar structures in the linguistic centers of the brain. However, heterolingual twins showe differences in gross and fine detail in the structures of the linguistic centers of their brains.
If something as ephemeral as language can determine the physical structure of the brain then anything can. The root determiner of sexual identity and preference is likely to be something more complex than the mere structure of the brain, or genes themselves, or society, etc. There's too many fiddly bits here to even consider which one might contribute, really.
i dont really think you can compair homosexuality to language like that. language is something that has to be programmed in, homosexuality is something you either are or are not.
-
I was useing that as an example, kaz's evedence is also suportive of genetic factors playing an important role, even if it isn't completly conclusive.
-
i hope the rest of that post was sarcasm just like the last sentance
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i hope the rest of that post was sarcasm just like the last sentance
it is possible to be sarcastic and serious at the same time.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
i have to disagree. both of theese have such a negative effect on society, a lays the groundwork for **** like child abuse, and b has the side effects of propagating stds and typically involve organized crime. you honestly think that people are responsible enough to carry out that kind of behavior in a safe manor? not all humans are as bright as you and i you know :D
This thread isn't for that conversation. If you want, though, you and I can have a conversation in PM's or email about it. Let me just say your're completely wrong on point A and you're more than a bit wrong on point B, unless you limit your thinking entirely to the United States.
-
nuke ...sorry but... what kind of horsh shit responce was that? either you mean what you say or you don't.
-
Nah, he's right. "Ha ha, only serious" is valid. He can be sarcastic in tone and still stand by what he said.
It doesn't change the fact that he's wrong.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
i have to disagree. both of theese have such a negative effect on society, a lays the groundwork for **** like child abuse, and b has the side effects of propagating stds and typically involve organized crime. you honestly think that people are responsible enough to carry out that kind of behavior in a safe manor? not all humans are as bright as you and i you know :D
so maybey i was a little bit bad when i insulted the intelegence af a majority of the human race. perhaps youve mistaken me for a uber libral with good mental health. i might be a little bit libral but im no extremist. and yes this is based on my limited view of the situation in the us. call me wrong, i do not care. uber liberals have the tendancy of overestimating the capabilities of individuals..
-
Nuff said. Let him have his opinion.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
perhapes haveing a homosexual in your family does, or at one time did, provide some sort of evolutionary advantage.
There's a huge evolutionary advantage to having homosexuals in your family group... just not for the homosexuals. In social groups led by a breeding pair (which is the norm for most social animals, though not always, I believe, true of the more intelligent ones), they provide all the benefits of additional members of the pack - assisting in food gathering, assisting with defense, assising with communal offspring raising etc. etc., but they will never challenge the leaders for breeding rights.
That said, I don't see how it could be carried through the generations, as it's clearly a genetic disadvantage not to be able to reproduce.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
lol black
SadisticSid: there are a lot of people here in the US that subscribe to that **** - 38 states have passed state laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying
Those states are within their rights to do so.(although case law might indicate differently) However, those same states have to respect any other state mariage according to interstate compact. That said from a libertarian perspective these people should be free to do as they please including getting marrying whom ever they please regaurdless of a "right to privacy."
-
Well, whether or not it serves an evolutionary advantage, I do find it significant that homosexuality is by no means exclusive to humans.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
However, those same states have to respect any other state mariage according to interstate compact.
Actually, Clinton signed off on a bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) that basically threw that one out. States do NOT have to recognize marriages formed in other states that are deemed illegal locally.
-
Alright, guys, take a deep breath and repeat after me: there's no such thing as "hatespeech".
People do not, and should not, have the right not to be insulted, belittled, mocked and demonized. If I met Hitler on the street, I would beat him to death, but I would not forbid him to hand out pamphlets or speak on the street corner.
They have every right not to be physically assaulted, to be granted the same freedoms under the law as everyone else, to participate in the democratic system etc etc. Speech is not, and in my eyes will never be - must never be - a crime.
If I saw Hitler on the street, I would beat him to death, but I would not forbid him to hand out pamphlets and give speeches.
Oh, what? You all saw that coming.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
If I saw Hitler on the street, I would beat him to death, but I would not forbid him to hand out pamphlets and give speeches.
I'd be interested to know your definition of "forbid".
-
Disallow through the use of state authorized force, the threat of force, state sanctioned legal action, the threat of legal action or by not affording him proper protection provided to all citizens from attacks on his person or property.
If you want to get technical about it.
-
he wouldn't do anything to his undead zombie corpse after it came back after he killed him.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Disallow through the use of state authorized force, the threat of force, state sanctioned legal action, the threat of legal action or by not affording him proper protection provided to all citizens from attacks on his person or property.
If you want to get technical about it.
So technically he isn't being deprived of his right to free expression because the force being used against him is not state authorized. I like it!
-
"or by not affording him proper protection provided to all citizens from attacks on his person or property."
Which means they would have to protect him if anyone tried to lynch him, or set his booth on fire or whatever.
-
So really what you mean to say is, if you saw Hitler in the street, you would beat him to death, but you would demand that you be arrested for your infringement of his rights.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, Clinton signed off on a bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) that basically threw that one out. States do NOT have to recognize marriages formed in other states that are deemed illegal locally.
Ok, so he signed an unconstitutional bill. just because there is a bill or law passed doesn't make it legal.
-
but it is legaly binding untill it's throughen out.
-
Yes it is legally binding and another example of the Clinton Legacy. But, what I don't get is, if Bill Clinton is so smart, why would be have signed an obviously unconstitutional bill into law.
-
to appease the conservtives.
-
that and the fact he is from Arkansas...
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
There's a huge evolutionary advantage to having homosexuals in your family group... just not for the homosexuals. In social groups led by a breeding pair (which is the norm for most social animals, though not always, I believe, true of the more intelligent ones), they provide all the benefits of additional members of the pack - assisting in food gathering, assisting with defense, assising with communal offspring raising etc. etc., but they will never challenge the leaders for breeding rights.
That said, I don't see how it could be carried through the generations, as it's clearly a genetic disadvantage not to be able to reproduce.
The only reason i could think of it being carried would be societal pressure (i.e. against homosexuality and thus to form - unwillingly - hetereosexual relationships as 'cover'). But i'm not sure that'd explain the gene occuring across pretty much the entire spectrum of human ethnicity/area, as AFAIK in order to do that it'd have to have mutated at a fairly early stage in human development and one which probably(?) was before the existance of such societal pressures.
The other thing I was thinking about was the existance of homosexuality in animals; that's highly unlikely to be spread by breeding (for obvious reasons; unless it's non-exclusive sexual preference, I guess) IMO, but there's also no societal factors I can think of to account for it either.
Oh, and RE: xq27 I had a wee rummage out of curiosity and found some stuff (originally pdf files, textified by google - so hopefully this'll be readable to you lot)
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:AZUvkEF7RtYJ:ibgwww.colorado.edu/~rhee/Study%2520Guide%2520for%2520Exam%25204.pdf+Xq27+homosexuality&hl=en&client=firefox-a
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:_d9Pood-DUQJ:etda.libraries.psu.edu/theses/approved/WorldWideFiles/ETD-209/Thesis_M_DuPree_10_3.pdf+Xq27+homosexuality+female&hl=en&client=firefox-a
(huge one; probably more relevant. )
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
but from my POV homosexsuals are sick people (damaged gene) and therefor deserve compassion, not hatered.
[color=66ff00]Why?
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Why?
[/color]
I think he's one of those hard-core christiany people who can't balance the sort of sense of charity and compassion I also heard (I did go to Sunday School when I was young - till I was given a choice ;) ) with condemning a group of people as sinful for nothing more than who they are.
The way I see it is... it's easier on your conscience to say people are 'sick' or damaged.
Firstly it means you can justify treating them differently to other human beings. Shunning them, for example.
Secondly it means you don't have to confront the fact that you're a lot like them and it may very well just be societal pressures that make the difference.
Thirdly, it means you don't have to worry about working to accept people as they are; you can place blind faith that a 'cure' will be found and thus avoid dealing with your own bigotry.
Finally, I think it means that you don't have to examine your own reasons for hating those people (you don't label other normal people as defective without hate, after all); you can just say 'they're wrong' without having to answer why. Because most people, in my experience with threads here, can't give a proper 'why' for it. Hell, I used to be somewhat homophobic (simply because other people/society/community - i.e. at school - was) until I thought about it and realised how stupid and unjustified it was.
TrashMan once called me and some other people 'extremists' for calling for equal rights for civilly married gay couples, IIRC.
-
[color=66ff00]I had assumed so but I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth so to speak.
The fantastic thing about the 'gay people are born wrong' argument is that surely God made them that way on purpose, him being the creator of the universe and everything in it etc. etc.
Thus it would stand to reason that not only is God not against being gay, he fully endorses it. Any counter argument in reference to this fact simply means that you're attempting to thwart God's divine plan and that you are in fact, evil.
[/color]
-
I like that one. We should tell Pat Buchanan or Robertson or whoever that ****wit was. 'Dark land full of homosexuals' indeed.
-
hey nuke - the thoughtless use of ad hominem ["uber liberals"] to describe people who are not acting like bigots earns you a flogging
[edit]
something i meant to post last night [when the thread was two pages shorter]
Originally posted by aldo_14
Don't confuse gay marriage with fair rights to gay partners, though. The issue of being married in a church is kind of a side issue to that of, for example, having the spousal privelges extended to married couples.
um... "gay marriage" isn't "married in a church" and anyone who thinks that legalizing gay marriage would force churchs to marry them needs to be smacked for not using their brain.
"gay marriage" is GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE - ie extending all those spousal rights
-
Originally posted by Kazan
[edit]
something i meant to post last night [when the thread was two pages shorter]
um... "gay marriage" isn't "married in a church" and anyone who thinks that legalizing gay marriage would force churchs to marry them needs to be smacked for not using their brain.
"gay marriage" is GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE - ie extending all those spousal rights
I was making the definition between civil marriage - i.e. the legal framework of spousal priveleges - and religious marriage. In the UK, i.e. where Sid and myself are IIRC, there's an existing civil union system that covers non married but long term couples and also gay couples (but which can be considered as equating to 'civil marriage'). I felt that, given the context of his post (specifically mentioning the extension of gay rights, which can be said to be covered by the civil union concept and term) that he might have been referring to marriage within the religious context.
There is, I think, a tendency to equate marriage to the religious ceremony, hence my use of it - within that context, as qualified by the 'married within a church' - as an abstract contrast. I felt it would be clearer to deliniate the word marriage and the concept of civil unions seperately to avoid ambiguity over the former.
That, and save myself the effort of having to qualify every use of the word as being within either its legal or religious state. I think the entymology of marriage might actually include a religious component or a specific heterosexual origin (can someone clarify the meaning of 'maritus' for me?), anyways.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'd say that's complete bollocks, but I'm off to bed justnow. I'm sure someone will point out the lack of any 'gay gene' (plus wonder exactly how such a gene would exist for thousands of years across both sexes), the lack of any implication this gene is 'damaging' in a measurable way (i.e. in order to be classified as 'sick' or genetically disordered), and incidences of homosexuality in bonobos(SP?), sheep, and other wild animals.
I recall reading about some experiments preformed on mice. The researches damadged a gene on purpose (don't recall what that gene name was) in one group and they left the other group alone.
The mice with the damaged gene started avoiding the opposite sex and constatnly spent time with their own.. and exibited other..behaviour.
It appears that we humans have the same gene as do all (or most) mammals.
However, this research is still in early stages so we have to wait for the final results.
Be it as it may, it does provide a very logical explanation to homosexual behaviour...
Fistrly gay people normally say that it's not their choce but that they were born that way and tehy can't help it but being as they are.
Second, it allso explains why it isn't an inherant feature.
-
Yes trashman but that doesn't excuse the usag eof the word "sick"
they're different - their genetic difference isn't retarding normal development: it's making their normal development different.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I recall reading about some experiments preformed on mice. The researches damadged a gene on purpose (don't recall what that gene name was) in one group and they left the other group alone.
The mice with the damaged gene started avoiding the opposite sex and constatnly spent time with their own.. and exibited other..behaviour.
It appears that we humans have the same gene as do all (or most) mammals.
However, this research is still in early stages so we have to wait for the final results.
Be it as it may, it does provide a very logical explanation to homosexual behaviour...
Fistrly gay people normally say that it's not their choce but that they were born that way and tehy can't help it but being as they are.
Second, it allso explains why it isn't an inherant feature.
I'm not sure that's correct, because there is already a myriad of evidence indicating that sexual orientation is not dependent upon genetics. For example, the earlier study by Hamer citing X28 as a 'gay' gene has been examined in 3 further studies. 2 shown a much weaker correlation, the 3rd none atall. One studied twins - genetically identical - and found a 52% rate at which both were gay. Fraternal brothers (i.e. not genetically identical) had a 22% rate where both were gay. Whilst there is a significant gap between 52 and 22%, it's not large enough to indicate genetics are solely responsible.
I think there was also a severe statistical flaw in the original experiment in that Hamers experiment lacked a heterosexual control group (the subjects were 40 gay brothers - all male - some twins and some not); also that experiment had 7 pairs of the brothers not coinheriting the x28 gene (which at the very least indicates it would not be the sole genetic reason).
AFAIK the current general 'conclusion' (i.e. all that is known) is that a combination of genetic factors can influence the development of sexual identity and orientation, but that the effect of environment is cannot be ruled out as a significant factor in the latter.
Can you actually elaborate on said experiment with the mice (particularly what 'other behaviour' means? All I've found so far is an experiment to try and 'breed' behaviour into a set of 8 groups of mice, divided between environments. In that experiment, it was found that behaviour was determined by environment above genetics, so obviously isn't what you mean. Other risk is in interpreting results; whether or not the behavioural result of a genetic change is actual homosexuality is a matter of interpretation and guesswork.
Of course, the existence of a gay gene doesn't make it a defect or illness any more than having, say, genes for ginger hair does. Implying having different genes makes one sick or diseased is obviously complete rubbish, as we all have some degree of variance in genetics.
In fact, I'd argue that whether or not homosexuality has a genetic basis is irrelevant (my personal hope is that there is not a genetic basis simply because you'd have some warped nutters preaching eugenics). Classification as it as a defect or illness, however, is wrong regardless.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I think the entymology of marriage might actually include a religious component or a specific heterosexual origin (can someone clarify the meaning of 'maritus' for me?), anyways.
This was the best I could find:
Marriage (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=marriage&searchmode=none)
Marry (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry)
It says nothing about a religious reference in the word, just some sort of union, possibly between a man and woman, doesn't completely clarify, could just be anyone.
-
the catholic church sanctified homosexual marriages in the 3rd century.. and that's just a christian example - there are much much older examples of homosexuality and bisexuality being acceptable
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Alright, guys, take a deep breath and repeat after me: there's no such thing as "hatespeech".
People do not, and should not, have the right not to be insulted, belittled, mocked and demonized. If I met Hitler on the street, I would beat him to death, but I would not forbid him to hand out pamphlets or speak on the street corner.
They have every right not to be physically assaulted, to be granted the same freedoms under the law as everyone else, to participate in the democratic system etc etc. Speech is not, and in my eyes will never be - must never be - a crime.
If I saw Hitler on the street, I would beat him to death, but I would not forbid him to hand out pamphlets and give speeches.
Oh, what? You all saw that coming.
I'm with you on this one, Rictor. I think hatespeech laws are every bit as screwed up as the ideas they're supposed to protect people from.
-
If speech is intended to convey imminent threat from one person to another then one of the people is abusing their right to freespeech - abuses are not protected expressions.
-
Issuing a threat, one person to another, is assault in most, if not all, jurisdictions. Its already covered, and extra laws are unncecessary.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]
The fantastic thing about the 'gay people are born wrong' argument is that surely God made them that way on purpose, him being the creator of the universe and everything in it etc. etc.
Thus it would stand to reason that not only is God not against being gay, he fully endorses it. Any counter argument in reference to this fact simply means that you're attempting to thwart God's divine plan and that you are in fact, evil.
[/color]
God also makes people who have the urge to rape, murder, and have sex with children. therefore God must also fully endorse these above crimes
... just wanted to point out how void your point was.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
God also makes people who have the urge to rape, murder, and have sex with children. therefore God must also fully endorse these above crimes
... just wanted to point out how void your point was.
There is no rape, murder or paedophile gene AFAIK. So your comparison is surely moot.
EDIT; given that Maegs point related to the existance of a gene predelicting homosexuality
Originally posted by EtherShock
This was the best I could find:
Marriage (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=marriage&searchmode=none)
Marry (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry)
It says nothing about a religious reference in the word, just some sort of union, possibly between a man and woman, doesn't completely clarify, could just be anyone.
I think it was that latter bit;
rom maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman
That I saw used in relation to maritus.
Which is all very oblique and somewhat irrelevant, I recognise. IMO marriage is possibly more associated with the church aspect, but then again it's also synonymous with the civil registry aspect too, so I dunno.
Hopefully my earlier meaning was clear enough, though.
-
aldo: I don't think it's really a great mystery. Formal religion evolved out of tribal rites, and as such was not intended to adhere to a modern sense of logic. You can't reconcile religion with reason, and that's not something I fault it for. It's just not part of the job description. The answer is not "We do this and this because it makes sense" but rather "We do this and this because that's the way it supposed to be done". I hear people trying to debate in favour of creationism or against homosexuality using rational arguementation, and I can't help but think that they completely miss the point. The reason why it's such a controversial thing right now is because, in a nushell, the people who sacrifice oxen to the appease the gods and the people who don't are trying to sit down and agree on a world view. Which, needless to say, is a bit tricky.
It's part and parcel of being human. I would not support extending reason to every sphere of life, because in my opinion it would be the end of humanity as such. You take the good, you take the bad.
-
Don't think what's really a great mystery?
-
Why people hold the views that they do. Sorry, I was reffering to your last post on Page 3.
-
K. My page view is different, so I have no idea which post you mean :)
It's not so much that a mystery, I guess, in the reasons why they hold them, I just don't understand it (why they chose those reasons) personally in certain cases.
-
Rictor logic should be extended to all spheres of life it belongs in [ie factual things, decision making, etc] - and emotion should be left to where it belongs [love]
-
Originally posted by Stealth
God also makes people who have the urge to rape, murder, and have sex with children. therefore God must also fully endorse these above crimes
... just wanted to point out how void your point was.
[color=66ff00]What aldo said.
Also I wasn't making a point on my own behalf, I was simply pointing out that the fundies have to accept that they could be wrong if the 'disease' as they call it is genetic.
More simple logic than anything else.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor logic should be extended to all spheres of life it belongs in [ie factual things, decision making, etc] - and emotion should be left to where it belongs [love]
[/B]
You must really love the Christian Right.
-
ford you cannot tell me that you haven't seen my rantings in the past?
If i were to discover FTL travel i would take atheists/agnostics to comprise my settlers and fleet officers and i would proceed to blockade all exit from Sol
-
Yes, indeed I have. They are very logical rants, totally devoid of any of that irrational emotion that has no place in such spheres of life.
-
indeed and what most people don't see is as strongly logic-based i am in places where appropriate i am just as strongly emotion-based in the [relatively] few places emotion is appropriate
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Yes, indeed I have. They are very logical rants, totally devoid of any of that irrational emotion that has no place in such spheres of life.
:lol:
Kazan, whilst I more or less support you in this topic... owned. :lol:
-
Black Wolf: only 'owned' if you interpret it to mean that I should use emotion where it doesn't belong.
-
I meant that it was funny, and that it was appropriate, and that it turned your own words against you in a beautifully orchestrated bit of posting.
That's owned enough for me :D
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Yes, indeed I have. They are very logical rants, totally devoid of any of that irrational emotion that has no place in such spheres of life.
:lol:
Regardless of all ensuing malarky, I have to admit I very nearly pissed myself laughing at that :)
-
oh i get it now.. sailed over my head at first
being annoyed with another person for their lack of reasoning is one of the places were emotion is appropriate :D
but you have to have a logical reason to be annoyed at them.
if you follow me
-
Originally posted by Nuke
first id like to point out that the story of sodom and gamorah or however its spelled, is one of the most misinterpreted stories in the bible. its still the primary referance used for anti-gayness from the religious perspective. the story states that the people of the two cities are full of sin, yet in seems intentionally vauge about what those sins are. the part where the angry crowd was trying to "know" the angels, makes me think the people more or less wanted to wintess a miricle than get laid. it is the offering of the virgin daughters that tend to give people the idea that the story had anything to do with sexuality.... i find it appaling that certain versions of the bible replace the line "to know them" with "to have intercourse with them".... then you still have factors of language translation and any editing that may have occured durning cannonization.
First of all, it's not the primary reference - there are very clear passages concerning homosexual relations, but I'll get to those further down.
In Biblical Hebrew, the word "know" (l'da'at in the infinitive) means to have sexual intercourse. It is not just from this passage, but from many many others as well. If you want I can give you references, but suffice it to say for now that there are plenty of instances of "and what's-his-name knew what's-her-face, and she was with child".
Originally posted by Nuke
i also think it is wrong to label gay people as sinners. to call somone a sinner seems to be rather offensive to some people, gay christians for example. iirc the bible seems to say more about leaving judgments up to god than it does about being gay. if being gay was so bad you would find more referances to it in the bible, and in far less vauge context. it seems less sinfull to be gay, yet have an honest relationship, than it would to be a straight cheater. it seems also to be a violation of rights to deny people the right to an intimite relationship, simply on the grounds of homosexuality. the church saying its ok to be gay, so long as you dont have sex, seems rather unfair.
From where I stand, the Bible seems very clear on the issue. I refer you to the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality) (of all things! :lol: ) concerning the Bible and Homosexuality, to make your own decision.
Originally posted by Kazan
the catholic church sanctified homosexual marriages in the 3rd century.. and that's just a christian example - there are much much older examples of homosexuality and bisexuality being acceptable
Please don't use the words "Catholic Church" and "Christian" in the same sentence in an interchangable manner. It makes me sad. And shuddery. :shaking:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Yes trashman but that doesn't excuse the usag eof the word "sick"
Alzheimers is allso caused by a damaged gene as I recall. Don't we call is a sickness too?
I think the entymology of marriage might actually include a religious component or a specific heterosexual origin (can someone clarify the meaning of 'maritus' for me?), anyways.
Marriage was first a spiritual thing. It came from faith in god (gods) and as such from the begining was defined as a bond(community) between husband and wife.
Now personally I would like some other word to be used for gay marriages since by the very definiton it's not mariage anyway. Maby klong? Or garige?
-
Sandwich the Catholic Church is a form of Christianity..
don't like it? too farking bad
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
There is no rape, murder or paedophile gene AFAIK. So your comparison is surely moot.
EDIT; given that Maegs point related to the existance of a gene predelicting homosexuality
the point ain't moot.
you forget just as God gave us genes wiht possibiity of mutation and thus difference, he allso gave us free will with the possibility to choose both right and wrong.
Does that mean he wants us to do wrong?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
There is no rape, murder or paedophile gene AFAIK. So your comparison is surely moot.
EDIT; given that Maegs point related to the existance of a gene predelicting homosexuality
Is it? Think about it.
Scientists have discovered genes that they believe are responsible for Downs Syndrome. Does that mean God meant for some people to never be able to live a normal life? How about all the other mutations due to unnatural genes/chromosomes/etc.
I'm sure if you look at the baddest of the bad, the obsessed murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc... that there's some genetic defect SOMEWHERE in them. only reason no one's found it is because that's not as big as a "problem" or "issue" as it is with homsexuals.
-
*Resists urge to get into philosophical debate over the existence of free will.*
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Please don't use the words "Catholic Church" and "Christian" in the same sentence in an interchangable manner. It makes me sad. And shuddery. :shaking:
Funny, because the Catholic Church is the universal church descended straight from the disciples.
It's the body that interpreted the teachings for decades (or even a century in some cases) before they were written down into a finalized form, which led to the determined canon.
But then again, a true believer would state that only the un-corrupted truths were passed down into the canon. However, common sense dictates that the source material has been changed severely.
One thing you have to credit the Muslims for is Mohammad's insistence in not translating or changing his teachings.
* * *
"Free will" is a misconception. All things (minus the pink unicorn concept of an omniscient and omnipotent being) have a limited set of actions and reactions to stimulii.
The ability for humans to have a wide range of actions due to complex symbols and tool use simply make the overall pattern of behavior harder to see.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Alzheimers is allso caused by a damaged gene as I recall. Don't we call is a sickness too?
I do not think you should compare apples to oranges -- a medical condition (Alzheimer's) and a human sexual pattern (homosexuality). It will never make sense.
Alzheimer's a disease is the most common cause of dementia in older adults. There are 4 genes thought to be responsible for the cause of the disease. However, scientists still can't say genetic defect is to blame for causing Alzheimer's. People with Down Syndrome do have a higher risk of getting the disease, but those patients get a lot of other diseases too. So, please remember not to use Alzheimer's a genetic disease either.
-
/agree Ace about free will
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Is it? Think about it.
Scientists have discovered genes that they believe are responsible for Downs Syndrome. Does that mean God meant for some people to never be able to live a normal life? How about all the other mutations due to unnatural genes/chromosomes/etc.
I'm sure if you look at the baddest of the bad, the obsessed murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc... that there's some genetic defect SOMEWHERE in them. only reason no one's found it is because that's not as big as a "problem" or "issue" as it is with homsexuals.
Your genetic meterials make you a human; How you learn and behave makes you who you are.
-
You could say being overly tall is a disease; your metabolism is generally higher and as such you're less likely to live as long as people of average height. But I don't think all the 6'7"+s in the world see it that way - there's a definite plus in sex appeal, regardless of sex, for one. Branding homosexuality in the same way is equally silly.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Scientists have discovered genes that they believe are responsible for Downs Syndrome. Does that mean God meant for some people to never be able to live a normal life? How about all the other mutations due to unnatural genes/chromosomes/etc.
Well apart from the obvious answer that maybe their is no God it seems pretty likely that God must have intended that. With no evolution there is no need for God to have created mutation. So therefore no Down's Syndrome.
Unless of course God wanted genetic mutations to occur.
Originally posted by Stealth
I'm sure if you look at the baddest of the bad, the obsessed murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc... that there's some genetic defect SOMEWHERE in them. only reason no one's found it is because that's not as big as a "problem" or "issue" as it is with homsexuals.
Are you seriously claiming that if you took someone with none of those genetic defects and physically and mentally abused them to near breaking point you could never ever turn them into a murderer, rapist or pedophile?
Incidentally when there was a discussion over homosexuality a year or so back you produced all kinds of spurious research to back your claim that there was no such thing as the "gay gene" and that homosexuality was 100% down to choice/nurture. Just out of interest why the change of heart?
Also if their is a "gay gene" which causes people who have it to be gay why is being gay a sin?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Alzheimers is allso caused by a damaged gene as I recall. Don't we call is a sickness too?
Altzheimers is provatively damaging to the individual, though. That's the difference between genetic disorders or genetically inherited (be is causual or simply increased risk) and behvioural traits like sexuality.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Marriage was first a spiritual thing. It came from faith in god (gods) and as such from the begining was defined as a bond(community) between husband and wife.
Now personally I would like some other word to be used for gay marriages since by the very definiton it's not mariage anyway. Maby klong? Or garige?
Technically, marriage most likely came from human prehistory; as human children are born relatively helpless, they require parental care to survive. It's probable that the concept of marriage arisen as a way of cementing this requirement through a social context, possibly due to intermingling of tribes (i.e. the threat that male parents might follow the instinct to 'spread' their seed with another genetically diverse population). That latter part is of course conjecture, but i'm sure most anthropoligists would place the emergence of marriage as in institution within religion as occuring after the societal trait of dual parenting.
Originally posted by TrashMan
the point ain't moot.
you forget just as God gave us genes wiht possibiity of mutation and thus difference, he allso gave us free will with the possibility to choose both right and wrong.
Does that mean he wants us to do wrong?
If you're arguing that genes are responsible for behaviour, then evidently so - if you consider homosexuality wrong. If your considering it as learned behaviour, then the definition of 'wrong' is based entirely on personal prejudice and it also rules out any definition of being a 'sickness'.
Originally posted by Stealth
Is it? Think about it.
Scientists have discovered genes that they believe are responsible for Downs Syndrome. Does that mean God meant for some people to never be able to live a normal life? How about all the other mutations due to unnatural genes/chromosomes/etc.
I'm sure if you look at the baddest of the bad, the obsessed murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc... that there's some genetic defect SOMEWHERE in them. only reason no one's found it is because that's not as big as a "problem" or "issue" as it is with homsexuals.
Downs syndrome and the like, as I said before, are provatively damaging. We can prove them as being defects with the normal operation of the human body. Unless you clasify it as a mental defect - which is sheer bigotry as no qualified pyschiatrist does - it's not comparable.
AFAIK I know there is not, nor has ever been a genetic cause for serious crime. There have been studies, and to the best of my knowledge they have always determined crime to be due more to environment than any genetic factor.
The danger is that you are implicitly suggesting eugenics, and furthermore I hope you're not intentionally equating homosexuality to that sort of crime (although I would be amused as it's sort of relevant to the very first post of this topic, if you read the link).
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Downs syndrome and the like, as I said before, are provatively damaging. We can prove them as being defects with the normal operation of the human body. Unless you clasify it as a mental defect - which is sheer bigotry as no qualified pyschiatrist does - it's not comparable.
AFAIK I know there is not, nor has ever been a genetic cause for serious crime. There have been studies, and to the best of my knowledge they have always determined crime to be due more to environment than any genetic factor.
The danger is that you are implicitly suggesting eugenics, and furthermore I hope you're not intentionally equating homosexuality to that sort of crime (although I would be amused as it's sort of relevant to the very first post of this topic, if you read the link).
i used downs syndrome to get you to see that you can't say that just because someone's born a certain way, that God "endorses" it
this has moved off anything "relevant to the very first post of this topic"... it's become another "homosexuality" discussion
-
Originally posted by Stealth
i used downs syndrome to get you to see that you can't say that just because someone's born a certain way, that God "endorses" it
this has moved off anything "relevant to the very first post of this topic"... it's become another "homosexuality" discussion
Down's Syndrome isn't a valid comparator as it's known to be damaging (i.e. correctly qualifiable as an illness) with measurable learning and physical disabilities.
We're talking about the validity of behaviour, after all. Not physical form If you want to compare something to homosexuality, I guess it needs to be behavioural and known to be genetic. Comparing to a serious crime, or to a known disease, is like comparing apples to oranges. Of course, if you view mankind as created by God, then surely anything determined by that design would be Gods' will?
I mean, AFAIK there's nothing in the Bible that says God deliberately makes people born to be sinful.
EDIT; I think it is relevant when people are saying homosexuals are 'sick' and drawing implicit comparisons to either severe illness or serious crimes.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Altzheimers is provatively damaging to the individual, though. That's the difference between genetic disorders or genetically inherited (be is causual or simply increased risk) and behvioural traits like sexuality.
Oh..I dunno.
How would you call a biological "quirk" that prevents an individual from functioning "normally" in all areas?
If you're arguing that genes are responsible for behaviour, then evidently so - if you consider homosexuality wrong. If your considering it as learned behaviour, then the definition of 'wrong' is based entirely on personal prejudice and it also rules out any definition of being a 'sickness'.
I don't think it's a learned behavior. The sorrounding might have some influennce, but I belive ti's negligable. After all, I think most homosexuals come from normal families and inviroments..
And I don't thinks sexual attraction is something you can learn, since it's a biological process in the first place...
Like chemichal reacton to pheromones for instance.
Downs syndrome and the like, as I said before, are provatively damaging. We can prove them as being defects with the normal operation of the human body. Unless you clasify it as a mental defect - which is sheer bigotry as no qualified pyschiatrist does - it's not comparable.
Question is - is the body functioning normally? Like I said, sexual attraction is a biological process. For someone to be attracted to the same sex SOMETHING has to working wrong.
-
Part of the problem with that is that you consider it something that's working wrong, not just working differently. There is certainly something physically different, though I doubt it's genetic, about homosexuals (though don't overemphesize pheremones, as they play very little roll in the human attration due, in no small part, to the volume of chemicals we immerse ourselves in daily) but they are just different. Not damaged.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much of the anti-gay-marriage camp, but I don't think they deserve substandard rights. What I'd like to see (in an ideal world) that would essentially solve that problem is a case where mariage was not a state institution, but rather replaced by a civil union (uncouple the word, shrug off almost all of the foundation of the opposition) but have marriage require, and thus imply, a civil union.
I, however, do not personally like to be reminded that someone is gay. The effiminate voice or motions are one thing, fine. You're not bothering me with that. But don't run around in a skirt singing "My Guy" as loud as you can when "your guy" isn't even there. It's a fine and very grey line between just being and forcing others to acknowledge your way of life, but it's a line that I can't stand once crossed.
-
StrattComm so since you're offended by refereces to their way of life you should not make any references to yours around them
otherwise you're setting up a double standard
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Oh..I dunno.
How would you call a biological "quirk" that prevents an individual from functioning "normally" in all areas?
I'm not sure; are you defining homosexuality as being that? Because it's not; the brain functions normally (motor skills, learning, cognition), and the body functions normally. The only difference is sexual attraction, but that's something which varies hugely across people anyways (in terms of the type of people we are attracted). Certainly, there is no damage caused to the individual, unless you care to quantify one.
(If you want to be anal about it, then there is probably no such thing as a 'normal' person in terms of individual behaviour. )
I'll note the use of 'normal' (the implication being that homosexuals are abnormal) chimes in with the link in the first post.
I don't think it's a learned behavior. The sorrounding might have some influennce, but I belive ti's negligable. After all, I think most homosexuals come from normal families and inviroments..
And I don't thinks sexual attraction is something you can learn, since it's a biological process in the first place...
Like chemichal reacton to pheromones for instance.
Not learned as such; caused by environmental factors. Most scientific evidence so far AFAIK supports an environmental role in sexual orientation, although the degree of possible genetic effect upon that is still to be determined.
Actually, chemical reactions can be formed. All learning is simply a process of strengthening the chemical bonds between neurons (i.e. each sensory input has a corresponding pattern of neuron firings) and the corresponding response of that pattern (you'll have to forgive me for not knowing the exact details offhand; this comes from some studying into neural networks so the biological info wasn't too detailed). Somewhat akin to the smell of hamburgers reminding person A of barbeques, and person B of napalmed bodies in Vietnam.
The issue of how predetermined sexual attraction is, and to what range it's an automatic response, is something I'd suggest is far beyond clear and possibly beyond the expertise of anyone here (unless we have a neurologist or similar) to definitively discuss.
Question is - is the body functioning normally? Like I said, sexual attraction is a biological process. For someone to be attracted to the same sex SOMETHING has to working wrong.
Why? Working different - does not equal working wrong.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
StrattComm so since you're offended by refereces to their way of life you should not make any references to yours around them
otherwise you're setting up a double standard
That's really only valid in the context of what I said if choosing to date women is construed to be equivalent to shoving that fact in gay people's faces. I don't do that and I have as much of an issue against straight people who shove it in the face of gays.
My point is that I never said exactly where I place that line. I never said I had a problem with public affection between homosexual individuals. (I am not particularly pleased by it, I'll admit, but I am in no way going to knock it unless it's done with the purpose of shoving it in my face.) I do however not particularly like most acts of affection of a similar nature from heterosexual people in public. And I certainly don't like it when someone goes around yelling "I'm Straight!" (or some symbolic equivalent). It's you who are assuming said bias exists, for I profess none of it. I can't help the way I feel about it personally, but it's my opinion and I am in no way intending to force, or even to persuade, anyone else to agree.
-
I didn't make an assumption because i gave you the option to backout and say that you weren't
-
I seriously don't get people.
Anyone - and I mean ANYONE who has any sort of an issue with Gay people. Why the gay people? All around you, are equally perverted, sadistic, evil, STUPID (caplocked because that's the most common one), ominous people - and out of all of them, you single out the GAY people to be the issue?
Wake the hell up and smell the crumbling of the human race. Start making the world better by shedding the imaginary boundaries your idiot parents/teachers taught you and start filtering information for yourself in a logical way.
Wait, I'm asking too much here.
I'm REALLY glad we aren't in the position to travel abysmal distances, and locate other life-forms in the distance of space. Then we'd be actually screwing with someone who'd want to obliterate us as a whole, because I'm quite sure we'd exhibit the same type of a behaviour we exhibit to eachother today. It would just be focused on the thing that separates us from what we call "normal" the most.
Bah, that's the end of my opinionated rant.
-
Can we stop lumping sadists in with bad people, please? Masochists either.
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sadist
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=masochist
both a little "off" but if it's only roleplayed, and consentual then it's fine
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Can we stop lumping sadists in with bad people, please? Masochists either.
No we can't. People who act on their primal impulses outside of normal boundaries aren't doing any good to anyone. Sadism isn't just sexual gratification from inflicting pain (although that's ****ed up enough as it is), it is an act of intentional cruelty.
Masochism isn't tied into my context, so I don't see the need for it to be brought up. That is, unless you think Sadism and Masochism are tied together all the time, in which case you would be mistaken.
The Sadism I'm talking about (which you should be able to derive from my context if you understood my easy-to-understand point) would be the... and this will be an extreme example just to illustrate the point - parents turning out cigarettes on their children. But any form of cruelty will suffice.
If you are unable to allow your sense of morality, being fairness and JUSTICE, to govern your surroundings and to primarily govern yourself with, you are doing a disservice to humanity.
Now we can parade around with the small talk of "Yeah, you say "Your sense of morality" Yeah, so my sense of morality is to hate homo's, ha ha, you're wrong!" - Good one there, got me. If your sense of justice and fairness includes intentional harm based on facts that do not concern you, Bravo! Do you want your medal now?
-
BlackDove: nothing wrong with it if it's consentual --- so that doesn't include your example there
-
Again, I'm not talking about consentsual. Consentsual is regulated, and what people do to eachother for PLEASURE is none of my buisness.
Read my posts until you get what I'm talking about.
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=consensual
see 2b
[bad spelling on my part]
-
Yes, I know what the word means, in all forms.
Again, that is what I'm exempting from my context. It doesn't play a role with what I associate the word with, in this particular discussion.
-
then you have to stop making blanket statements if you're allowing for that MAJOR exception
-
I'm not making blanket statements, and I've already said multiple times that I am allowing that exception.
-
As I'm talking about sadism and masochism in the context of safe, sane and consensual activity, stop lumping the concepts in unsafe, insane and nonconsensual activities. There. Am I quite bloody clear enough now?
-
Nobody cares what you are - I am the originator of the opinion, you commented on MY opinion.
If you're going to comment on my opinion, stick to the context.
-
Actually, if you'd like to pay attention, Blackdove, I'm the one that mentioned sadism and masochism in the first place. If you're going to comment on the topic I introduced, stick to the context.
-
so this homosexuality thing... why exactly is it bad? (i may have missed something out here.) other than the religious aspect. or is it not bad, outside religious context?
(from my point of view, thinking is as bad as doing, but then again, we're all bad in different ways, so why pick on the gays, the jews, the murderers, the thiefs, the... in fact the everyone who doesn't appear to be societally normal? no one's normal and everyone's bad. there we go, equality achieved. problem solved.)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, if you'd like to pay attention, Blackdove, I'm the one that mentioned sadism and masochism in the first place. If you're going to comment on the topic I introduced, stick to the context.
Topics grow, and shift. Nobody cares about what you said before, and I sure as hell didn't consult it in my post.
My original comment wasn't pertaining to anything you said. I didn't care about what you said before about sadism or masochism nor was I relating to it. I was expressing my opinion, and it happened to include my views on negative things, including sadism, which I defined for you in my context.
Trying to play my game doesn't work, since I never refered to your interpertations of sadism or masochism.
I would love to school you on how threads work, but that would be going completely off topic.
If you are going to comment incorrectly to something I've said, I will be happy to correct you, just as I'm doing now. If you don't, steer clear of my posts and continue to weave your own train of thought, and if I find myself commenting on your said post, I will try to have the decency to stick to YOUR context.
-
You win.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You win.
Thank you.
-
Good, now that the little diatribe is over, can we avoid linking sadism, masochism and other philias automatically with 'bad' behaviors, please? Thanks.
-
mikhael > blackdove
pwnd
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Sandwich the Catholic Church is a form of Christianity..
don't like it? too farking bad
That it may be, but it's a terrible representative of Christianity.
...Actually, I take that back. Catholocism is a good example ("good" referring to "example", not to them being "good"). Mainstream Christians aren't much better... ahh, look, you've gotten me into a rant on the state of people who profess to be "Christian" again... :rolleyes:
Let's just say that the Catholic Curch shouldn't be taken as any sort of example of the rest of Christianity... or what Christianity should be. For that, look to the persecuted Christians in China.
-
So far as I can tell, if you can't take the Catholic Church as an example of "Christianity", you can't take any sect as one. They're all screwy in some way.
Of course, this come from the perspective of someone who pretty much distrusts unreasoned faith in a dusty old tome.
-
Can someone actually tell me what the biblical reason for homosexuality being 'wrong' is?
Because I looked up the whole Sodom thing in wikipedia, and it's not entirely clear cut there; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah
Or the reasoning why for any religion; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Religion
Obviously I'm reading this from an entirely laymans perspective.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sadist
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=masochist
both a little "off" but if it's only roleplayed, and consentual then it's fine
so long as its kept private. everyone publicising their sex life will only jack up the rape/abuse rates. i like bsdm as much as the next person but that doesnt mean i want to see it happening at the bus stop. rape and abuse rates tend to be lesser in sexually repressed societies. victims of rape/abuse tend to have more abnormal sexual behavior than non-victims. so the root of sadisim and masochisim is product, directly or indirectly, of ill sexual behavior. for it to be displayed would be like saying its ok to rape people. same goes with gays, they should repress their sexual behavuior in public. i do not mean that they cannot declare their orentation in public in order to find a partner. in other words its ok to talk and look girlie, its ok to display gay symbols, but i dont wanna see any crotch grabbing. and i would hold straight people to the same standard. sex is a dangerous thing if not handeled properly, and most people cant do that. people seem more intrested in getting layed than marriage, the christians need to focus on the general lustfull behavior of society and stop singling out gays, gays need to take a hint from the black metal movment and start torching churches, the rest of the perverts can all go **** themselves.
-
Susrely in sexually repressed societies it just means rape reporting levels are lesser. I mean, if you take the hardcore Islamic societies, women can be stoned to death for adultery for being raped........ or raped as punishment for another relatives crime (as seen in a heavily publicised case in IIRC Pakistan).
Also using 'victims of rape/abuse tend to have more abnormal sexual behavior' comes dangerously close to blaming the victim. do you have any sort of statistical proof for that statement?
-
surely in sexually repressed societies, there would be less reporting of rape. but if there was a way to measure it accuratly you would find something similar to my assumption. mind you anything i say is speculation, as i tend to sheild my mind from data overdose. i perfer to be more abstract in my conclusions. as for mid-eastern sexual atrocities, i cannot trust any information because it would follow american biases and preconcpetions of mid-eastern life.
to referance the second part of your counter argument, im not trying to blame the victim for the problem. odd sexual behavior may be the only way that victims can have a healthy love life. but like i said, keep it private. as for my source, i remember hearing it from some mysteryous person, probibly my cat or one of my delusions.
-
aldo: http://www.aaets.org/arts/art31.htm, there are a few references in there. It can cause all sorts of psychological problems and unusual sexual behaviour can be a physical outlet for it. I'm not sure where one would get statistics from pertaining to victims becoming rapists themselves (it is an unusual statistic) but it's a fairly well known fact in psychology.
Should that excuse rapists though? Definitely not. Just because there are mitigating circumstances in one's life does not override the responsibility of free will.
-
Noooo... i mean their behaviour prior to abuse, not after. The implication was made that 'victims of rape/abuse tend to have more abnormal sexual behavior than non-victims' within the context of banning sadism / masochism and to me that implies them as a causal, not caused aspect of rape and abuse.
Obviously rapists, abusers, etc themselves are wrong in the head, though. IMO - I'm not sure of clinical support - rape in particular is seen to be more about power and dominance than the actual sex aspect of the crime. So i can see rapists (or those inclined to it) getting a kick out of S&M, but i'm not sure you could classify that as being causal to the act of rape, or simply an interest which arises from existing mental defect.
I know about the potential psychological effects of rape, and the general theory that the abused with be inclined to become abusers.
-
nuke actually your assumption is incorrect - the rape rate is unrelated to the sexual repression [rape is a power thing, not a sex thing]
however the more sexually repressed a society is the higher the tendancy for insanity
-
well that latter statment explains me :D
-
heh
-
I disagree with sexual repression. Do you have any idea how many people are so wound up because they haven't gotten laid in months/years? Sexual frustration, no one wants to be in that state.
I don't think repressing sexual behavior would make anything better. That's like taking a step backwards. I'm not saying let everyone play grab ass in public; people deserve respect, but I seriously doubt sex and crime are that interrelated. Rape and abuse are psychological issues. They can be caused by some catalyst in the past or learned behavior (particularly abuse). Solving these problems involves reporting it (which few do) identifying potentially risky behavior, and early intervention, the same you do for any kind of psychological problem. I don't think BDSM can be blamed for that. Besides, the people probably won't stand for it. I sure as hell wouldn't. If it turns your crank, that's fine with me, so long as both parties voluntarily participate.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
I don't think BDSM can be blamed for that.
and you think correctly
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Can someone actually tell me what the biblical reason for homosexuality being 'wrong' is?
Because I looked up the whole Sodom thing in wikipedia, and it's not entirely clear cut there; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah
Or the reasoning why for any religion; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Religion
Obviously I'm reading this from an entirely laymans perspective.
Like I said on the previous page:
Originally posted by Sandwich
From where I stand, the Bible seems very clear on the issue. I refer you to the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality) (of all things! :lol: ) concerning the Bible and Homosexuality, to make your own decision.
-
yeah and anyone who lives in the year 2005 CE should know better than to trust a book written and assmebled by human beings in the year 300 CE
-
[edit wrong thread]
-
Originally posted by Kazan
yeah and anyone who lives in the year 2005 CE should know better than to trust a book written and assmebled by human beings in the year 300 CE
I'll agree with that.
-
Um....sandwich;
[q]The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.[/q]
But, ok, fair enough. 'tis in the Bible then.
Still doesn't make it fair IMO to apply it to anyone who is, for example, non-christian. Or I guess any Christian who has a different interpretation of it (I mean, there must be some form of ambiguity if you have homosexual cardinals and bishoprs or whatever, surely?).
And, of course, I find holding people in, for lack of a better term, contempt because of an old and propagandized (for example, Revalations is IIRC widely regarded as being written to be anti-Nero propaganda) book to be wrong.
-
[edit] wrong thread :D
-
Originally posted by Kazan
yeah and anyone who lives in the year 2005 CE should know better than to trust a book written and assmebled by human beings in the year 300 CE
You know, Kazan... no offense, but I do mean this personally: you could stand to read the book of Proverbs and take some things to heart.
Then come back and tell me the Bible is irrelevant today. ;)
Aldo, the fact that there are homosexual bishops and cardinals and storks and whatnot in the church is one thing that makes me no longer consider those "Christian" sects to be very Christian, precisely because the Bible is clear on the issue. It's far too common to see Christians compromising on things in the Bible they find inconvenient or possible offensive. In an effort to be more "acceptable" to the secular world, they compromise on core values of their faith, and thus often generate ridicule of the very thing (their faith) they were trying to make appear palatable.
Sorry for the mini-rant, but this is a subject that ticks me off... blatant compromise in the church.
Anyway, regarding the validity of the Wikipedia article... I was referring to it mostly as a reference to the relevant Biblical passages, not as a well-written or trustworthy opinion piece. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
In an effort to be more "acceptable" to the secular world, they compromise on core values of their faith, and thus often generate ridicule of the very thing (their faith) they were trying to make appear palatable.
I don't care much for Religion, but I agree with that statement.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
You know, Kazan... no offense, but I do mean this personally: you could stand to read the book of Proverbs and take some things to heart.
Then come back and tell me the Bible is irrelevant today. ;)
i have read it, and it is irrelevant today - the absolute unmitigated hubris you display in assuming that i'm going to suddenly abandon all knowledge and logic and blindly warp words written in a book to try and make them sound true would be absolutely astounding if it weren't for the knowledge of human psychology i've acquired that explains in extreme detail just what religion is: an addiction
[edit]
to ignore to presumption you made in thinking i hadn't read the bible atleast once
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i have read it, and it is irrelevant today - the absolute unmitigated hubris you display in assuming that i'm going to suddenly abandon all knowledge and logic and blindly warp words written in a book to try and make them sound true would be absolutely astounding if it weren't for the knowledge of human psychology i've acquired that explains in extreme detail just what religion is: an addiction
[edit]
to ignore to presumption you made in thinking i hadn't read the bible atleast once
My apologies at presuming you haven't read it. I don't recall you ever mentioning that.
Anyway, all I was referring to were the numerous passages in Proverbs regarding wisdom, and the tendencies of those who have wisdom at "speaking softly", in the (paraphrased) words of a more recent famous person. ;)
-
Hm.. While yes, I am addicted to God... you could say religion is an addiction :D
"A local boy kicked me in the butt last week,
I just smiled at him and I turned the other cheek.
I really don't care, in fact I wish him well,
coause I'll be laughing my head off when he's burning in hell!"
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Aldo, the fact that there are homosexual bishops and cardinals and storks and whatnot in the church is one thing that makes me no longer consider those "Christian" sects to be very Christian, precisely because the Bible is clear on the issue. It's far too common to see Christians compromising on things in the Bible they find inconvenient or possible offensive. In an effort to be more "acceptable" to the secular world, they compromise on core values of their faith, and thus often generate ridicule of the very thing (their faith) they were trying to make appear palatable.
Sorry for the mini-rant, but this is a subject that ticks me off... blatant compromise in the church.
Anyway, regarding the validity of the Wikipedia article... I was referring to it mostly as a reference to the relevant Biblical passages, not as a well-written or trustworthy opinion piece. :)
If you and they can differ on such a fundamental issue of their faith, then it wouldn't be very fair to hold that faith against people, would it? When the whole set of rules, credences, etc differ so drastically amongst people professing to share it, surely it's not fair to hold those values over any other person?
(this bit below is sort of a general statement of my opinion on the matter)
i don't agree with the mentality that (for example) homosexuality is wrong, and I will try and challenge it where possible (same as any bias/attitude/prejudice I consider wrong; like racism or bigotry, for example); but that doesn't mean I don't respect the individual right to hold that view (I would be hypocritical to do so).
What I don't respect, is when people - and this isn't directed at you, just certain people, in general - try and hold that belief set upon the actions of other people of try to control those peoples rights to live a free life, when the only objection they have is one of personal morality.
To me, there can be seen as 2 types of wrongs which people try and legislate. One is 'proveable' wrongs, things where you can show actual harm or damage - i.e. the things that we find in existing law like murder, theft, etc. The other is personal belief, and IMO that's simply not legislatable as it implictly infringes the right to believe differently.
That's why I reject any argument against equal rights for homosexuals - including the civil right of marriage - when it has no basis beyond religion.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'm not sure; are you defining homosexuality as being that? Because it's not; the brain functions normally (motor skills, learning, cognition), and the body functions normally. The only difference is sexual attraction, but that's something which varies hugely across people anyways (in terms of the type of people we are attracted). Certainly, there is no damage caused to the individual, unless you care to quantify one.
(If you want to be anal about it, then there is probably no such thing as a 'normal' person in terms of individual behaviour. )
I'll note the use of 'normal' (the implication being that homosexuals are abnormal) chimes in with the link in the first post.
Brain function normally? Is it? If we know that sexual attraction is controled by the brain..
And while it's true that individuals have differnt preferences (I might like a slender brunette, you might like a plum read head, someone else like short-haired blonds) they re normally attracted to the same sex.
And yes, I do use the word "normal behavior" as in the one that should be aime for.
I don't care if someone get's offended. I'm tieed on walking on eggshells and weighing my every word just coause X or Y MIGHT get offended. [/quote]
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If you and they can differ on such a fundamental issue of their faith, then it wouldn't be very fair to hold that faith against people, would it? When the whole set of rules, credences, etc differ so drastically amongst people professing to share it, surely it's not fair to hold those values over any other person?
(this bit below is sort of a general statement of my opinion on the matter)
i don't agree with the mentality that (for example) homosexuality is wrong, and I will try and challenge it where possible (same as any bias/attitude/prejudice I consider wrong; like racism or bigotry, for example); but that doesn't mean I don't respect the individual right to hold that view (I would be hypocritical to do so).
What I don't respect, is when people - and this isn't directed at you, just certain people, in general - try and hold that belief set upon the actions of other people of try to control those peoples rights to live a free life, when the only objection they have is one of personal morality.
To me, there can be seen as 2 types of wrongs which people try and legislate. One is 'proveable' wrongs, things where you can show actual harm or damage - i.e. the things that we find in existing law like murder, theft, etc. The other is personal belief, and IMO that's simply not legislatable as it implictly infringes the right to believe differently.
That's why I reject any argument against equal rights for homosexuals - including the civil right of marriage - when it has no basis beyond religion.
But if someone who is fervently religious acknowledges that his belief does not point to a provable wrong, he is essentially acknowledging the weakness and insignificance of his entire belief system, which is not something most people will ever do.
-
Saying that the Bible is not to believed blindly or on faith is not the same thing as saying that it is irrelevant. Whilst I am neither Christian nor do I place much credence in the whole "word of God" thing, I find much that is relevant in the Bible. The writings of Siddhartha Buddha, Confucious, Mohammed, etc all have some pretty useful stuff too.
On the other hand, the parts of those writings that are relevant in the world today, I think, all have the same basic messages, so I can't see why anyone needs to buy into the whole faith thing anyway. Distill the useful, discard the fanciful and live by the result.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Brain function normally? Is it? If we know that sexual attraction is controled by the brain..
And while it's true that individuals have differnt preferences (I might like a slender brunette, you might like a plum read head, someone else like short-haired blonds) they re normally attracted to the same sex.
And yes, I do use the word "normal behavior" as in the one that should be aime for.
I don't care if someone get's offended. I'm tieed on walking on eggshells and weighing my every word just coause X or Y MIGHT get offended.
Again, you're relying upon a personal definition of what is and is not 'normal'. I'm not sure behaviour can even be categorised within a sense of 'normalcy' due to the inherent abstract nature of it.
If we go back to, for example, ancient Greece*, homosexuality was an accepted, natural part of the society there. It was recorded in the Karma Sutra in India; it's been recorded in Asia, Africa, the Pacific, the Americas and Europe. And in turn acceptance has varied hugely across these regions. To me that doesn't indicate it can be classed in terms of what is normal for a human being, but what a society considers normal. And that's an entirely seperate thing.
*pedastry was also an accepted behaviour in Greece; don't interpret this as being linked to the acceptability of homosexuality. We can prove this as wrong because of the issue of informed consent.
Granted, you can apply the arguement that it shows society can be wrong in retrospect; but if you do so it means anything accepted by society can be wrong in retrospect, such as eating red meat or living your life based on the Bible.
The issue of right and wrong in this case is simply proveable 'wrong' by form of damage. With 2 consenting adults and no inherent physical or mental damage, you can't define homosexuality as being definitevely wrong in that legal sense, regardless of personal or societal belief.
You can class behaviour as abnormal based on what are societal pressures, but then you'd have to acknowledge the logical extension that any person or group can be ostracised based on societal norms - blacks, jews, muslims, people who like fat people, etc.
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
But if someone who is fervently religious acknowledges that his belief does not point to a provable wrong, he is essentially acknowledging the weakness and insignificance of his entire belief system, which is not something most people will ever do.
That's probably true, yeah. That's why I think religious people should know it's not right to hold their beliefs over people that don't share them.
-
I wonder if kids are going to start getting dragged off to the walls of the cities and getting stoned to death for being disobedient and such anytime soon.
-
yes mikhael - that is true i should say it's "mostly irrelevant" and TrashMan if you have to walk on eggshells not to come off as a bigot and offend people then perhaps you need to re-evaluate your manner of thinking
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
And while it's true that individuals have differnt preferences (I might like a slender brunette, you might like a plum read head, someone else like short-haired blonds) they re normally attracted to the same sex.
people are normally righ handed, right? so, should we kill all lefties?
-
I hope not.
:nervous:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I hope not.
:nervous:
me neither. they'd face some hefty opposition, I might add.
-
DP
-
Mostly from the right side.
Ahahahahaha
I'll get me coat
-
oh trashman btw when i talked about addiction i meant at the biochemical level
-
what was this thread about, i forgot :D
-
The similarity of anti-homosexuality arguements to those used by the Nazis to discriminate against Jews, and the factual fallacy of both.
-
gay bashing == teh natzees
-
Originally posted by kode
people are normally righ handed, right? so, should we kill all lefties?
Who said anything about killing?
and being right handed or left handed is decided at young age - you learn it.
It doesn't affect beahaviour at all thouhg, sowhat's your point?
-
No. Right/left-handedness is at least partially genetic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_handed#Is_left-handedness_genetic.3F
Also, handedness does affect behavior, such as how a person writes. By your logic left-handed behavior is not normal and so left-handed people must be sick.
*revelation*
Ahhh! Stay away you lefties! :nervous:
-
Left handed people are sick!
-
I try to avoid all lefty things, and all lefty thinking. Yep.
On a more serious note, left handedness has been demonstrated in utero, so I'd hate to think what those mothers were doing to teach their kids to be lefties.
-
yeah those evil evil mothers!
-
Originally posted by kode
people are normally righ handed, right? so, should we kill all lefties?
What would you do with the ambidextrous?
-
Oh, ambidexterity would be fashionable among college kids, letting them explore their left-handedness in a way that didn't carry the full stigma. After all, they're still righties, right? They just use their left hands when they're at university.
-
....I love HLP. :lol:
-
Silence, lefty.
Remember that while we don't hate you because of your vile, sinful ways, we do resent you for not accepting the love of god... Gaius... ermm Sandwich... *cue Cylon music*
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Who said anything about killing?
and being right handed or left handed is decided at young age - you learn it.
It doesn't affect beahaviour at all thouhg, sowhat's your point?
it is not something you decide. in most cases, like mine, it's genetic, just like kamikaze said.
I can't remember you being this much of an idiot, though, I'm sorry to say. you just used to be really crappy at grammar. trust me, this isn't an improvement.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Oh, ambidexterity would be fashionable among college kids, letting them explore their left-handedness in a way that didn't carry the full stigma. After all, they're still righties, right? They just use their left hands when they're at university.
Bah, ambidexterites just can't make their mind up.
Um, seriously, they used to try and force people to write right-handedly, too....... it was discriminated against in earlier (i.e. Roman) times; latin for right handed is dexter, left handed is sinister. Ambiedexterous actually means 'both right'.
Genetic investigation has determined that, whilst not solely genetic, handedness (and indeed the dominant eye, and footedness - there's a belief the location of the language centre within the brain may be of impact here) is affected by genetics; the likelihood of a child being left handed increases if both parents are left handed.
-
Trust me, ambidexters can make up their minds. They just have more hands to make up their minds from. Will I write with my right hand today? Nah, lets use the left hand and get that whole right-brain artistic stuff going.... ;)
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
No. Right/left-handedness is at least partially genetic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_handed#Is_left-handedness_genetic.3F
Also, handedness does affect behavior, such as how a person writes. By your logic left-handed behavior is not normal and so left-handed people must be sick.
*revelation*
Ahhh! Stay away you lefties! :nervous:
No. Being right handed or left handed doesn't realyl change a thing.
Being gay is actually rather "unnatural" (as in - not good for your species as a whole despite it accurring in nature. Mutations/defecta are common in nature...but animals with those usually die rather fast..
A not must be taken to differ between homosexuality and homosexual behaviour. Is it a sin?
Well, actually being gay? If it's genetic then no. If it's not, then probably.
But while anyone can have distinct urges he doesn't have to follow them - the best thing about a humn mind. Any normal man will turn after a goiod looking woman and will of course be tempted to "try her on for size".
buthe can simply say no. So can gay pople.
so there is a difference between feeling such an attraction and actually indulging in it.
Again, you're relying upon a personal definition of what is and is not 'normal'. I'm not sure behaviour can even be categorised within a sense of 'normalcy' due to the inherent abstract nature of it.
If we go back to, for example, ancient Greece*, homosexuality was an accepted, natural part of the society there. It was recorded in the Karma Sutra in India; it's been recorded in Asia, Africa, the Pacific, the Americas and Europe. And in turn acceptance has varied hugely across these regions. To me that doesn't indicate it can be classed in terms of what is normal for a human being, but what a society considers normal. And that's an entirely seperate thing.
So was canibalism considered normal in some societies. Do you propose we accpet it as normal in our own society?
The whole issue here is is there any damage? How do you come to the conclusion that there is none and that they are functioning propoerly?
"It's not damaged, it's just different." Is it?
You seem to define damages as only something that harms oneself of other individuals. So what? If i have a bening tumor that won't kill me or hamper me I am not damaged/sick?
Think about it this way - the basic function of a bilogical life is to grow and reproduce. homosexuals feel no atraction for the opposite sex, thus they are hampered when it comes to reproducing (it's not as easy for them as normal people).
-
TrashMan: if you have a benign tumor you're not considered medically sick
/pwnd
furthermore: WHAT THE **** IS IT YOUR BUSINESS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE CONSENT TO DO IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOME THAT IN NO WAY AFFECTS YOU?
If you want to go down the reproduction argument you join the hordes of zealots saying "intentional childlessness is a sin!"
[edit]
edited to restore a missing C and setoff the filter
-
[color=66ff00]If you want to be monkeyed again Kazan working around the swearing filter is a good way to go about it.
[/color]
-
wasn't intentional - i didn't hit the C hard enough
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
No. Being right handed or left handed doesn't realyl change a thing.
So as soon as your point is factually refuted, you brand it meaningless? Interesting.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Being gay is actually rather "unnatural" (as in - not good for your species as a whole despite it accurring in nature. Mutations/defecta are common in nature...but animals with those usually die rather fast..
Actually, there's a significant percentage of homosexuality recorded in nature; natural selection indicates this cannot be a negative trait as it would likely be bred out, nor can it be attributed to random mutation due to the high odds of the same mutation occuring across a large population in such high numbers.
I think it was Black Wolf (one of the wolfs', anyways) that pointed out the survival advantages of homosexuality.
Originally posted by TrashMan
A not must be taken to differ between homosexuality and homosexual behaviour. Is it a sin?
Well, actually being gay? If it's genetic then no. If it's not, then probably.
But while anyone can have distinct urges he doesn't have to follow them - the best thing about a humn mind. Any normal man will turn after a goiod looking woman and will of course be tempted to "try her on for size".
buthe can simply say no. So can gay pople.
so there is a difference between feeling such an attraction and actually indulging in it.
I'm not sure what your point is.
The Christian (or otherwise) definition of a 'sin' - which itself varies across and within the religion itself - isn't relevant to applying the rights and wrongs of homosexuality on terms of human rights across the whole of society.
Originally posted by TrashMan
So was canibalism considered normal in some societies. Do you propose we accpet it as normal in our own society?
you'll find I already mentioned the issue of consensual behaviour and provative damage; it's highly unlikely you would find someone who was mentally sound (able to consent) and willing to be eaten.
So it's not a relevant comparison IMHO.
Originally posted by TrashMan
The whole issue here is is there any damage? How do you come to the conclusion that there is none and that they are functioning propoerly?
"It's not damaged, it's just different." Is it?
Yes. Unless you care to define a factually supported, neutral damage caused to the individual or others.
Originally posted by TrashMan
You seem to define damages as only something that harms oneself of other individuals. So what? If i have a bening tumor that won't kill me or hamper me I am not damaged/sick?
Possibly. A benign tumor, whilst not cancerous, can still grow and cause damage to surrounding organs. 13,000 people die from benign tumors in the US each year; hence benign tumors are often excised because of this possible harm. This is a factually documented possible harm, of course; i.e. known damage and risk.
I think you misunderstood the meaning of 'benign tumor'.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Think about it this way - the basic function of a bilogical life is to grow and reproduce. homosexuals feel no atraction for the opposite sex, thus they are hampered when it comes to reproducing (it's not as easy for them as normal people).
They're still perfectly capable of the biological act, however. Full set of testes, capable of erection & ejaculation, etc (and obviously also for the female equivalent). And whether it be by a one-off consensual act or modern technology such as IV fertilisation, there's no biological bar to it, nor any lack of parental instinct. The primary barrier is societal acceptance in this latter regard.
Although if the basic function of life is reproduction, then that would surely make marriage and monogamy wrong from a biological perspective, as it narrows the prospective gene pool for for offspring.
-
to be more precise there is some survival advantage of bisexualism: allows for harmonious functioning of larger family groups - this would allow for genes that cause homosexualism to exist as well because, as we all know, homosexuals will occassionally copulate hetereosexually when they feel pressured to do so: as well as the fact that the genetics that encourage bisexualism can be the same ones that encourage homosexualism.
-
I think that what he's getting at is that an individual is responsible for his behaviour not only as it applies to himself, but also as it applies to society, since society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. If a certain behaviour is neutral or desireable to the individual, but harmful to the society, then the social effects trump personal liberties. Many people have taken this stance in one form or another, from fascists to most leftists and in fact everyone exlcuding a small group of libertrarians. The question then becomes, is homosexuality harmful to society as a whole, and if so to what degree. As I understand it, the arguement is that if it is tolerated, that's one step away from it being encouraged. And if it is encouraged, it will eventually become widespread, and then there will be a problem.
-
the idea that "if it is encourage, it will eventually become widespread" when applied to homosexuality is laughable.
you cannot "catch teh ghey"
Furthermore if something does demonstrable harm to another person then it does demonstrable harm to society. Homosexuality doesn't do harm to anyone, therefore it doesn't do harm to society.
-
I'm not saying I agreed, I just said that's the way I saw the arguement. Though if you take the approach that homosexuality is to some degree natural, then it being acceptable will likely result in it becoming more widespread. For example, if bestiality becoming socially acceptable, do you think that the number of people engaged in the practice would go up over a number of years? I think it works the same for most social issues, not specifically homosexuality.
-
Albeit, there's an issue of whether increasing societal tolerance at the moment has led to an increase in homosexuality or - as I think is more likely - an increase in the willingness of people to acknowledge their sexuality without fear of (as much) prejudice.
So you'd expect the number of openly gay people (that is, people who are honest about their sexuality and don't try to hide it) to increase, anyways.
-
beastiality isn't a good analogy for homosexuality - a 'beast' cannot consent
if it was a societal thing you wouldn't have found the only son of the english king being a homosexual in the middle ages
-
That's not the point Kaz. I wasn't arguing consent, I was arguing social tolerance. I could have said tatoos, as another example, or piercings, or short skirts, or swearing or a million other things. The point is that once something becomes OK, it will in most cases become more widespread than before, and often universal. Obviously, the desire must exist in people, otherwise they wouldn't do it, but desire is one thing and practice is another. Now, whether the desire is inate or a result of the environment in which the person lives and develops is arguable, but the general arguement stands regardless.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
That's not the point Kaz. I wasn't arguing consent, I was arguing social tolerance. I could have said tatoos, as another example, or piercings, or short skirts, or swearing or a million other things. The point is that once something becomes OK, it will in most cases become more widespread than before, and often universal. Obviously, the desire must exist in people, otherwise they wouldn't do it, but desire is one thing and practice is another. Now, whether the desire is inate or a result of the environment in which the person lives and develops is arguable, but the general arguement stands regardless.
The problem with the analogy, I think, is that there are very good reasons - factual reasons (i.e. belief or opinion based) - for the illegality of beastiality regardless of social tolerance or otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
wasn't intentional - i didn't hit the C hard enough
Don't give me those chitty excuses.
-
lol sandy
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Can someone actually tell me what the biblical reason for homosexuality being 'wrong' is?
They're the only people left to persecute. Now that it's almost universally considered to be wrong to be racist, sexist, intolerant of other religions etc the only last remaining thing the fire and brimstone preachers can unite behind is having a go at the gays.
Funnily enough being gay is just about the most ignored sin in the bible. I can't think of any supposedly major sin that gets less attention. (Don't bother with Sodom and Gomorrah (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm#sodom) The crime there was all kinds of other wickedness including what appears to be wanting to have sex with angels against the angels wishes).
Although there are tons of rules about what to do with gays there isn't a single story where any of those laws are actually enforced anyway.
-
The crime there was all kinds of other wickedness including what appears to be wanting to have sex with angels against the angels wishes).
Oh baby.... ;7
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Hm.. While yes, I am addicted to God... you could say religion is an addiction :D
"A local boy kicked me in the butt last week,
I just smiled at him and I turned the other cheek.
I really don't care, in fact I wish him well,
coause I'll be laughing my head off when he's burning in hell!"
At the risk of stating a flame war, that just sounds like an excuse for not standing up for yourself.
-
Turning the other cheek is a nice enough philosphy with regards to provocation, but it's not really an appropriate action if you have any conviction of your beliefs and can actually handle them being challenged.
-
Roanoke: eh... it's hubris and arrogance - but the concept behind it [only fighting when you must] is sound
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Roanoke: eh... it's hubris and arrogance - but the concept behind it [only fighting when you must] is sound
Well I do Karate so I know all about only fighting when it's absolutley necessary but if being kicked in the arse isn't provocation I dunno what is.
It also points to the other view of "trusting in god".
That really does my head in sometimes (though I obviously don't throw this in peoples faces). I mean, why trust in God ? Why not trust in yourself to make the right decisions, do the right thing, whatever ?
-
Roanoke: because some people have an insatiable need for authoritarian control of their lives
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So as soon as your point is factually refuted, you brand it meaningless? Interesting.
No. Nothing is refuted. Being left handed or right handed simply doesn't affect anything even remotely significant.
Actually, there's a significant percentage of homosexuality recorded in nature; natural selection indicates this cannot be a negative trait as it would likely be bred out, nor can it be attributed to random mutation due to the high odds of the same mutation occuring across a large population in such high numbers.
I think it was Black Wolf (one of the wolfs', anyways) that pointed out the survival advantages of homosexuality.
That's my point. Homosexuality appears in nature. It cannot be bread out since it's not an inherative trait.
Geneticdamage accures quite often thouhg.
On the oter hand, as some of you here said, animals don't have the emotional or especially mental complexity of us humans.
And homosexuality still appears by creatures with the brains the size of peas.
If it were the product of complex effects from our sorroundings (upbringing) why would then animals be so affected too?
Yes. Unless you care to define a factually supported, neutral damage caused to the individual or others.
So when a man is born with 6 fingers and it doesn't hamper him at least. you still wouldn't say it was mutation/genetic damaged - that he is "damaged" in some way?
They're still perfectly capable of the biological act, however. Full set of testes, capable of erection & ejaculation, etc (and obviously also for the female equivalent). And whether it be by a one-off consensual act or modern technology such as IV fertilisation, there's no biological bar to it, nor any lack of parental instinct. The primary barrier is societal acceptance in this latter regard.
But they need a third party to facilitate it. I would call it a step backwards.
Although if the basic function of life is reproduction, then that would surely make marriage and monogamy wrong from a biological perspective, as it narrows the prospective gene pool for for offspring.
I don't know about that.. We humans are stunningly diverse yet we have been living motly monogamus for a long time.
besides a smalelr family ensures more focus and care on the offspring. and mroe resources spanetn on each offspring.
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
At the risk of stating a flame war, that just sounds like an excuse for not standing up for yourself.
LOL..that's just a verse from a comical song I was listening "Amnish Paradise" by Wierd Al Yankowhich.
I posted it sine I though it funny :D
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
That's my point. Homosexuality appears in nature. It cannot be bread out since it's not an inherative trait.
Geneticdamage accures quite often thouhg.
Your knowledge of genetics is obviously very bad. If there is a gay gene (and it looks pretty likely that there is a gene connected to it) then it is an inherited trait.
The chance of the same mutation occuring in every single gay person on the planet in exactly the fashion as to make them gay is so astronomical that it makes the chances of winning the lottery look like a dead cert.
The gay gene is obviously either inherited or non-existant. Any other claim is complete poppycock.
Originally posted by TrashMan
I don't know about that.. We humans are stunningly diverse yet we have been living motly monogamus for a long time.
Absolute complete and utter nonsense. Muslims to this day are still permitted to have 4 wives. Monogomy is in no way the most common way of doing things. Affairs and other forms of outright polygamy are the norm. When about 60% of men admit to having an affair at some point in their marriage it's absolute nonsense to try to claim that monogamy is the norm.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
No. Nothing is refuted. Being left handed or right handed simply doesn't affect anything even remotely significant.
You should have said that before posting some tripe about learned behaviour, then.
Originally posted by TrashMan
That's my point. Homosexuality appears in nature. It cannot be bread out since it's not an inherative trait.
Geneticdamage accures quite often thouhg.
It's too frequent to be simple random mutation, so what specific damage or factor could possibly affect a multitude of animals in such a specific manner? As far as I can tell, you're suggesting not only some mysterious damage occurs, but that it occurs with exactly the same symptoms and effect in (for the example of sheep) 6-10% of Rams.
One would almost thing such a thing was guided if it was true.
Originally posted by TrashMan
On the oter hand, as some of you here said, animals don't have the emotional or especially mental complexity of us humans.
And homosexuality still appears by creatures with the brains the size of peas.
If it were the product of complex effects from our sorroundings (upbringing) why would then animals be so affected too?
Now, this is where you aren't really making sense. Firstly, homosexuality in animals doesn't preclude that gene being spread, as it is most likely recessive. i.e. a homosexual animal could be born to 2 heterosexual animals.
Secondly, as you pointed out, humans are substantially more mentally complex than animals. That means it does not follow that the cause of homosexuality within animals must be the same as for humans. You could indeed say the complexity of human intelligence and behaviour actually makes it more likely for homosexuality to be introduced by environment.
You will note, no doubt, that this does not rule out a genetic pre-disposition. AFAIK most scientific studies have concluded human sexuality is a mixture of genetics and environment.
Originally posted by TrashMan
So when a man is born with 6 fingers and it doesn't hamper him at least. you still wouldn't say it was mutation/genetic damaged - that he is "damaged" in some way?
Sorry? What on earth is this in relation to? If someones born with 6 fingers, then no, they aren't damaged in any way. They are different.
Hell, depending on the dexterity of that extra finger, they might be better.
Originally posted by TrashMan
But they need a third party to facilitate it. I would call it a step backwards.
No they don't. 1 man + 1 woman. Homosexuality doesn't prevent heterosexual sex being physically possible, as should be evident. I believe there are numerous cases, for example, of lesbian couples enlisting a gay male to assist in procreation.
Of course, by that reckoning all technology is a step backwards. It' worth noting that evolution is not just a physical but behavioural process, thus including the impact of technology and society.
Originally posted by TrashMan
I don't know about that.. We humans are stunningly diverse yet we have been living motly monogamus for a long time.
besides a smalelr family ensures more focus and care on the offspring. and mroe resources spanetn on each offspring.
Um, that's not really true. Polygamy was probably more common in the ancient world than monogamy. It was practiced in ancient Persia, ancient India, the modern and ancient Islamic world, Asia , China (i.e. concubines), tribal Africa and North America. When the Romans were beginning to advocate a monogamous society, it was very much against the trend of the time; and even then the men were given unrestricted access to their female slaves.
EDIT; the latter is credited with being the cause for addition of monogamy into the bible, at the time of Paul IIRC.
The ethnographic atlas (http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/Codebook4EthnoAtlas.pdf, page 4) lists more societies as being at least partially polygamous than as monogamous. (see also http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/cgi-bin/uncgi/Ethnoatlas/atlas.vopts)
Whilst it's true that having a monogamous relationship might allow focusing of relationships, that's ignoring the problem of infant death; in ancient times when childbirth was risky, it was essential to maximise the prospects of having offspring (for example). Also the status symbol value of having multiple wives in, say, tribal societies.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Sorry? What on earth is this in relation to? If someones born with 6 fingers, then no, they aren't damaged in any way. They are different.
Hell, depending on the dexterity of that extra finger, they might be better.
People with 6 fingers are having mutation in their genes. I do not recall which gene and what type of mutation it is, but I am certain that it's a relatively common phenotype for birth defect.
I do not think it does any direct damge and the additional fingers are generally weak. But it must have some psychological effects on the person for being different from the crowd in general.
Anyhow, the extra one might be useful day if that person have a accident and happend to lose one of the regular fingers. A transplant from his own ;)
-
:lol: Well, at least you wouldn't have to worry about rejection ;)
Seriously though, if homosexuality were a 'fault' or 'mutation' it would appear far less frequently than it does. Also, as has been mentioned earlier, if it were purely genetic, like blue eyes or heart conditions, then it would have been self-destructive, there might have been the odd 'case' now and again but certainly not entire communities of homosexuals.
Now, before anyone starts on the 'Great Gay Conspiracy' where Gay men have been secretly breeding with their wives with some kind of world domination plan, think. We know that homosexuality was around throughout history, and that every race has it's own homosexual section, even if they try to supress it. So, how was this amazing global conspiracy communicated 2000 years ago? How did they advertise this plan to homosexuals and only homosexuals etc etc? There is no plot.
-
Originally posted by Wild Fragaria
People with 6 fingers are having mutation in their genes. I do not recall which gene and what type of mutation it is, but I am certain that it's a relatively common phenotype for birth defect.
I do not think it does any direct damge and the additional fingers are generally weak. But it must have some psychological effects on the person for being different from the crowd in general.
Anyhow, the extra one might be useful day if that person have a accident and happend to lose one of the regular fingers. A transplant from his own ;)
Psychological, maybe. But that's again delving into society rather than genetics.
'sides which, anyone who takes the piss out of another person for having 6 fingers or webbed feet, etc, is simply a dick and deserves to be punched - preferably with a 6 fingered webbed fist - until they bleed.
-
Originally posted by Wild Fragaria
People with 6 fingers are having mutation in their genes. I do not recall which gene and what type of mutation it is, but I am certain that it's a relatively common phenotype for birth defect.
It is indeed an inherited trait and rather surprisingly it's actually a dominant one.
Here's an article (Polydactyly) about it I found after a quick google search :)
-
I'm not getting an article there.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
'sides which, anyone who takes the piss out of another person for having 6 fingers or webbed feet, etc, is simply a dick and deserves to be punched - preferably with a 6 fingered webbed fist - until they bleed.
By someone who is left handed. And gay.
-
That's rather odd. I'd closed that window before I cuyt and paste the link I didn want and I'm pretty sure I never did select that one.
Anyway, here (http://www.hmc.psu.edu/healthinfo/pq/poly.htm) is the one I wanted to link to.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Your knowledge of genetics is obviously very bad. If there is a gay gene (and it looks pretty likely that there is a gene connected to it) then it is an inherited trait.
The chance of the same mutation occuring in every single gay person on the planet in exactly the fashion as to make them gay is so astronomical that it makes the chances of winning the lottery look like a dead cert.
The gay gene is obviously either inherited or non-existant. Any other claim is complete poppycock.
If my knowlede is bad then yours is subatomic.
READ MY POSTS. No gey gene asa such that is carrier over. A normal healthy geene that gets damaged - that's a big difference.
And frankly, it occurs rather often - far more often than you think.
-
TrashMan the proability of the SAME EXAC mutation independant simultaneously on between 5% and 10% of the human population is so small as to be effectively impossible
just becuase YOU cannot understand how multiple inheritance and codominance works doesn't mean it doesn't work.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
If my knowlede is bad then yours is subatomic.
READ MY POSTS. No gey gene asa such that is carrier over. A normal healthy geene that gets damaged - that's a big difference.
And frankly, it occurs rather often - far more often than you think.
It's amazing that you can insult someones intelligence whilst simultaneously completly missing the point by a country mile.
EDIT; actually, I was being a bit too kind. That's simply ****ing idiotic and you should really, really at least try to back up these wild statements before making them. Otherwise you look a bit of a tit.
The odds of a random genetic mutation occuring that has the same effect in 5-10% of people, without any particular geographical locality, over recorded history, are simply astronomical.
It's very simple. For that amount of people to be gay, and for it to be a genetically determined behaviour, it has to be an inherited characteristic. Perhaps recessive, but still inherited.
If you're using damage synonymously with mutation (again, worth noting there is not a single human genotype anyways, as you can see just by looking out on the street), then it clearly is not a negative one or natural selection would have bred it out.
Moreso, that's supported by the presence of homosexuality within animal species; I would say identical traits, if they are genetic, being shared by multiple species would imply that trait is not negative as to be removed by natural selection.
What you are trying to do, I would guess, because there is no medical or non-emotive evidence that homosexuality is 'damaging', is to label the initial genetic mutation - if there was one - that cause a homosexual predisposition gene as damage rather than mutation. As damaging mutations are bred out, clearly that's not the case. Moreso, by that context any mutation - say red hair - can be said to be caused by 'genetic damage'.
-
Remember boys and girls: if Trashman doesn't agree with it, its a damaged gene. If he doesn't care about it, or it doesn't do anything, its a harmless mutation.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Remember boys and girls: if Trashman doesn't agree with it, its a damaged gene. If he doesn't care about it, or it doesn't do anything, its a harmless mutation.
It's a free world to express yourself and it's fine if you want to talk your opinion. But talking nonsense and making up false information to pontentially mislead others is just plain wrong.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
READ MY POSTS. No gey gene asa such that is carrier over. A normal healthy geene that gets damaged - that's a big difference.
Genes get carried over from generation to genration, whether is it's normal or abnormal. You have got to have a hell lot of evidents to prove that some of them, in particular the 'damaged-gay-gene', don't get carried on and why.
Originally posted by TrashMan
And frankly, it occurs rather often - far more often than you think.
Do you have any reference apart from the news source like the "Onion" and your own made-up theory about damaged-gay-gene to show that gene even exist?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
If my knowlede is bad then yours is subatomic.
Sorry Trashman but you lose. I've never claimed to be an expert but I'll quite happily provide links to support my point of view if asked to. You provide nothing beyond assertions that you are correct and everyone else in the world is wrong.
Your theory is contrary to every single thing I've ever read on genetics (And I'm not even talking about scientific stuff here. I've NEVER heard anyone claim what you have claimed so I've got to conclude that you're making it up as you go along.
Due to the fact that you almost certainly won't provide any documentation to show where you've got these notions of how genetics works my knowledge of "Genetics according to Trashman" is limited to whatever nonsense you choose to write in these forums.
My knowledge of genetics as it is understood by the rest of world however is clearly better as you have failed (and no doubt will continue to fail) at providing a single link that coroborates your view of genetics.
Originally posted by TrashMan
READ MY POSTS. No gey gene asa such that is carrier over. A normal healthy geene that gets damaged - that's a big difference.
I did read your posts and frankly your comments on genetics are laughable at best.
You're claiming that the gay gene isn't inherited but that a healthy gene gets damaged. Quite frankly I can't understand how anyone who claims to understand how genetics works could possibly say this.
First lets get some things clear. ANY damage to DNA is a mutation regardless of how it occurs.
If the damage occurs to the DNA in the sperm or egg cells or the cells that produce them you have a germ line mutation and it WILL be inherited (Almost all cells produced by a mutated cell will carry the mutation). If the mutation occurs outside of the germ line then the mutation will not be inherited.
If as you claim the gay gene isn't inherited the mutation must occur some time after fertilisation. In fact it must occur after the cells that will eventually form the reproductive system have diffrenciated or otherwise the damage would be passed on to the next generation because germ line cells would carry the mutation.
Here's where it gets odd. What you're claiming is that once the sex cells have formed (i.e while the person is still normal) something happens during development to cause the gene in the stems cells that eventually end up forming the brain to mutate. Whatever this is it happens to the 10% of people who are gay and not to everyone else.
AFAIK that is actually theoretically possible. I've never heard of a mutation being that common but it is possible for the gay gene to be on a hotspot on the genome and be heavily affected by mutations. I've never heard of anything that high, the mutation rate for Duchenne muscular dystrophy is ~ 1 x 10e-4 and this is considered a high mutation rate. For this you'd ned 1x10e-1 or 1000 times higher than a very high mutation rate. If the mutation causes people with it to become gay then this part of the theory possibly works.
Unfortunately there are two huge problems with that approach.
1) Mutations are virtually random. There's no reason to expect that the mutation would actually result in the gay gene any more than a gene that caused you to be sexually attracted to blancmange. I'm sure you've got some bull**** reason to explain this though. Save it. The second one is the killer.
2) Why would only the DNA in the brain cells mutate? This mutation would occur all over the body. DNA replication doesn't give a toss where it occurs in the body. The mutation can occur at any time in any cell. Replication is caried out by proteins that don't particularly care where in the body they are so this mutation is going to occur in every cell in the body that replicates.
Sure you can say that the mutation isn't expressed in any other organ in the body and you'll be fine with that explaination until you get to the germ line cells. Sorry but it's game f**king over here. If the gene appears in the germ line cells the gay gene is hereditory and will get passed onto the next generation.
Originally posted by TrashMan
And frankly, it occurs rather often - far more often than you think.
As you can see from the above I don't give a toss what you say the mutation rate is for this gene. It doesn't matter in the slightest.
If the mutation is rare you can't explain the number of gay people there are in the world. If it isn't then it will become hereditory very quickly.
Your entire theory is patent nonsense. I don't even need to do much science to prove it. Sheer logic can do that.
-
please leave ol' trashy alone. his family situation is giving him enough problems as it is. :(
-
i can see that this is going into one of those threads.
closed..