Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Alikchi on June 26, 2007, 09:40:59 pm
-
This may not be the place to post this but I find this article in the New Yorker fascinating.
http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/
Here are some quotes:
One study, involving tape-recordings of gay and straight men, found that 75 percent of gay men sounded gay to a general audience. It’s unclear what the listeners responded to, whether there is a recognized gay “accent” or vocal quality. And there is no hint as to whether this idiosyncrasy is owed to biology or cultural influences—only that it’s unmistakable.
Immunological response is the ascendant theory, in fact. We know from a string of surveys that in any family, the second-born son is 33 percent more likely than the first to be gay, and the third is 33 percent more likely than the second, and so on, as though there is some sort of “maternal memory,” similar to the way antibodies are memories of an infection. Perhaps she mounts a more effective immunological response to fetal hormones with each new male fetus. To determine whether the fraternal birth order might also suggest that baby brothers are treated differently in a way that impacts their sexual expression, researchers have studied boys who weren’t raised in their biological families, or who may have been firstborn but grew up as the youngest in Brady Bunch–type homes. In every permutation, the results were the same: What mattered was only how many boys had occupied your mother’s uterus before you.
The stereotypes—that lesbians tend to commit to relationships early and have little interest in casual sex; that gay men have more sexual partners than their counterparts—turn out to be true.
...researchers think they may be narrowing in on when gayness is set—and identifying its possible triggers. They believe that homosexuality may be the result of some interaction between a pregnant mother and her fetus. Several hypothetical mechanisms have been identified, most pointing to an alteration in the flow of male hormones in the formation of boys and female hormones in the gestation of girls. What causes this? Nobody has any direct evidence one way or another, but a list of suspects includes germs, genes, maternal stress, and even allergy—maybe the mother mounts some immunological response to the fetal hormones.
“We’re reaching a consensus on a broad question,” says J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University. Is sexual orientation “something we’re born with or something we largely acquire through social experience? The answer is clear. It’s something we’re born with.”
"Every man and every woman has all the genes to make a vagina and womb and penis and testicles. In the same way, arguably, every man and woman has the genetic code for the brain networks that make you attracted to men and to women. You activate one or the other—and if you activate the wrong one, you’re gay.”
If we identify how sexual orientation is set in utero, doesn’t that suggest a future in which gay people can be prevented?
-
If we identify how sexual orientation is set in utero, doesn’t that suggest a future in which gay people can be prevented?
I honestly don't know what to think of that. I mean, i'm all for in utero manipulation to better a child's life, such as taking out disease or whatever, but... I don't know, the prospect of 'preventing the gay' feels wrong, but the cold hard fact is that it could be advantageous given the direction some societies are going in regards to tolerance.
Damn, this issue - if it pans out scientifically - is going to become real murky, real fast.
-
So if you can't blame the gay community, blame their mums?
What makes me laugh is that if the siutation arose where it was possible to detect that a child would be homosexual, but impossible to stop it, what would Hard-line opinion be on Abortion then? ;)
EDIT: And someone PLEASE do something about that banner ad! :lol:
-
What makes me laugh is that if the siutation arose where it was possible to detect that a child would be homosexual, but impossible to stop it, what would Hard-line opinion be on Abortion then? ;)
I predict a sharp rise in the number of head explosions.
-
I read an article or a blog once that predicted that if homosexuality was ever proven to be an inborn trait, the homosexual lobby would come out solidly against abortion.
It reminds me of how the feminsts' heads are exploding over the fact that gender-selected abortion is becoming increasingly prevalent in China and India. :)
-
Personally I get tired of the fence sitting. If you recognize that a child has a deformity or illness, and are willing to play God to correct these things, why not also correct social problems that could lower its quality of life?
If people are willing to prevent a criminal from the womb then it makes sense to also prevent homosexuality or... other undesirable traits (Read into that what you may :doubt:).
Then again you could take the *whole* fundy argument that these are secrets we're better off not knowing. Lowering the lid on Pandora's box and walking away.
-
The question is how we define undesirable or negative traits. Personally I think that we as a society shouldn't legislate that - that should be the decision of the mother. If a deeply socially conservative family decides not to have a gay child, well.. that child probably would have been miserable anyways. At the same time, how will that family ever come to accept homosexuals if they can prevent themselves from ever having the chance to know and love one?
The moral ramifications are mind-boggling. As a gay dude, it would have been easier for me if I'd been born straight, but would I be a better person? I doubt it. But then again, I don't consider homosexuality a negative trait, and many people do.
-
Maybe because homosexuality is not a 'Genetic Fault', the assumption is that because it happen while the fetus is developing that it is a 'mistake' by the body in some way.
I don't see any evidence to suggest that whatsoever, just because it doesn't fit into someones vision of an ideal world does not mean it is not a natural thing.
We tend to define 'natural acts' as traits we assign to ourselves, not to humanity.
-
Maybe because homosexuality is not a 'Genetic Fault', the assumption is that because it happen while the fetus is developing that it is a 'mistake' by the body in some way.
I don't see any evidence to suggest that whatsoever, just because it doesn't fit into someones vision of an ideal world does not mean it is not a natural thing.
We tend to define 'natural acts' as traits we assign to ourselves, not to humanity.
True. If it occurs in nature, it's natural, and it's well documented that it does occur in nature. But nature can make mistakes, surely?
There's reasoning for both sides I think.. I certainly wouldn't blame a mother who chose to "switch off the gay" for the sake of protecting her child. Abortion.. I don't even know where I'd stand on that. My gut says against, but my brain says for. Do anti-discrimination laws apply to a fetus? It's so confusing. :wtf:
-
Do anti-discrimination laws apply to a fetus? It's so confusing. :wtf:
Technically a foetus isn't a person, and is thus not afforded the same rights as any given human being. Which is perfectly alright in my eyes. The foetus should be considered part of the mother until it's out, and thus the mother holds the ultimate vote in terms of the fate of the foetus. I don't see how you could fault that plain, simple logic.
Just like abortion, it should ultimately be the choice of the mother. I may not like it, but if a mother chooses to prevent homosexuality in an otherwise gay baby, it's her choice to make. Anyway, if a mother is prepared to tamper with her baby to block out homosexuality, chances are the household isn't exactly well-suited to bring up a gay individual anyway.
-
Do anti-discrimination laws apply to a fetus? It's so confusing. :wtf:
Technically a foetus isn't a person, and is thus not afforded the same rights as any given human being. Which is perfectly alright in my eyes. The foetus should be considered part of the mother until it's out, and thus the mother holds the ultimate vote in terms of the fate of the foetus. I don't see how you could fault that plain, simple logic.
Just like abortion, it should ultimately be the choice of the mother. I may not like it, but if a mother chooses to prevent homosexuality in an otherwise gay baby, it's her choice to make.
I think I'd have to agree with you, knowing that. It's her body. Still, I'm sure there are some GLBT activists that won't be as easily persuaded.. maybe a small fraction but they'll be there. And it is going to cause all sorts of trouble. :no:
-
Yes, Nature can make mistakes, but from the sound of the description, it's more along the lines that the oldest male gets the 'Alpha' treatment, the first-born is the heir to the family, the younger 'heirs' do not have that same level of 'Alpha-intensity'.
That, to me suggest it is more like a familial defence mechansim than an 'error'.
I suppose for it to make sense you have to look back at humanity before we started building cities etc, from a biological point of view, the over-expansion of a single family gene can actually be quite dangerous, inbreeding is a dangerous thing, and in the times of tribal-humanity, travel wasn't widespread enough to prevent it happening.
So, yes, even though I'm the youngest of 3 boys, I think that the more children a female has, in many cases, the later children will not have the intesity of 'maleness', for want of a better word, than the older ones. Indeed, homosexuality may just be Natures way of preventing family gene from spreading too far.
So I do think homosexuality was 'part of the plan', the fact that some people are uncomfortable with it isn't really evidence that it is wrong, in my opinion.
-
it could be something as simple as later children have more exposure to the same gender and be totally an environment. I've really come to not buy the 'you'r just born that way' line of thought, there are probably genes that contribute in one way or another, but from my personal experiences, it seems as though it is governed by the same rules of reinforcement as everything else.
-
it could be something as simple as later children have more exposure to the same gender and be totally an environment. I've really come to not buy the 'you'r just born that way' line of thought, there are probably genes that contribute in one way or another, but from my personal experiences, it seems as though it is governed by the same rules of reinforcement as everything else.
It's possible that there's a reinforcement component to homosexuality, but you can't just dismiss the entire idea that it's inherent to your genes just because... hey, do you even have a reason to dismiss it out of hand? And what do you mean by 'personal experiences', are you gay?*
*Serious question, possibly for the first time ever in the history of the internet
-
no, but I've considered it, and I find if I don't limit myself by any preconceptions I can go to just about anything. I find that my dislike of the male form is little more than any other of my dislikes and not particularly based on anything hardcoded, it has the same feel to it as my aversion to pork, it's just something I don't like.
I hate getting into conversations like this cause if I'm honest everyone instantly starts going, 'oh, are you gay?'. to be honest, I'm hardly anything and I tend to find everyone else's preoccupation with sex and the importance people place on it absurd.
and who's dismissing anything, I said, genes probably play a role, I just think people have a much greater ability to form themselves than most people for whatever reason seem comfortable with.
-
I hate getting into conversations like this cause if I'm honest everyone instantly starts going, 'oh, are you gay?'. to be honest, I'm hardly anything and I tend to find everyone else's preoccupation with sex and the importance people place on it absurd.
Given that society is based almost entirely on sex, what with the drive to procreate motivating almost every action we take, i'd say it's pretty damn important! Anyway, there's no need to get all uppity, it was just an innocent question.
and who's dismissing anything, I said, genes probably play a role, I just think people have a much greater ability to form themselves than most people for whatever reason seem comfortable with.
I don't get quite what you mean. Saying you can fight against your genes - effectively your nature - is getting dangerously close to "pray the gay away". I'm not saying all actions are dictated by our genes, just that trying to change our base coding is just going to do you a world of psychological harm.
-
it could be something as simple as later children have more exposure to the same gender and be totally an environment. I've really come to not buy the 'you'r just born that way' line of thought
researchers have studied boys who weren’t raised in their biological families, or who may have been firstborn but grew up as the youngest in Brady Bunch–type homes. In every permutation, the results were the same: What mattered was only how many boys had occupied your mother’s uterus before you.
I'd say that tends to speak against that. Someone who is a 3rd male child brought up as an only child should not be any more likely to be gay then but that quote seems to suggest that they are.
EDIT : You know something? This gives a whole new spin on that old "First son for the military, second son for the priesthood" thing. :)
-
oh, that is interesting.
anyway, I didn't say fighting against your genes, I said... ok let's put it this way, there are genes that cause you to be more likely to get cancer, but what you do in life has a great effect on the actual outcome. your opinions are formed in your brain which is built from genes, so your genes will have an effect on what and how you think, but they are just a basic template for the structure, and that structure is designed for a great deal of flexibility, it seems to me that it would be pretty easy for someone born with every gay gene and hormonal influence to develop into a heterosexual as would the converse, given proper environment.
further, the psychological 'world of hurt' comes from self loathing brought up by you finding you have a sexual preference that goes against what you think should be right, the only reason you'd loath yourself over having the wrong preference is if you place a lot of importance upon that preference, were once again, my 'sex isn't really very important' attitude once again comes to save the day.
-
Yes, Nature can make mistakes, but from the sound of the description, it's more along the lines that the oldest male gets the 'Alpha' treatment, the first-born is the heir to the family, the younger 'heirs' do not have that same level of 'Alpha-intensity'.
That, to me suggest it is more like a familial defence mechansim than an 'error'.
I suppose for it to make sense you have to look back at humanity before we started building cities etc, from a biological point of view, the over-expansion of a single family gene can actually be quite dangerous, inbreeding is a dangerous thing, and in the times of tribal-humanity, travel wasn't widespread enough to prevent it happening.
So, yes, even though I'm the youngest of 3 boys, I think that the more children a female has, in many cases, the later children will not have the intesity of 'maleness', for want of a better word, than the older ones. Indeed, homosexuality may just be Natures way of preventing family gene from spreading too far.
So I do think homosexuality was 'part of the plan', the fact that some people are uncomfortable with it isn't really evidence that it is wrong, in my opinion.
Don't really think so TBH. I don't think species wide evolution could really work like that - it makes very little sense to put any kind of self limiter on your potential as a reproductive individual, particularly when that means hamstringing the offspring that you're going to put all the energy of giving birth to and raising (particularly not in a species like humans, where you're looking at at least ten odd years of almost complete dependence - that's an investment you're going to want a return on). No, I suspect this is some kind of genetic overhang, if it exists at all. I mean, think about the numbers.
Estimates for the homosexual population range from 1% to 10%. So, being generous, I'll go with the middle ground and say 5%. Now, if this steady 33% increase exists, the actual chance of being born gay should be slightly lower than that, say, around 3.5% - 4%. So, if you've got a 3.5% chance of being born gay as a first born son. A secoind born son, therefore has around 4.666% chance, a third born 6%, a fourth son 8.3% and a fifth son 11%. But, realistically, how many people know of families with five male kids? Realistically, you're going to struggle to get solid data for the fourth son and above groups, so you're trying to analyze a 2.5% difference. Depending on the size of the sample group, that's quite possibly well within the margins of error. Now, granted, there's supposedly a "string of surveys" to support this, but I'm not going to trust the New York Magazine on a 2.5 percent difference.
-
I sat near two gay blokes on the bus today, both with the sqeaky voice and the downward hand movements, having a lover's tiff. I think it's just a cultural thing, you adopt the manerisms that serve you best in your particular environment. The trick is not to assume the stereotype applies in 100% of cases. For instance I'm from Hull but have always disguised my Hull accent. The result is an accent that sounds confusingly non-specific northern, I'm told. The point is that 95% of the people who live here haven't gone to the trouble of trying to pretend otherwise, so they all sound like stereotypical Hull types. Making use of stereotypes is playing the odds. It's akin to abstraction, a concept the human mind relies on a great deal in order to make sense of a very complex world. Stereotyping has a purpose, there's nothing wrong with it, people just need to be mindful of it's limitations.
-
EDIT : You know something? This gives a whole new spin on that old "First son for the military, second son for the priesthood" thing. :)
I thought it was, first son gets the beatings, second son is spoiled, third son is totally babied. ;)
-
The question is how we define undesirable or negative traits. Personally I think that we as a society shouldn't legislate that - that should be the decision of the mother. If a deeply socially conservative family decides not to have a gay child, well.. that child probably would have been miserable anyways. At the same time, how will that family ever come to accept homosexuals if they can prevent themselves from ever having the chance to know and love one?
The moral ramifications are mind-boggling. As a gay dude, it would have been easier for me if I'd been born straight, but would I be a better person? I doubt it. But then again, I don't consider homosexuality a negative trait, and many people do.
Not developing normal is a undesirable trait. Likea 6th finger...notting inherently dangerous or unadvantageous, but I'd bet you'd like to get rid of it if you had it.
-
'Normal' is a personal definition though, isn't it, a 6th finger could be useful, there are lots of people who are 'abnormal' who wouldn't do a thing about it even if they could.
Homosexuality is only really a problem for non-homosexuals, it would be nice if someone who truly hated being homosexual could do something about it, but that should be their choice because they want to be heterosexual, not societies choice because they aren't 'normal'.
If it became choice, I don't think many would choose to change, you'd have to force people to do it, and you HAVE to stop and think about motives when you start forcing people to do things.
-
Most of the homosexual people I know personally (2), wish they were straight. The other guy frankly doesnt care. You cant really say homosexuality is only a real problem for non homosexuals.
-
It is though, the most common reason for homosexuals hating their sexuality is because of the reaction they get from non-homosexuals. That's not their choice, it's being pushed by people who don't have the same sexuality.
-
Lets put it this way. If every straight person in the world thought homosexuals were great, how many of them would still want to change?
That's your number of homosexuals unhappy with being homosexual as opposed to being unhappy because of societies attitude to homosexuality.
-
'Normal' is a personal definition though, isn't it, a 6th finger could be useful, there are lots of people who are 'abnormal' who wouldn't do a thing about it even if they could.
By that logic everyone on this planet is normal...
-
Don't you think that, by their own definition, they are?
Edit: Let me put it this way, you post on this Forum. There are people in the world who would think that you're 'wierd' for posting on the Internet and having online friends who you talk to, and enjoying Video Games. They'll draw a mental picture of some guy living on Gatorade and using a bucket as a toilet sitting in his parents' basement. To you, it's normal, you know you aren't like that, you're just a nromal person who is also a computer-fan, a Homosexual is a normal person who is also Gay, it's not the truth that hurts, it's the Stereotypes.
-
That still doens't mean they are "normal"...
Reality is what is, not what people think it is...alltough people have to think something and belive at least some of it is true or they will go bonkers.
How would you deal with crazy people then?
I'm sure none of them thinks they are crazy for themselvs...especially the bigegst nut cases that think they are Napoleon or somone else.
-
Homosexuals are not crazy, mental illness is a whole other ball game, we are talking about things that do not effect the persons ability to interact with the rest of society, beyond societies own phobias, at least.
What's more important, the 6th finger, or the person attached to it? Are we to dictate to this person whether they should be happy or not to have a 6th finger by genetically altering them before birth? It's easy to say 'They'd be happier if we 'fixed' them' when there's no possible way on earth you are ever going to know whether they would have been happier or not, that would simply be making excuses to match your own opinion, not theirs.
Edit: In effect, when people say 'They'd have a better life if we could make sure they weren't gay before they were born', what they usually mean is 'We'd have a better life if we made sure they weren't gay before they were born.'. Now, I'll admit, they might have a better life, but only because of societies current attitude towards homosexuality, look back at Greece or Sparta, and genetics or not they had a more casual attitude towards it, and it was practised openly.
-
I think societies own phobias is that of difference from the mainstream. However, if every different part of our society didn't have its own specific culture, I bet things would be alot more relaxed. Does a gay person in and of himself piss me off? No. Does a gay person who marches in the gay pride parade, has an obnoxious demeanor, flaunts his gay persona around like a flag, and claims that he's proud to be gay? Hell ****ing yes! It is this kind of attitude that make most of today's generation intolerant of homosexuality. Things like being proud to be gay, black, feminist, democrat, etc is just as bad as being proud to be straight, white, chauvinist, republican, etc.
/me counts the minutes before he's called a homophobic bigoted sexist right winger :rolleyes:
-
I think the whole 'Gay Pride' movement is a reaction to societies attitude, much the same as all other kind of 'Pride'' movements. If society was perfectly accepting of homosexual behaviour, you'd probably find that after a while, 'Gay Pride' and the whole 'flaunting' aspect of it would mostly vanish. The ONLY reason it happens is because it annoys people and because they know there are people who don't 'approve' of them, it's revenge, in a way.
-
I think the whole 'Gay Pride' movement is a reaction to societies attitude, much the same as all other kind of 'Pride'' movements. If society was perfectly accepting of homosexual behaviour, you'd probably find that after a while, 'Gay Pride' and the whole 'flaunting' aspect of it would mostly vanish. The ONLY reason it happens is because it annoys people and because they know there are people who don't 'approve' of them, it's revenge, in a way.
gay pride = spite?
EDIT: Hmm... not quite.
-
I dont think so. It's human nature to make yourself look like an idiot by trying to prove yourself while you are the minority. When anything racially controversial hits, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the NAACP make fools of themselves... Unless the person in question is white. When the dems took over house and senate, Nancy Pelosi showed her true nut-job colors by going on and on about it for a month and a half. Lifetime and NOW (For you non-americans: Women's television and National Organization for Women) base their entire existence around empowering women, even though women are now more powerful than men in the real world. When Ellen Degeneris 'came out', she allowed herself and the media to get wrapped up around it in what seemed to be forever. However, the one thing Ellen did that everyone else did not is that she was announcing and acknowledging it, and not pushing it. That is why she is the better person, even though she isnt very funny.
Oh, by the way. All the black people keep calling me white, when they should be calling me anglo american... See how stupid that sounds?
-
I think the whole 'Gay Pride' movement is a reaction to societies attitude, much the same as all other kind of 'Pride'' movements. If society was perfectly accepting of homosexual behaviour, you'd probably find that after a while, 'Gay Pride' and the whole 'flaunting' aspect of it would mostly vanish. The ONLY reason it happens is because it annoys people and because they know there are people who don't 'approve' of them, it's revenge, in a way.
gay pride = spite?
EDIT: Hmm... not quite.
While not all gay pride is spite, a lot of it can be. If one takes up the gay pride out of anger at the straight community, then, yes, it becomes a symbol of spite less than a symbol of unity.
I personally agree with Scuddie. More "pride" parades/organizations irritate the living hell out of me, especially when nationalism is involved. Note, by "nationalism", I refer less to 4th of July or other national holiday parades than I refer to Gay Pride marches, White Nationalist rallies, or other ethnic/lifestyle/gender groupings. I don't mind honoring your specific heritages, but saying your group is somehow superior to others is just wrong. The unfortunate part is, minority rallies like this tend to get a lot more sympathy than when, say, whites, heterosexuals, Americans, or Christians rally (in which case, they're more often than not referred to as racists or bigots).
To summarize, the world would be a whole lot better if each national group, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender shoved their pride and just came to terms with each other. Hopeful? Yes. Practical? Unfortunately, no.
EDIT: Everything Scuddie just posted makes pretty good sense too. For every great push for minority rights and equality, organizations like NOW, the NAACP, and other minority-rights organizations and their prominent members gloat about it or hang it over the majority's heads for decades on end.
-
It's not so much 'Spite' as the fact that, because society is usually so unaccepting of Homosexuality, once a chance comes along to openly accept that you are homosexual, some people get totally carried away.
In the case of politicians, they are often simply using the popularity generated by their comments for exposure, Jesse Jackson et al may be nuts, but you know who they are. That's more a case of Politics than true feeling, I think you'll find, if you're being offered too little, ask for too much, and what you'll get will be somewhere in the middle, and politicians are expert attention seekers. The NAACP and NOW etc also play on popular misconception and rumour, just as there are members of the gay community who will deliberately go out of their way to present themselves as a 'stereotypical' gay in Gay Pride Festivals etc, in many ways, it's a call for attention to what they have to say, some people find it offensive, but at least they are listening, even if it's only to decide it is offensive.
Edit: And yes, as Nuclear says, there are people out there who are genuinely angry, often these are the ones who have had to hide their homosexuality the longest, even from themselves, when they finally do come out, they do so somwhat extravagantly. And yes, the elimination of the need for 'Pride' would be great, but unlikely.
-
You know, if I had the choice to eliminate a sixth finger from my unborn child, I would totally do it. A sixth finger can do nothing but hurt their chances at a job, lower their self-esteem, and make them more likely to hate people and become a serial killer. I'm not saying all deformed people are serial killers, but you get my point.
Also, I have a rhetorical question. What constitutes personhood? Is it the fact that they are physically separate from the person from whose flesh they came? Or is it their mind? Their personality? Their memories? Their soul, if I may be permitted? A final-stage fetus is no different from a newborn baby in physiology, nor is it different in terms of its conscious mind (barring the fact that the baby has just experienced a rather traumatic event). So, is a person their body or is a person their personality/mind/soul? (Excuse my choice of words here; "soul" is simply meant to sum up "personality" and "memories" and "choices" and "thoughts" and "et cetera".) If a fetus has no rights as a human, and I agree that it should not, given that it cannot make decisions, and such, then why is a baby? (That's right, I went there.) I even go so far as to suggest that why we refer to a baby as being a person and a fetus as not being a person is because of the instincts that have been instilled in us through thousands of years of evolution. We protect the baby. Cavemen never needed to protect a fetus.
Now, if that doesn't put us in the debate forum, I don't know what will.
-
Well, strictly speaking, a 6th finger would be a physical disability if it was a problem actually manipulating objects etc. As for the self-esteem, once again, that would be because people would attack them for the difference, not really because the finger itself has an effect on the person.
The thing is, the richest person on the planet is an arrogant git with no sense of humour, he's also a homosexual, Gays can be just as arrogant, rude and selfish as Heterosexuals, and there is nothing that a Heterosexual can do that a Homosexual cannot do just as well without any special help or equipment., the only real 'disability' that a gay person has is other peoples attitude towards their sexuality.
As for the Foetus thing, I'll have to politely step aside on that, I avoid getting involved in those particular debates ;)
-
The only real 'disability' that a gay person has is other peoples attitude towards their sexuality.
That, and not being able to reproduce (Turkey basters are not natural :p).
-
Actually, to be technical, gays are perfectly capable of reproducing, they merely choose not to :p
-
Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491)
:lol:
You know, if I had the choice to eliminate a sixth finger from my unborn child, I would totally do it. A sixth finger can do nothing but hurt their chances at a job, lower their self-esteem, and make them more likely to hate people and become a serial killer.
Bet you'd feel stupid if he turned out to be a world-class pianist then.
-
Homosexuals are not crazy, mental illness is a whole other ball game, we are talking about things that do not effect the persons ability to interact with the rest of society, beyond societies own phobias, at least.
I'm asking you whom would you commit to a mental institution. By what standards would you judge who is crazy? - especially since it's sometimes such a file line that spearates a insane person and a genius..and we all got our little oddities.
Is he really crazy just becoause you said so or is he different?
Or would you never send anyone? Everyone is AOK, right?
It boils down to how you judge
-
Those gay pride parades aren't normal, peacefull marches for promotion of rights. How a real peacefull march looks like - just take a look back how King did it for hte rights of black people.
Al lthe gay pride parades I've seen are rubbish - pure excuse for perverts of all kinds. All you have to do is look at a few pictures from those parades or look at the banners that they cary.."Perversion is OK!" :rolleyes: Blakc leather or body paint, showing off their genital and allmost foricating during the parade - those parades hit the rock bottom of decadency.
Why can't they just march dressed normally, acting civilized hilethey do it?
As for tehy being gay or having a sixth fighter - it doesn't matter if it's natural (in the sense that it happen in nature all the time..yes you got babies with 2 heads born of **** like that..it happens), the fact is that it's a FLAWED product. As harsh and this may sind it's mearly the state of thing - a cold hard fact.
As that atricle said, the wireing got mixed up and the product isn't functioning properly..
Like a car with mixed wireing and the brake and gas pedal are switched. Hell, once you get used to it you can drive it without problems - no danger there...but it's still a faulty product...
*puts on flameproff power armor*
-
Except that Flipside kinda pointed out a reason it might not be a flawed design but might actually be an evolutionary advantage. Now lets assume he is right. Lets assume that being gay is a deliberate evolutionary strategy either to prevent cross-breeding or to free up childless aunts and uncles to help with child-rearing.
That would mean it wasn't a flawed product. It was deliberate (or at least as deliberate as evolution gets).
In that case would you drop your objections to it or would you find another reason to deny it?
-
Except that Flipside kinda pointed out a reason it might not be a flawed design but might actually be an evolutionary advantage. Now lets assume he is right. Lets assume that being gay is a deliberate evolutionary strategy either to prevent cross-breeding or to free up childless aunts and uncles to help with child-rearing.
That would mean it wasn't a flawed product. It was deliberate (or at least as deliberate as evolution gets).
In that case would you drop your objections to it or would you find another reason to deny it?
What is god in evolution is determined by what survives or works good. In our current society everything survives..
Gay a next step in evolution? Hardly....
-
What is god in evolution is determined by what survives or works good. In our current society everything survives..
Well, it seems to be working just fine in the animal kingdom. That's still dictated by natural selection, isn't it?
Hell, the fact alone that homosexuality appears in nature on a scale that cannot be explained by random mutation demonstrates incontrovertibly that it is not a directly negative evolutionary trait, and thus shoots a rather large hole in the notion that homosexuality is a 'flaw'.
-
What is god in evolution is determined by what survives or works good. In our current society everything survives..
Gay a next step in evolution? Hardly....
Who said it was the next step? I'm saying that this is something from mammalian evolution which has survived because it's a positive benefit.
Besides you've completely missed the point. I was asking what would you say if that absolutely 100% was proven true. Not that it IS 100% proven true. I want to know if you'd still claim it was a flaw to be corrected even if it was proven that there was an evolutionary reason for it.
Because in that case we're proving that you don't believe it's a biological flaw but a moral one. And that's a completely different kettle of fish.
-
Next step? The very concept is flawed, and is based on an idea of 'progress' towards some goal which in reality, despite the insistence of pulp-scifi, does not exist. There are no imperatives for large brains or turning into shwooshy blobs of glowing energy who respond to intrepid explorers with mysterious riddles. Now if a large brain helps lead to more offspring, or higher 'quality' offspring with more access to resources and survival, it'll probably happen, but it is nothing more then that.
As for a reason why we see homosexual behaviors in the wild: inclusive fitness. While the individual may not breed, it is likely to help others who are genetically related who do breed increasing the chance of survival for those related offspring.
-
What it all boils down to is what your opinion of Gays is, people can be heterosexual and choose never to have children, there is no other difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual.
Look at it this way, how many Gays have difficulty communicating with Heterosexuals? Compare that with Heterosexuals who can't communicate with Gays. and ask yourself 'Where's the social disability, is it with me, or with them?'.
-
That's not really a fair comparison. There are ALOT more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals. Plus, I'd be willing to bet my life that 2/3 of heterosexuals who are now 'uncomfortable' with homosexuals no longer remain that way if the homosexuals in question would acknowledge their homosexuality and dismiss it in a matter-of-fact kind of way. The discomfort comes in most part due to the different culture. Many gays and lesbians have decided to set a standard for their culture, and in many of their eyes, it is expected for gays and lesbians to act a certain way. It's just like inner city thug culture. I doubt an upper class person, gay or straight, would be comfortable around a street hooligan, gay or straight..
-
What is god in evolution is determined by what survives or works good. In our current society everything survives..
Well, it seems to be working just fine in the animal kingdom. That's still dictated by natural selection, isn't it?
Hell, the fact alone that homosexuality appears in nature on a scale that cannot be explained by random mutation demonstrates incontrovertibly that it is not a directly negative evolutionary trait, and thus shoots a rather large hole in the notion that homosexuality is a 'flaw'.
nope...it's just a flaw that continues to survive..
As I said, even the biggest morons are allowed to breed in our society, so there really isn't any selection present to start with.
Who said it was the next step? I'm saying that this is something from mammalian evolution which has survived because it's a positive benefit.
What positive benefit?
Besides you've completely missed the point. I was asking what would you say if that absolutely 100% was proven true. Not that it IS 100% proven true. I want to know if you'd still claim it was a flaw to be corrected even if it was proven that there was an evolutionary reason for it.
Because in that case we're proving that you don't believe it's a biological flaw but a moral one. And that's a completely different kettle of fish.
Proven that it's a product of evolution? Evolution is a hit-and-miss process, so it wouldn't surprise me at all.....
-
Look at it this way, even if it is genetic, is Stephen Hawkings someone with MND who is also very intelligent or someone who is very intelligent with MND? Say we could detect MND and terminate the Foetus, do you think the world would have lost out then?
-
Someone with MND who has high intelligence...
Someone with high intelligence who has MND...
What's the difference?
-
Look at it this way, even if it is genetic, is Stephen Hawkings someone with MND who is also very intelligent or someone who is very intelligent with MND? Say we could detect MND and terminate the Foetus, do you think the world would have lost out then?
Terminating? Who said anything about terminating?
B.t.w. - Stephen Hawking, Bob Ross, George Bush or Jimmy from across the street - who is more important? Answer - no one. They are all equally important since you can't tell for sure who will they end up being anyway.
EDIT:
Who's the one who said - "It's no a bug, it's a feature!" ?
-
Someone with MND who has high intelligence...
Someone with high intelligence who has MND...
What's the difference?
Priorities.
EDIT:
Who's the one who said - "It's no a bug, it's a feature!" ?
No-one.
B.t.w. - Stephen Hawking, Bob Ross, George Bush or Jimmy from across the street - who is more important? Answer - no one. They are all equally important since you can't tell for sure who will they end up being anyway.
The same with homosexuals.
-
Proven that it's a product of evolution? Evolution is a hit-and-miss process, so it wouldn't surprise me at all.....
Dodging the question yet again I see. :rolleyes:
-
Well there's some obvious bad traits like being really far sighted or being born with a walking disability or something. **** happens, but today we live in a day and age where people with specific traits and disabilities can flourish. Well for me my bad trait is being extremely far sighted, but that gets supplemented and fixed with glasses and contacts. Also i'm dyslexic (dyslexia causes me to accidentally mix and match my words such as "my hoot furts" aka "my foot hurts", or "my stickers are fingey" aka "my fingers are sticky" (i ate ribs one night)), as well as dyslexia causing me to have to re-read because of my wierd ass decoding skills. Dyslexia isn't a bad thing, people learn to work with it and get better at stuff like reading and speaking.
Dyslexia i would rather call a good trait i guess as opposed to a bad trait where i can't see very well. The 6th finger argument is just purely stupid. There is piano music out there that only 6 fingered people can play. After that having a 6th finger does not go really go past considering someone to be abnormal. The 6th finger would most likely not be chopped off, as the person with it would most likely deal with some humiliation from other kids growing up, but after that, they'd probably like the fact that they have a 6th finger as it is unique and can open up awesome possibilities with stuff that requires multiple fingers such as musical instruments like a piano or guitar, or something else that is not music oriented that i'm not thinking of right now. Now if the 6th finger was a finger that was rather a deformity, like a finger that couldn't be moved something the person with it couldn't utilize at all, you might as well chop it off.
The 6 fingered argument is retarded, because it's like saying if i got my dick chopped off in some freak accident. Then being a man without a dick wouldn't be normal so following this logic i would have to get a sex change operation and become a woman.
Homosexuality is a different thing from the retarded 6th finger abnormality argument. Some people can choose to be gay, but usually someone is just gay without having made a choice. There was a friend mine who was bisexual, and she slept with chicks and her bf. A year later she got rid of her bf and was single for a while and she found out she absolutely liked guys more than girls. She was a person who obviously was one of the few who made a choice as opposed to other people who are born gay.
After that up at college here in alaska, i have several gay friends who grew up in alaska just like i have. And because environment is 70% of your development where 30% is your genetics. So, me and my gay friends grew up in the same alaskan environment. Low and behold in alaska, some people are gay some aren't (pretty much just like everywhere in the world). Now the thing that's special about alaska is that it's hard to see a family where the parents haven't separated or possibly if a friend, relative, or other family member hasn't committed suicide or is abusing drugs. My family parents haven't split up and no ones committed suicide in my family here in alaska. Absolutely all of my other friends come from broken families and have developed through hard circumstances. And what i mean by this is that me and all of my friends do come from different situations in the same alaskan environment. Out of all of my friends only one person was confused about whether they liked girls or guys. After that the majority of my friends are straight, and some are gay where they obviously didn't make a choice to be that way.
Nothing can be proven absolutely yet because more research needs to be done, but i think it's safe to say that it's possible for people to be born gay, as opposed to people becoming gay because of the environment they developed in.
On the fun side of this topic, i'll bring up a what if situation. What if homosexuality is a gene? Then that gene should be isolated and weaponized. And with that weaponization should have been the first thing to launch at the palace saddam was living in :pimp:
EDIT: LOL i can see that the banner ads for this thread are fitting the situation :lol:
-
You know, if I had the choice to eliminate a sixth finger from my unborn child, I would totally do it. A sixth finger can do nothing but hurt their chances at a job, lower their self-esteem, and make them more likely to hate people and become a serial killer. I'm not saying all deformed people are serial killers, but you get my point.
A sixth finger actually is a good thing. A lot of baseball pitchers with six fingers have been successful. Antonio Alfonseca was a successful closer for several years and made more money then i'll make in my lifetime. There were also several other successful six fingered pitchers in baseball that i can't think of off hand.
-
Who's the one who said - "It's no a bug, it's a feature!" ?
No-one.
Nah..it was someone from the computer industry..someone from Microsoft or Steve Jobs...can't recall
B.t.w. - Stephen Hawking, Bob Ross, George Bush or Jimmy from across the street - who is more important? Answer - no one. They are all equally important since you can't tell for sure who will they end up being anyway.
The same with homosexuals.
Your point? You saying Bob will end up a mass murderer becouse whatever triggers gayness has been "untriggered" while he was still a fetus?
Dodging the question yet again I see.
I belive I answered it rather clearly. Being a product of evolution or not is irrelevant, given that everything is a product of evolution.
Aslo, having a slight beneficial or negative impact is also a moot point.
A bug is a bug. A fluke is a fluke. Deviation from the norm, from the standard, from the blueprints. Call it what you wish.
The 6 fingered argument is retarded, because it's like saying if i got my dick chopped off in some freak accident. Then being a man without a dick wouldn't be normal so following this logic i would have to get a sex change operation and become a woman.
Now that is retarted. With advanced medicine today, they should be able to put it back on. Even if not, that is a product of an accident that was out of your control....Hm...I wonder if there is such a thing as a dick transpolant?
-
so basically what I have understood is that TrashMan thinks that gays are a bug of society and as such should be removed
-
you know I have encountered a LOT of 'bugs' in my programs which I later turned into very neat features. the thing is you are not going to be able to lable anything as a defect in a evolutionary scence, because evolution is the judge of that not you, so if it exsists then you can't realy call it a defect.
incedently I'm dyslexic, it makes spelling a pain but it also gives me a natural knack for processing geometry, I probly wouldn't be half as good at making ships or programing graphics or polygon/spacal manipulation stuff if I wasn't dyslexic, but most people would consider it a defect.
-
People would consider it a defect, but really all people aren't the same. Dyslexia is just an intriguingly differently wired human brain. It's completely not a flaw in my opinion. Most dyslexics don't talk until they are about 2.5-4 years of age. I didn't talk until i was 3 :lol: But, anyway dyslexia is fun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia).
There is also a really obvious program out there that once had a bug, but became a feature, and this was the descent series. In descent you could hold down i forget which buttons and it would give you a speed boost, and this was something the devs of the game had not anticipated and was a bug since it was something they did not intend to put in the game. But, players soon utilized this bug and it became popular, and in descent 3 that certain speed boost bug became an actual feature of controlling your ship.
Bugs if they are useful can be features. And if useful and popular, devs are smart to keep those bugs and make them into documented features of the next release of said program.
-
Your point? You saying Bob will end up a mass murderer becouse whatever triggers gayness has been "untriggered" while he was still a fetus?
Hmmmm.... could you possibly twist that just a bit more to suit your homophobia?
What is means is that you don't judge people by what you think they might be, you let them grow up into who they are and you deal with it, you don't hide under a rock handing out marks for 'normalness'.
Unless you know exactly what side effects there are to genetic manipulation, how do you know that removing the 'Gayness' trigger won't make someone into a mass murderer?
And yes Janos, that about covers it, it's not a question of right and wrong, or even a question of liberty, it's a question of not having to see men in leotards, that's a great excuse for genetic manipulation.....
-
so basically what I have understood is that TrashMan thinks that gays are a bug of society and as such should be removed
Nah...but if it makes you feel good about yourself you're free to think that's what I ment.
Unless you know exactly what side effects there are to genetic manipulation, how do you know that removing the 'Gayness' trigger won't make someone into a mass murderer?
When has not being sure in sideffects of action ever stopped humanity in anything?
IMHO, something tells me gayness and murder instincs aren't really tied together... I hope for all our sakes that any treatment/medical procedure is understood and tested before put in use.. As I understand that's usually how it's done...
incedently I'm dyslexic, it makes spelling a pain but it also gives me a natural knack for processing geometry, I probly wouldn't be half as good at making ships or programing graphics or polygon/spacal manipulation stuff if I wasn't dyslexic, but most people would consider it a defect.
You saying without dyslexia there's no way you'd be a good programmer?
What is means is that you don't judge people by what you think they might be, you let them grow up into who they are and you deal with it, you don't hide under a rock handing out marks for 'normalness'.
WTF? What does personality have to do with anything?
-
People would consider it a defect, but really all people aren't the same. Dyslexia is just an intriguingly differently wired human brain. It's completely not a flaw in my opinion. Most dyslexics don't talk until they are about 2.5-4 years of age. I didn't talk until i was 3 :lol: But, anyway dyslexia is fun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia).
There is also a really obvious program out there that once had a bug, but became a feature, and this was the descent series. In descent you could hold down i forget which buttons and it would give you a speed boost, and this was something the devs of the game had not anticipated and was a bug since it was something they did not intend to put in the game. But, players soon utilized this bug and it became popular, and in descent 3 that certain speed boost bug became an actual feature of controlling your ship.
Bugs if they are useful can be features. And if useful and popular, devs are smart to keep those bugs and make them into documented features of the next release of said program.
I don't know where you got your information about dyslexia, and I'm not questioning your sources, but I would definitely consider a brain that processes things differently a defect. Perhaps not a crippling defect, of course, but one that results in a difficulty with the written language. I don't know if a common side-effect is proficiency with geometry and spatial reasoning, but it may very well be true. However, no matter how beneficial it may be, it is still a defect. If it deviates from the vast majority, it is probably a defect. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straferunning
Straferunning/trichording has been around since the earliest FPSes. I doubt that it became a "feature", just that Volition decided to put an official label on it. It is a bug. Most FPSes have it taken out nowadays, for simpler/more realistic gameplay. To use the example of Super Smash Bros, wavedashing is an exploit of the engine, involving jumping, then immediately airdodging into the ground at an angle. Done properly, your character's feet never leave the ground, and they slide forward or backwards. It forms the cornerstone of advanced play, allowing players to move while keeping attack options open.
-
I belive I answered it rather clearly. Being a product of evolution or not is irrelevant, given that everything is a product of evolution.
Aslo, having a slight beneficial or negative impact is also a moot point.
A bug is a bug. A fluke is a fluke. Deviation from the norm, from the standard, from the blueprints. Call it what you wish.
If it's natural and has a beneficial effect on the family of the person who is gay how the hell is it a bug?
-
A bug is considered an unintentional side effect of a program or code. I'm no expert, but genetic code is still code. And it is some of the most flawed code you will ever see. Anyhow, all of us have many bugs in our system. I, for example, have an immune system that is violently aggressive to foreign particles, bacteria, and viruses. This makes me allergic to almost everything, but I am extremely unlikely to acquire AIDS if I ever contracted HIV. It allows for certain benefits, but it is still a bug. Many games and programs intentionally leave bugs in their code and pass them off as features.
-
A bug is considered an unintentional side effect of a program or code. I'm no expert, but genetic code is still code.
Using that definition for bug, all DNA (or at least any base pair different from the set in the first strand of DNA) is a bug. DNA doesn't have a plan. It doesn't have a designer. There is no such thing as an unintentional side effect unless you consider all mutation to be a side effect. In which case DNA is nothing but 1 enormous bug.
-
In which case DNA is nothing but 1 enormous bug.
Story of my life :(.
-
A bug is considered an unintentional side effect of a program or code. I'm no expert, but genetic code is still code. And it is some of the most flawed code you will ever see. Anyhow, all of us have many bugs in our system. I, for example, have an immune system that is violently aggressive to foreign particles, bacteria, and viruses. This makes me allergic to almost everything, but I am extremely unlikely to acquire AIDS if I ever contracted HIV. It allows for certain benefits, but it is still a bug. Many games and programs intentionally leave bugs in their code and pass them off as features.
REh? DFoesnt AIDS target White Blood Cells specificly? And strong immunse systems have more of those than weaker ones?
Wouldn't that make you MORE succeptable?
-
Not all of your white blood cells are comprised of the T-Cells, Macrophages, etc that AIDS go after. IIRC heavy allergic reaction is caused by over-activity in one of the other components of your defence system (The basophils IIRC) and thus would be less affected by AIDS and maybe more likely to go after the virus.
-
You sure about that?
AFAIK, your immune system can do sh** against AIDS, so having more of the guys in your blood strem shouldn't really help - only give it abigger target selection.
-
Just going by what my doctor told me :).
-
I've seen doctors saying false things enough times to allways wanbt a second oppinion...and third...
-
Yes but on one hand we have you, who knows nothing about the subject and on the other hand we have Scuddie's doctor who it seems reasonable to assume, knows more. :p
-
I don't know where you got your information about dyslexia, and I'm not questioning your sources, but I would definitely consider a brain that processes things differently a defect. Perhaps not a crippling defect, of course, but one that results in a difficulty with the written language. I don't know if a common side-effect is proficiency with geometry and spatial reasoning, but it may very well be true. However, no matter how beneficial it may be, it is still a defect. If it deviates from the vast majority, it is probably a defect. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
Who says i'm deviating from the vast majority, there's tons of me out there :drevil: And for my sources was me growing up and secondly wikipedia. Dyslexics will rule the world one civic at a time, and thank you (that's a figure of speech :nod:).
Also this is as follows
dyslexia :yes2: = POS, i meant to give a thumbs down but i seem to have given a thumbs up instead...**** me :snipe: (So far as much as i know me and Bobb)
ADD :wakka: = I can't pay attention to **** and i'm hyper as **** (taka)
retardation :hammer: = HHHHaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrr r (taka and the rest of the people on the hlpbb)
I remember straferunning. As much as it may be a bug or cheating, i never used it, because it never seemed like a viable way to move around. As far as using strafe running to explore a map, well sure, but using strafe running to do combat, i'll say no to that one being viable. That's when people go all crazy with pushing buttons and changing their vectors to maneuver around good, because you're one good target if you're doing a very fast diagonal walk towards someones face in a straight, but fast line :lol:
-
:wtf:
-
Yes but on one hand we have you, who knows nothing about the subject and on the other hand we have Scuddie's doctor who it seems reasonable to assume, knows more. :p
Did I say he should trust me? I said *I* don't trust anyone that easily...
-
:wtf:
Forums bug...formatting went haywire...yeah... :blah:
-
Did the study mention bisexuality?
-
I don't know where you got your information about dyslexia, and I'm not questioning your sources, but I would definitely consider a brain that processes things differently a defect. Perhaps not a crippling defect, of course, but one that results in a difficulty with the written language. I don't know if a common side-effect is proficiency with geometry and spatial reasoning, but it may very well be true. However, no matter how beneficial it may be, it is still a defect. If it deviates from the vast majority, it is probably a defect. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
So ADHD/ADD is a defect? You could say it is a defect, but ADHD/ADD may very well have been a critical survival trait for our earlier ancestors, helping them quickly identify possible predators. How could it be a defect in that case?
I quote:
Originally posted by Cobra
why would an SCP error be considered as news? :wtf:
*smacks Cobra* It's a feature.
-
How does a homosexuality gene get "passed down"? :p
-
So ADHD/ADD is a defect? You could say it is a defect, but ADHD/ADD may very well have been a critical survival trait for our earlier ancestors, helping them quickly identify possible predators. How could it be a defect in that case?
I don't think it works like that. This kid in my health class has it, and he just randomly shouts out his opinions (and I mean shout). He also has these keys to his bike lock that he plays with and eats all the time. I know he can't help it because of AD(H)D, but that doesn't stop him from being annoying.
I guess it's a combination of not thinking before acting, and not being able concentrate on anything very well.
-
How does a homosexuality gene get "passed down"? :p
A gene doesn't have to be activated to be passed down.
-
I don't think it works like that. This kid in my health class has it, and he just randomly shouts out his opinions (and I mean shout). He also has these keys to his bike lock that he plays with and eats all the time. I know he can't help it because of AD(H)D, but that doesn't stop him from being annoying.
I guess it's a combination of not thinking before acting, and not being able concentrate on anything very well.
Thats a rather extreme case of ADHD. I know many cases that are far more mild (and usually controlled by medicine) that aren't nessacarily that bad, merely a bit annoying, and could have proved beneficial. This brings up an important point - Evolution is anything but perfect, it likes patch jobs, and rarely will anything work just like its supposed to, just as long as it works.
-
How does a homosexuality gene get "passed down"? :p
A gene doesn't have to be activated to be passed down.
Recessive trait, gotcha.
-
there is also the posability that some environmental variables could cause the gene's expresion to be diminished
(i.e. you _will_ have sex with women or we _will_ burn you at the steak! that sort of thing could potentially cause people with an inclination for gayness to act out of character.)
-
A gene doesn't have to be activated to be passed down.
I prefer the way Dawkins put it once. You can inherit a big penis from your mother. :D
-
there is also the posability that some environmental variables could cause the gene's expresion to be diminished
(i.e. you _will_ have sex with women or we _will_ burn you at the steak! that sort of thing could potentially cause people with an inclination for gayness to act out of character.)
Kinda thought of that too but, there is a LONG period of time before that in which the gene could diminish greatly.