Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: colecampbell666 on August 08, 2007, 05:37:54 pm
-
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070803/against_pride_flag_080803/20070803/ (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070803/against_pride_flag_080803/20070803/)
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070806/rally_pride_Truro_080607/20070806/ (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070806/rally_pride_Truro_080607/20070806/)
I'm not saying that it is a waste of time because it is about the gay community, but rather because everyone made a HUGE deal about it. It is the mayor's decision to fly a flag or not, and someone blew the whole thing out of proportion.
EDIT: Fixed the links.
-
I'm not sure about the technicalities of the whole thing, but him not raising the flag just because of his religious beliefs is wrong. A mayor is supposed to act on behalf of his community, not on his own behalf.
For example:
"There are writings in the book of Romans chapter one, to name a few -- basically I have to go with that conviction, and I know it's not a popular one."
:wtf:
-
He has every right not to raise that flag, especially if the WHOLE COUNCIL backied him up.. no contraversy here....carry on
-
It was the community that voted him in.
-
I'm not sure about the technicalities of the whole thing, but him not raising the flag just because of his religious beliefs is wrong. A mayor is supposed to act on behalf of his community, not on his own behalf.
For example:
"There are writings in the book of Romans chapter one, to name a few -- basically I have to go with that conviction, and I know it's not a popular one."
:wtf:
He has every right not to raise that flag, especially if the WHOLE COUNCIL backied him up.. no contraversy here....carry on
It was the community that voted him in.
-
Doesent change him being a selfish prick.
He should have at least provided a less self-centered and snobbish excuse.
And I thought Canada was supposed to be civilized....
Oh well, theres always Norway. :blah:
-
colecampbell666 it's not the fact that he didn't raise the flag, it's why he didn't that makes the whole thing really disturbing. He could raise the jolly roger for all I care, but if he does so without a reason backed by logic as expected from a secular government, it is wrong.
-
I applaud him for not raising the flag. That flag is a symbol of the lowest form of life on the face of the planet. That's right, the idiots. Idiots are responsible for that disgrace of human decency. If I were that guy, I'd burn their idiot-flag in public, then urinate on the ashes. God damn, those people piss me off... Being openly gay and not being ashamed to admit it is a rare act of courage in our culture, and they deserve to be commended for it. But these ****wits who take pride in their homosexuality deserve to be castrated by a vulture every single day at noon for all eternity!... However, the reason for him not raising the flag is not cool. It's kinda almost half as bad as what the flag represents.
Oh well, I'd better keep ahead of myself before I start spouting hate about stupid people.
-
Residents also condemned the town council's decision. One coffee shop owner worried the flag's rejection would give Truro a bad name.
Well, I'd say that Truro has a bad name now. But personally, it's because of all the complaining, not because of the desicion itself. Haha! Take that, the portion of Truro's voting comunity that dissaproves of the desicion! It's your fault!
But here's a thing:
Do people elect leaders so the leaders can meld their personal views to the societies against his/her will, or do they elect the leader because his/her views are about the same as the society's?
If the first one is true, then why bother having multiple candidates if they all supposedly just choose what the community wants? If the latter is true, then the population isn't allowed to complain because they voted him in!
Come to think of it, would a pure "Democracy" mean everyone elect one supreme leader to have his/her way, or mean everyone vote in every little desicion?
-
I applaud him for not raising the flag. That flag is a symbol of the lowest form of life on the face of the planet. That's right, the idiots. Idiots are responsible for that disgrace of human decency. If I were that guy, I'd burn their idiot-flag in public, then urinate on the ashes. God damn, those people piss me off... Being openly gay and not being ashamed to admit it is a rare act of courage in our culture, and they deserve to be commended for it. But these ****wits who take pride in their homosexuality deserve to be castrated by a vulture every single day at noon for all eternity!... However, the reason for him not raising the flag is not cool. It's kinda almost half as bad as what the flag represents.
Oh well, I'd better keep ahead of myself before I start spouting hate about stupid people.
predegist.
-
He should have hung the ****ing flag. Truro has extreme balls for what he did. But, despite his views, it's not good at all. It made him seem really bad to everyone he might not get re-elected for mayor (if he's even going to run again). After that it put the gay community where he is on edge about the question of whether or not they are accepted in society. Probably a lot of people there are having some bad feelings towards their city government which pretty much showed that it was biased towards gay people.
Why can't people depend on their government to be secular when the mayor is a theocrat? Get rid of the theocrat. Not everyone in the world is christian just like not everyone in the world is muslim just like not everyone in the world is straight. And the need for a secular government where everyone is different (different religious beliefs and sexual orientations) you need to have a government that can always be depended on to not be discriminatory against it's citizens. Truro can't really be depended on to not be discriminatory against gays. He's probably going to have a tough or short career now as hate towards truro and unassurance of acceptance all from the gay community is escalating.
The thing with religious leaders being in secular government is fine...if you got a level headed person who rather gets advised by their religious doctrine as opposed to ruling by their religious doctrine. Ruling by your religion you will get something that truro did. Getting advised by your religious doctrine is where you know in the bible it says homosexuality is wrong, but you also know that the bible says love your enemies, don't hate anybody (the bible is big on accepting people, not hating people, to turn the other cheek, don't hate your enemies,..blablabla coexisting with others in good ways pretty much). Truro is so not the model christian that anybody should try to aspire to unless you aspire to his level of balls (but in the article with his bs about this conviction **** i don't think he has balls and he's rather a pussy who didn't seem sure on the issue of raising the flag, or not raising it).
-
Doesent change him being a selfish prick.
He should have at least provided a less self-centered and snobbish excuse.
And I thought Canada was supposed to be civilized....
Oh well, theres always Norway. :blah:
yes, and black metal ist krieg :D
-
But here's a thing:
Do people elect leaders so the leaders can meld their personal views to the societies against his/her will, or do they elect the leader because his/her views are about the same as the society's?
If the first one is true, then why bother having multiple candidates if they all supposedly just choose what the community wants? If the latter is true, then the population isn't allowed to complain because they voted him in!
Come to think of it, would a pure "Democracy" mean everyone elect one supreme leader to have his/her way, or mean everyone vote in every little desicion?
But does that mean that once someone is elected they are free to do whatever they please with their new given power?
A pure democracy would be instead of electing someone to represent the people, the people would represent themselves. So I assume that's your second option.
-
I applaud him for not raising the flag. That flag is a symbol of the lowest form of life on the face of the planet. That's right, the idiots. Idiots are responsible for that disgrace of human decency. If I were that guy, I'd burn their idiot-flag in public, then urinate on the ashes. God damn, those people piss me off... Being openly gay and not being ashamed to admit it is a rare act of courage in our culture, and they deserve to be commended for it. But these ****wits who take pride in their homosexuality deserve to be castrated by a vulture every single day at noon for all eternity!... However, the reason for him not raising the flag is not cool. It's kinda almost half as bad as what the flag represents.
Oh well, I'd better keep ahead of myself before I start spouting hate about stupid people.
A somewhat....extreeme view. Formulating a similar missage in a more calm and less agressive tone might have a better effect.
FYI I'm not too fond of gayness either, but hate solves nothing...and law and order and a mesure of civility must be kept. That said, he should have had a bit of a better reason to not raise the flag. Heck, even "disturbing public peace" would do!
Gay people can't help being what they are - they are born that way - so there's no logic in going after them...however the individuals of "questionable moral values and socail behaviour" that frequent those Gay Pride Parades (and represent a part of the gay population) are fair game as far as I'm concerned. Those parades are really deprived of all decency.
-
A somewhat....extreme view. Formulating a similar message in a more calm and less aggressive tone might have a better effect.
FYI I'm not too fond of gayness either, but hate solves nothing...and law and order and a measure of civility must be kept. That said, he should have had a bit of a better reason to not raise the flag. Heck, even "disturbing public peace" would do!
Gay people can't help being what they are - they are born that way - so there's no logic in going after them...however the individuals of "questionable moral values and social behavior" that frequent those Gay Pride Parades (and represent a part of the gay population) are fair game as far as I'm concerned. Those parades are really deprived of all decency.
He didn't hate, as far as I can tell, or go after them, he just did as the council decided. If he had decided to fly the gay flag, does this not mean that he would have to fly a flag for every minority in the town?
-
... That flag is a symbol of the lowest form of life on the face of the planet...
Sorry, but I just have to agree with that...
-
I applaud him for not raising the flag. That flag is a symbol of the lowest form of life on the face of the planet. That's right, the idiots. Idiots are responsible for that disgrace of human decency. If I were that guy, I'd burn their idiot-flag in public, then urinate on the ashes. God damn, those people piss me off... Being openly gay and not being ashamed to admit it is a rare act of courage in our culture, and they deserve to be commended for it. But these ****wits who take pride in their homosexuality deserve to be castrated by a vulture every single day at noon for all eternity!... However, the reason for him not raising the flag is not cool. It's kinda almost half as bad as what the flag represents.
Oh well, I'd better keep ahead of myself before I start spouting hate about stupid people.
A somewhat....extreeme view. Formulating a similar missage in a more calm and less agressive tone might have a better effect.
You actually took him seriously? :rolleyes:
yes, and black metal ist krieg :D
IT'S PURE ****ING ARMMAAGGEEDDOONNNNN!!!!! :nod::yes:
-
Gay people can't help being what they are - they are born that way - so there's no logic in going after them...however the individuals of "questionable moral values and socail behaviour" that frequent those Gay Pride Parades (and represent a part of the gay population) are fair game as far as I'm concerned. Those parades are really deprived of all decency.
So... it's genetic? :lol:
There's a 'gay' gene? :wakka: :hammer: :wakka:
-
So... it's genetic? :lol:
There's a 'gay' gene? :wakka: :hammer: :wakka:
Probably... After all, a hormonal reaction to pheromons is controled by the most basic part of the brain...it's like a reflex.
Alltough is it a single gene or a combination?
There were some studies with mice that suggest strongly that it is genetic.. It's not passed on, alltouhg it is possible that some gene combination is more likely to trigger it than others.
-
By that logic, could it be a genetic defect? ;7 *awaits the storm*
-
Well it is a genetic defect, most likely. What else would it be? Assuming the certainty that its not a choice.
-
I wonder how long before people start calling left handedness a genetic defect too...
-
I wonder how long before people start calling left handedness a genetic defect too...
Well IMO, in a purely scientific/objective sense, homosexuality is a genetic defect in that it prevents humans from carrying out the single most important task in which nature intends them (and all animals) to do, reproduce. Any genetically caused trait that prevents humans or animals from surviving to the point of reproduction or producing healthy offspring would be considered a defect, correct?
-
If he had decided to fly the gay flag, does this not mean that he would have to fly a flag for every minority in the town?
Yep. And THAT is what the stupid ****er should have pointed out. :D Instead the mayor pointed out the real reason he'd decided not to do it.
And the mayor, Bill Mills, made it clear his decision was motivated by his Christian beliefs.
"There are writings in the book of Romans chapter one, to name a few -- basically I have to go with that conviction, and I know it's not a popular one," Mills said.
-
I wonder how long before people start calling left handedness a genetic defect too...
Yes but you see, there are no lefthandedpeopleaphobes.
-
Yes but you see, there are no lefthandedpeopleaphobes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handed#Cultural_stigmatisation
-
I wonder how long before people start calling left handedness a genetic defect too...
Well IMO, in a purely scientific/objective sense, homosexuality is a genetic defect in that it prevents humans from carrying out the single most important task in which nature intends them (and all animals) to do, reproduce. Any genetically caused trait that prevents humans or animals from surviving to the point of reproduction or producing healthy offspring would be considered a defect, correct?
They still have the ability to reproduce, they are not impotent!
And after all if it is genetic one must wonder why they exist on such a significant scale!
-
I wonder how long before people start calling left handedness a genetic defect too...
Well IMO, in a purely scientific/objective sense, homosexuality is a genetic defect in that it prevents humans from carrying out the single most important task in which nature intends them (and all animals) to do, reproduce. Any genetically caused trait that prevents humans or animals from surviving to the point of reproduction or producing healthy offspring would be considered a defect, correct?
They still have the ability to reproduce, they are not impotent!
And after all if it is genetic one must wonder why they exist on such a significant scale!
But they do not have the desire to mate with a female, which is the only way to naturally reproduce, so they're as good as impotent, from the standpoint of reproduction. And I wonder that often too, but I have only a highschool knowledge of genetics so I'm not qualified to throw anything in that arena.
-
I think he did the right thing for the wrong reasons. A town hall is a civic building, owned by the local government in trust for all the citizens of the town. The town flag (if it has one) or symbol or crest belongs there, the state flag, sure, the national flag, no worries. These are all symbols representative of the entire population of the town. But the gay flag doesn;t represent the entire population of the town. It almost certainly doesn't represent a democratic majority. Even if you had a vote and found majority support for flying the flag, how many people would be voting yes not because they beleived in the rights of gay people to fly their flag, but becuae they were afraid of offending someone, or being considered a homophobe?
Realistically, if the guy hadn;t brought up religion, there is no way this would have been news. Councils refuse requests from special interest groups all the time. If the guy had just said "No" and explained that he didn't want to promote one minority group over another, or just refused to be drawn on why, it might have made the local newspaper. Since he brought up God, people care. And probably correctly - when an elected official is doing anything based on what religion says against the will of the people, well, that's aproblem. As I said - right decision, wrong reason.
-
By that logic, could it be a genetic defect? ;7 *awaits the storm*
Now now...you know how some people are too easily offended....let's call it a "genetic fluke"... or "faulty wireing"..
Hm... on second thought that might not sound any better.
-
Or how about just calling it genetic and not trying to ascribe it to being any more flukey or faulty than you would eye or hair colour.
-
hmm....that would be an iven less accurate description than the previous one. :blah:
but if it makes you happy I'm game.
-
I think Black Wolf hit it right on the head there.
And the obvious problem with assigning scientifically correct terms such as "defect" to the genetic state is that, with an added subjective element, it has negative connotations. From a purely objective standpoint, "defect" simply implies that the genetic state impedes "nature's biological purpose", reproduction, blah blah blah. Subjectively, defect means that there is something "wrong" or "inferior" about the genetic state, or even worse, the human with that genetic state. Both of which are 'utter rubbish', Britishly speaking.
I just feel I have to state the obvious and be super clear around here as I have been far too often misunderstood in the past on these forums.
-
I think Black Wolf hit it right on the head there.
And the obvious problem with assigning scientifically correct terms such as "defect" to the genetic state is that, with an added subjective element, it has negative connotations. From a purely objective standpoint, "defect" simply implies that the genetic state impedes "nature's biological purpose", reproduction, blah blah blah. Subjectively, defect means that there is something "wrong" or "inferior" about the genetic state, or even worse, the human with that genetic state. Both of which are 'utter rubbish', Britishly speaking.
I just feel I have to state the obvious and be super clear around here as I have been far too often misunderstood in the past on these forums.
And what is nature's biological purpose? :rolleyes:
Do you consider albinism a defect? Color-blindedness? 6th finger? Left-handedness? If so, why do you consider some and not the others?
-
the 'genetic defect theory" is'nt correct. quite a few people are homosexual by personal choice.
if you want a defect, take a look at trashmanitis - the need to unbalance any video game you mod just so its fun and not as hard.
-
And what is nature's biological purpose? :rolleyes:
Do you consider albinism a defect? Color-blindedness? 6th finger? Left-handedness? If so, why do you consider some and not the others?
TO REPRODUCE as i must have said ten times so far. :rolleyes:
Biologically speaking, the most basic purpose of all life on this planet to reproduce. Thats my whole basis. Look at my previous posts please.
And colorblindness may impede survivability of offspring (who may also be colorblind, if it is genetically carried as I assume) , so that could be considered a defect.
EDIT:
the 'genetic defect theory" is'nt correct. quite a few people are homosexual by personal choice.
Really? I find that somewhat hard to believe, unless some people can mysteriously choose who they fall in love with.
-
actualy, they can. lets say you lived in a gay comunity with straight parents. you want to fit in, so you pound the idea into your head that guys are better tha girls. tada, it works.
-
And what is nature's biological purpose? :rolleyes:
Do you consider albinism a defect? Color-blindedness? 6th finger? Left-handedness? If so, why do you consider some and not the others?
TO REPRODUCE as i must have said ten times so far. :rolleyes:
They are not impotent just like I said before. Unless you want to explain why a significant population is homosexual (if it is genetic). Carriers alone don't justify the population seen.
Biologically speaking, the most basic purpose of all life on this planet to reproduce. Thats my whole basis. Look at my previous posts please.
And colorblindness may impede survivability of offspring (who may also be colorblind, if it is genetically carried as I assume) , so that could be considered a defect.
So in your opinion that means left-handedness is a defect since people who are left-handedness have almost a decade less of life expectancy?
-
And what is nature's biological purpose? :rolleyes:
Do you consider albinism a defect? Color-blindedness? 6th finger? Left-handedness? If so, why do you consider some and not the others?
TO REPRODUCE as i must have said ten times so far. :rolleyes:
They are not impotent just like I said before. Unless you want to explain why a significant population is homosexual (if it is genetic). Carriers alone don't justify the population seen.
I think carriers DO justify it. There are also a lot of homosexuals, either repressed by themselves or society, (ultimately society), who deny themselves and go on leading heterosexual lives and reproduce. I suppose this plays a factor, but they are obviously not acting on their genetically caused natural instinct, they are being artificially manipulated by society.
Biologically speaking, the most basic purpose of all life on this planet to reproduce. Thats my whole basis. Look at my previous posts please.
And colorblindness may impede survivability of offspring (who may also be colorblind, if it is genetically carried as I assume) , so that could be considered a defect.
So in your opinion that means left-handedness is a defect since people who are left-handedness have almost a decade less of life expectancy?
Well that decade less of life expectancy doesn't place them below the reproductive age, so no.
OT: And why would they have a shorter life expectancy anyway?
-
On the first point, you basically gave me reason. If there are homosexuals that reproduce, then homosexuality can't be a genetic defect by your own definitions since they do reproduce. Of course this leads to the question, if it can be repressed can it be a fully genetic condition? Also, this (http://heaventree.wordpress.com/2006/03/21/another-possible-mechanism-of-reproduction-of-the-homosexual-gene/) website proposes a rather interesting meachanism that may explain the population percentage of homosexuality.
Regarding left-handedness death rates, it's mostly due to accidents regarding their left-handedness in a right-handedness dominated world.
-
Yes they CAN reproduce, of course they are fertile, but they would not reproduce of their own volition, such as in a neutral society, meaning that they would not reproduce in natural circumstances. On another example, Left handers can be forced to use their right hand, they just suck at it. Does that make them right handed?
-
No, but it doesn't stop them from using their right hand to write.
But according to your reasoning, that does make them somewhat illiterate since they cannot write with their natural hand...
-
Its 11:20 here, cut me some slack. :)
Really, you're probably right.
-
I am left handed. So, i guess i'm on God's left side :drevil: And i'm evil as ****, and i should be exorcised ;7 Everyone is right, leftees are evil :drevil: You never know what i'll do next since my evil leftist dyslexic insight makes me do this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2377olZymk) and this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,46258.0.html).
Anyway this is starting to resemble that other thread where the topic was homosexuality and discussing whether or not it's gene and why it happens. One thing i need to do is some research on the gay pride flag, minority, group, etc. And try to figure out why some consider it indecent, because idk **** about the gay pride group.
-
...because idk **** about the gay pride group.
It's usually just a case of "I don't care that these people are gay, i'd just rather not know they're gay". Homophobia wearing a bad disguise, IMO.
-
Its 11:20 here, cut me some slack. :)
Really, you're probably right.
It's probably not even genetic (at least fully) anyway. Societies pressures are part of the human condition now so one can't say behaviors caused by society are "unnatural".
-
What makes a civillian Hummer (or any all-terran-veichle) ? It's recognizeble front mask, their 4 wheel drive, the big size.
Color? Nope, as it is within factory prameters. Air bag,s no air-bags, lether seats, padde,d or something else.. optional internal gear, different colors or dozens of add-ons. All those things are within factory paramaters, and even tough two veichels that roll off the assembly line can differ, they all have the same basic properties that make them what they are.
So when a car rolls out with a 2 wheel drive insted of 4? Well, that a factory defect. It's still a nice car and it will still work well. You can drive it around town and carry stuff just like in a 100% factory approved one. But what happens when you take it off-road for some wilderness exploring? You'll run into problem without a 4 wheel drive..probably get stuck. You'll needed someones help to get you out of sitch. Ironicly, this is what a ATV primary function should be all about.
It's similar with homosexuality. The primary function (reproduction) can't really be done without outside help..a gay couple can't have kids by their own. If you consider the primary function to be the spreading of your genes/DNA, it gets even worse - as that cannot happen with a gay couple. there's no combination of their genes.
I realise that calling it a defect or sickness doesn't sound good. NO ONE would like to be called sick or defective. No ne wants to be reminded or somehow seculded...pointed at. (even if it's true...think about it..if you had AIDS or a mental disabiltiy or anything else for that matter...would you like people pointing that out to you?) ..It pulls out many negative images with it.
Call it whatever you want but it's not normal. It is a defect, but luckily, one of the lesser ones, as you can still function within society without any real problems.
-
What makes a civillian Hummer (or any all-terran-veichle) ? It's recognizeble front mask, their 4 wheel drive, the big size.
Color? Nope, as it is within factory prameters. Air bag,s no air-bags, lether seats, padde,d or something else.. optional internal gear, different colors or dozens of add-ons. All those things are within factory paramaters, and even tough two veichels that roll off the assembly line can differ, they all have the same basic properties that make them what they are.
So when a car rolls out with a 2 wheel drive insted of 4? Well, that a factory defect. It's still a nice car and it will still work well. You can drive it around town and carry stuff just like in a 100% factory approved one. But what happens when you take it off-road for some wilderness exploring? You'll run into problem without a 4 wheel drive..probably get stuck. You'll needed someones help to get you out of sitch. Ironicly, this is what a ATV primary function should be all about.
It's similar with homosexuality. The primary function (reproduction) can't really be done without outside help..a gay couple can't have kids by their own. If you consider the primary function to be the spreading of your genes/DNA, it gets even worse - as that cannot happen with a gay couple. there's no combination of their genes.
I realise that calling it a defect or sickness doesn't sound good. NO ONE would like to be called sick or defective. No ne wants to be reminded or somehow seculded...pointed at. (even if it's true...think about it..if you had AIDS or a mental disabiltiy or anything else for that matter...would you like people pointing that out to you?) ..It pulls out many negative images with it.
Call it whatever you want but it's not normal. It is a defect, but luckily, one of the lesser ones, as you can still function within society without any real problems.
Sex is much more than reproduction. What happens when a homosexual individual really wants to reproduce? :rolleyes:
As I said before, they are not impotent.
What I love about this is the "without outside help" phenomenon everyone seems to talk about is that you back yourself into a corner. Very well, explain why a sizable population is gay knowing that the genes for it (if it is genetic) would have to have been part of the human genome for thousands of years. If it hadn't been part of the human genome for thousands of years it would mean that homosexuals reproduce is at an even more accelerated rate. If it is, then explain why it persisted without society's pressure or why the percentage is not explained by just carriers.
-
Sizable population? Who counted? Where's the numbers? Were they double (nay, tripple) checked?
And who ever said that it's passed on from generation to generation? It probably just that some people are more likely to have offspring that end up gay. Or maby the chance is more or less equal? Hard to tell... regardless, just as as errors ALLWAYS happen on a assembly line within a certain percentage, it's likely they happen too within the DNA and the humman genome. Some errors are more frequent than others..nothing strange about that. :wtf:
Oh, and you seem to miss the main point. Purpose of reproduction is to carry over your genetic material. To mix it with your significant other.
The child inherits something from both parents..that doesn't really happen with homosexuals.. they have to look for a third party.
-
Sizable population? Who counted? Where's the numbers? Were they double (nay, tripple) checked?
And who ever said that it's passed on from generation to generation? It probably just that some people are more likely to have offspring that end up gay. Or maby the chance is more or less equal? Hard to tell... regardless, just as as errors ALLWAYS happen on a assembly line within a certain percentage, it's likely they happen too within the DNA and the humman genome. Some errors are more frequent than others..nothing strange about that. :wtf:
Oh, and you seem to miss the main point. Purpose of reproduction is to carry over your genetic material. To mix it with your significant other.
The child inherits something from both parents..that doesn't really happen with homosexuals.. they have to look for a third party.
If it's not passed on from generation to generation it's obviously not genetic. Also, errors don't occur in one every ten times.
You are also missing the point. Homosexuals aren't impotent. And if a significant number of them reproduce as evidenced by their numbers, they... well... reproduce! You seem to be locked in using a monogamic heterosexual couple as the "natural" thing, when it can range to poligamic and homosexual.
Also, ancient greece didn't seem to have problems increasing their population.
-
I'm sorry? Did Itype it wrong?...erm..nope.. then your browser must be bugged...well, either that or you dont' pay any attention to what I'm writing.
-
--snip--
Oh, and you seem to miss the main point. Purpose of reproduction is to carry over your genetic material. To mix it with your significant other.
The child inherits something from both parents..that doesn't really happen with homosexuals.. they have to look for a third party.
Actually, now they have this new technology now where they can copy the DNA from one sperm to a blank egg and mate it with another sperm, effectively allowing homosexuals to have kids of their own.
I'm not sure if they have a similar thing going for lesbians but its probably already here or not too far off.
EDIT:
It's probably not even genetic (at least fully) anyway. Societies pressures are part of the human condition now so one can't say behaviors caused by society are "unnatural".
THIS is where we disagreed, by your labeling society's influence natural and me saying its not.
-
--snip--
Actually, now they have this new technology now where they can copy the DNA from one sperm to a blank egg and mate it with another sperm, effectively allowing homosexuals to have kids of their own.
I'm not sure if they have a similar thing going for lesbians but its probably already here or not too far off.
Uh-oh! Double y chromosomes coming up! Aliens 3 anyone?
-
Actually, now they have this new technology now where they can copy the DNA from one sperm to a blank egg and mate it with another sperm, effectively allowing homosexuals to have kids of their own.
I'm not sure if they have a similar thing going for lesbians but its probably already here or not too far off.
Experimental...dangerous...not used ATM...and again, as I said - requires assistance from a third party.
It's probably not even genetic (at least fully) anyway. Societies pressures are part of the human condition now so one can't say behaviors caused by society are "unnatural".
THIS is where we disagreed, by your labeling society's influence natural and me saying its not.
[/quote]
Cultural influence? Highly unlikely.. How would you explain kids growing up in vastly different families end up homosexual? Sexual attraction is not a learend behavioour...it instinctive...primal.
-
I'm sorry? Did Itype it wrong?...erm..nope.. then your browser must be bugged...well, either that or you dont' pay any attention to what I'm writing.
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question of explaining the sizable portion of homosexuals in the population.
http://www.plu.sg/main/facts_05.htm
Figures range from 1% to a stagering 20%.
"I'm sorry, is this too much for you to answer? Or is your browser bugged?" :rolleyes:
EDIT:
It's probably not even genetic (at least fully) anyway. Societies pressures are part of the human condition now so one can't say behaviors caused by society are "unnatural".
THIS is where we disagreed, by your labeling society's influence natural and me saying its not.
Then everything we do is "unnatural". You go to school? Unnatural. You use computers? Unnatural. And so on. The very language you speak and how you think also due to society's influence on you.
--snip--
Actually, now they have this new technology now where they can copy the DNA from one sperm to a blank egg and mate it with another sperm, effectively allowing homosexuals to have kids of their own.
I'm not sure if they have a similar thing going for lesbians but its probably already here or not too far off.
Uh-oh! Double y chromosomes coming up! Aliens 3 anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome
Also, males have X chromosomes also, if they are going to use tools to create children, then they are bound to use X chromosomes.
Actually, now they have this new technology now where they can copy the DNA from one sperm to a blank egg and mate it with another sperm, effectively allowing homosexuals to have kids of their own.
I'm not sure if they have a similar thing going for lesbians but its probably already here or not too far off.
Experimental...dangerous...not used ATM...and again, as I said - requires assistance from a third party.
You seem to mistake a homosexual couple with an individual homosexual. If a homosexual wants to have children, nothing stops him from finding a female mate. Again, ancient greece didn't find trouble increasing their population.
It's probably not even genetic (at least fully) anyway. Societies pressures are part of the human condition now so one can't say behaviors caused by society are "unnatural".
THIS is where we disagreed, by your labeling society's influence natural and me saying its not.
Cultural influence? Highly unlikely.. How would you explain kids growing up in vastly different families end up homosexual? Sexual attraction is not a learend behavioour...it instinctive...primal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual
The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."
-
Uh-oh! Double y chromosomes coming up! Aliens 3 anyone?
Only a 25% chance of that, Wobble. ;)
Then everything we do is "unnatural". You go to school? Unnatural. You use computers? Unnatural. And so on. The very language you speak and how you think also due to society's influence on you.
Now now, I'm talking specifically about society's influence on the suppressing of a genetic trait, which I think, is unnatural.
Cultural influence? Highly unlikely.. How would you explain kids growing up in vastly different families end up homosexual? Sexual attraction is not a learend behavioour...it instinctive...primal.
Yes I completley agree. if you read all my other posts....
Its genetic, first and foremost, but an oppressive society can force some homosexuals to lead heterosexual lives.
-
Then everything we do is "unnatural". You go to school? Unnatural. You use computers? Unnatural. And so on. The very language you speak and how you think also due to society's influence on you.
Now now, I'm talking specifically about society's influence on the suppressing of a genetic trait, which I think, is unnatural.
But homosexuals aren't repressing a genetic trait if they have sexual intercourse with a female. Just as a heterosexual isn't repressing a genetic trait if they have sexual intercourse with a male. You can't say human behavior within a society is unnatural since it is human nature to make societies.
Also, why consider what society represses as "unnatural" and what it encourages as "natural"? Is monogamy or polygamy unnatural then?
EDIT:
The thread's title is starting to make sense in a slightly ironic point of view. :p
-
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question of explaining the sizable portion of homosexuals in the population.
1% to 20%...a HUGE difference... in other words we know jack s*** just how many there are.
And didn't I explain? Some things are just more likely to happen. Like in a factory process - a car with switched signal light is for instance more probable to happen than a car wihout brakes.
You seem to mistake a homosexual couple with an individual homosexual. If a homosexual wants to have children, nothing stops him from finding a female mate. Again, ancient greece didn't find trouble increasing their population.
NOT with their chosen life partner.. THAT is the problem. By heterosexuals 2 is enough.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."
No offense, but AAOP is not exaclty a institution according to whos guides I'd be raising my kids.
-
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question of explaining the sizable portion of homosexuals in the population.
1% to 20%...a HUGE difference... in other words we know jack s*** just how many there are.
And didn't I explain? Some things are just more likely to happen. Like in a factory process - a car with switched signal light is for instance more probable to happen than a car wihout brakes.
An error doesn't occur in the genetic code at THAT rate! Even if you consider a 1% rate, it's still a huge rate! It can't be errors every single time.
You seem to mistake a homosexual couple with an individual homosexual. If a homosexual wants to have children, nothing stops him from finding a female mate. Again, ancient greece didn't find trouble increasing their population.
NOT with their chosen life partner.. THAT is the problem. By heterosexuals 2 is enough.
But monogamy isn't the only form of mariage! You seem to be still stuck in "monogamic heterosexual is the only natural behavior" kind of thinking. Also, sex isn't only about reproduction, especially in the case of homosexuals. They can leave the reproduction part of sex to a mate they will later find.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."
No offense, but AAOP is not exaclty a institution according to whos guides I'd be raising my kids.
Why is that? Because of that statement?
-
An error doesn't occur in the genetic code at THAT rate! Even if you consider a 1% rate, it's still a huge rate! It can't be errors every single time.
You sure? Do me a favor and pull up some numbers of people with Alzheimers adn similar conditions. I assure you the number is quite high.
**** happens..and quite often too.
But monogamy isn't the only form of mariage! You seem to be still stuck in "monogamic heterosexual is the only natural behavior" kind of thinking. Also, sex isn't only about reproduction, especially in the case of homosexuals. They can leave the reproduction part of sex to a mate they will later find.
Sigh...you're again forgetting the basic design purpose of a human.. which is made more difficult by this..condition.
Plainly put homosexuals are less likely to reproduce....they don't feel drawn to hte opposite sex (which is a crucial factor for it)...even if they do engage in said relations, its becaouse they HAVE TO do it, not becosue they WANT to do it.
Why is that? Because of that statement?
No.. Let's jsut say I don't like the lifestyle in america...or should I say culture...as well as pediatric approach
-
An error doesn't occur in the genetic code at THAT rate! Even if you consider a 1% rate, it's still a huge rate! It can't be errors every single time.
You sure? Do me a favor and pull up some numbers of people with Alzheimers adn similar conditions. I assure you the number is quite high.
**** happens..and quite often too.
Those conditions are not spread through errors in the vast majority of cases. It's one thing to say that it spreads through genetic errors and another to say it's one. Also, part of those conditions are acquired throughout a life-time. Your own genetic code is determined in a short period of time. Even 1% is too large a rate to just dismiss as caused by an error.
But monogamy isn't the only form of mariage! You seem to be still stuck in "monogamic heterosexual is the only natural behavior" kind of thinking. Also, sex isn't only about reproduction, especially in the case of homosexuals. They can leave the reproduction part of sex to a mate they will later find.
Sigh...you're again forgetting the basic design purpose of a human.. which is made more difficult by this..condition.
Plainly put homosexuals are less likely to reproduce....they don't feel drawn to hte opposite sex (which is a crucial factor for it)...even if they do engage in said relations, its becaouse they HAVE TO do it, not becosue they WANT to do it.
*points to ancient greece for the nth time*
Also, explain the diference between "they have to" and "they want to" in this case? It's not like anyone's holding a gun at males across the world and telling them to engage in sexual relations with a woman.
Also, "plainly put, polygamics are more likely to reproduce than monogamic" so whatever that statement is worth...
-
Why is that? Because of that statement?
No.. Let's jsut say I don't like the lifestyle in america...or should I say culture...as well as pediatric approach
Idem. I don't know why those Americans always have something to do about the subject(well, any subject).
Again, ancient greece didn't find trouble increasing their population.
Because a man could have:
A wife. Only a wife could give her husband "legitimate", or "official" children.
A pornè(that's where "porno" comes from). Basically a *****.
An etera(or etèra...I don't remember). Something between the wife and the pornè. They were good-looking and cultured(that's what I like, a woman you can **** and talk with ;7 ).
Homosexuality was accepted, but, under all these circumstances...having children was usual. Keep in mind that people used to get married at the age of 12, so even homosexuals could have tried to...uhm... :drevil:
-
Mobius, and what stops a homosexual from having a wife too? It didn't seem to stop the ancients greeks, did it?
-
Mobius, and what stops a homosexual from having a wife too? It didn't seem to stop the ancients greeks, did it?
How can you call a guy "homosexual", if that guy has children?!? The simple fact that he had sex with a woman makes him a trans.
-
Mobius, and what stops a homosexual from having a wife too? It didn't seem to stop the ancients greeks, did it?
How can you call a guy "homosexual", if that guy has children?!? The simple fact that he had sex with a woman makes him a trans.
There are plenty of men who call themselves homosexuals in spite of having children. It's called a preference of sexual partners.
-
There are plenty of men who call themselves homosexuals in spite of having children. It's called a preference of sexual partners.
So? I call myself the FRED Lord. Am I the FRED Lord? :P
They can call themselves homosexuals, but having sex with a woman makes them more eterosexuals than many eterosexuals :lol:
-
There are plenty of men who call themselves homosexuals in spite of having children. It's called a preference of sexual partners.
So? I call myself the FRED Lord. Am I the FRED Lord? :P
They can call themselves homosexuals, but having sex with a woman makes them more eterosexuals than many eterosexuals :lol:
It's called a preference for a reason. If I have A and but want B does that mean I like A more then I like B?
-
We should call them with the name they deserve.
-
We should call them with the name they deserve.
Even if they like the same sex more?
So every virgin on the planet is an unknown then? :wtf:
-
Actually, now they have this new technology now where they can copy the DNA from one sperm to a blank egg and mate it with another sperm, effectively allowing homosexuals to have kids of their own.
Are you certain it wasn;t the other way around? I know I read an article about female-female mouse reproduction - the author was jokingly saying that men were becoming obsoletem which is why I'm certain of the genders - but at the time I read it male-male was much, much harder/less likely.
-
So every virgin on the planet is an unknown then? :wtf:
Help me finding one... :lol:
Are you certain it wasn;t the other way around? I know I read an article about female-female mouse reproduction - the author was jokingly saying that men were becoming obsoletem which is why I'm certain of the genders - but at the time I read it male-male was much, much harder/less likely.
Confirmed. I read articles about male-free possible societies(stupid ones, though).
-
What does Ancient Greece have to do with ANYTHING? I know a couple people who happen to be gay that have had sex with women more than once. They enjoyed it on a physical level, but not on a hormonal level. Homosexuality has nothing to do with what 'can' be done (i.e. a choice), but it is determined by hormonal responses. It's probably how the gaydar works... That is, if it's real. Most (female) Pr0n stars are pleasured by both men and women in their movies. They usually enjoy it to a degree, but most of them don't go to the bar to pick up chicks.
If you take the definition of sexuality literally, every living animal is unisexual, and the word you are looking for is homoamorous.
-
http://mindprod.com/ggloss/homoamorous.html
It seems it's the same as homosexual.
Also, I've been pointing out ancient greece since their society permited homosexual sex, in spite of them having a wife and kids.
-
Those conditions are not spread through errors in the vast majority of cases. It's one thing to say that it spreads through genetic errors and another to say it's one. Also, part of those conditions are acquired throughout a life-time. Your own genetic code is determined in a short period of time. Even 1% is too large a rate to just dismiss as caused by an error.
Show me your degree saying that you're an expert on Biology and Genetics, and I might be swayed.
However, many deases, conditions and defects are very common and we still don't know exactly why.
Also, explain the diference between "they have to" and "they want to" in this case? It's not like anyone's holding a gun at males across the world and telling them to engage in sexual relations with a woman.
Simple. I *CAN* eat shrimp.. but I don't like it. Ergo, I't's very unlikely I'll *EVER* eat it, except under extreeme circumstances.
Basicly, you're more likely to do what you like than what you don't like.
Heterosexuals are ATTRACTED to woman. They WANT to be with them, so they are more likely to marry and have children.
Homosexuals are not. Think about it. Would you go out and sleep with another male? What if it was the only way to get accepted? Or to get offspring?
I'ts basicly simple pressure...extreeme condition...Allmost as bad as having a gun pointed at your head...
Also, "plainly put, polygamics are more likely to reproduce than monogamic" so whatever that statement is worth...
Maby.. but it's not about quantity anyway.
I think I recall a study that coincluded that monogamy is better from the gentic stanpoint (diversity is more nuanced).
-
I really wonder why you know so many things about the subject... :wtf:
-
Those conditions are not spread through errors in the vast majority of cases. It's one thing to say that it spreads through genetic errors and another to say it's one. Also, part of those conditions are acquired throughout a life-time. Your own genetic code is determined in a short period of time. Even 1% is too large a rate to just dismiss as caused by an error.
Show me your degree saying that you're an expert on Biology and Genetics, and I might be swayed.
However, many deases, conditions and defects are very common and we still don't know exactly why.
Show me your degree then. There is a diference between an error occuring in the genetic code and you inheriting one. The most common conditions which you described are common because it was inherited. Errors occuring on mass enough to justify even 1% of the population with a single condition is simply impossible.
Also, explain the diference between "they have to" and "they want to" in this case? It's not like anyone's holding a gun at males across the world and telling them to engage in sexual relations with a woman.
Simple. I *CAN* eat shrimp.. but I don't like it. Ergo, I't's very unlikely I'll *EVER* eat it, except under extreeme circumstances.
Basicly, you're more likely to do what you like than what you don't like.
Heterosexuals are ATTRACTED to woman. They WANT to be with them, so they are more likely to marry and have children.
Homosexuals are not. Think about it. Would you go out and sleep with another male? What if it was the only way to get accepted? Or to get offspring?
I'ts basicly simple pressure...extreeme condition...Allmost as bad as having a gun pointed at your head...
But if they are pressured to have offspring then surely that is because of their natural desires even if they prefer the same sex! It still leaves the obvious conclusion, they reproduce.
Let me put it this way. Imagine there was a specific gene that made people ugly as ****. They would be much less likely to reproduce then the "normal" people. Do you consider this a genetic defect?
-
Sigh...you're again forgetting the basic design purpose of a human.. which is made more difficult by this..condition.
Plainly put homosexuals are less likely to reproduce....they don't feel drawn to hte opposite sex (which is a crucial factor for it)...even if they do engage in said relations, its becaouse they HAVE TO do it, not becosue they WANT to do it.
If you're going to claim that a reduction in the likelihood of reproduction is a genetic defect then I'm going to point out that by that logic high intelligence is one of the larger defects that exists.
And I give you the first couple of minutes of Idiocracy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAYnc_-ddlw) as my exhibit A for that claim.
And I'll leave you to decide whether or not you are also genetically defective then. :p
-
Intelligence is the main trait that defines a human. How can it possibly be a defect? And I fail to see how it stand in the way of reproduction..
There is a diference between an error occuring in the genetic code and you inheriting one. The most common conditions which you described are common because it was inherited. Errors occuring on mass enough to justify even 1% of the population with a single condition is simply impossible
I can tell you why becosue I don't know. Could be that one of the first humans had that defect and it it indeed became quite common. Maby it is partially passed on. Maby its a error purposly built in by nature. Some things are just FAR more likely to happen than others, and we rarely can say why. Biology is a very complicated matter after all...
But if they are pressured to have offspring then surely that is because of their natural desires even if they prefer the same sex! It still leaves the obvious conclusion, they reproduce.
Less ofthen that heterosexuals, since sex with the opposite sex isn't appealing to htem. But let's look at something else, shall we?
When choosing your life partner you look for someone who's phisycal and mental traits you like. Not even in nature do they breed unselectivly. Basicly you'd want your offspring to inherit as much from your partner as possible. By homosexuals that doesn't happen. You don't breed with your chosen life partner, you (maby) breed with someone else. It takes 3 to tango for homosexuals. Maby in the future 2 will be enough, but it would still require some outside intervention.
Let's face it - when it comes to mating and reproduction, a heterosexual is what you might call "a streamlined and efficient design", while a homosexual is not.
If you got a car that has the gas pedal and break pedal wires crossed would you stop for once second before calling it a defect? No, you wouldn't. You can still drive it, but that just wan't in the original blueprints. A fully working car is simply nbetter at what it's supposed to do.
This is basicly my whole point, a undenayable fact.
Some of the things that define a human male/female, both physicly and socially, simply work much more efficient and streamlined for heterosexuals. Thus, homosexuality is a defects or an error if you will.
Now if you excuse me, I got 2 seminars to write...
*curses databases*
-
I'm going to start by pointing out that a 'social' difficulty in modern society has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics or 'errors', and everything to do with the stereotyping and refusal to accept something different that I'm seeing here in the article.
And yes, intelligence is a 'defect', it is spurious to our needs, which are to eat, drink and reproduce, animals all over the world manage that without any real level of intelligence whatsoever. In fact, intelligence often makes us hesitate where other creatures would not. It's a weakness as much as a strength. We are of unequal proportions now, without intelligence, we would be hopeless, but that is the niche we exploit, the 'defect' we took to extremes to maximise our place in that niche.
-
Intelligence is not a 'defect'. All animals have certain levels of intelligence. While humans may be one of the very few species with high level processing (morals, etc) as the primary way of thinking, we may be out smartened by an animal of low level processing (instinct, etc) quite easily.
And yes, homosexuality IS a defect. Not because of adaptive mutation, but because the hormones produced/not produced by the body do not reflect the genetic base of the male/female differential. If homosexuality was genetic, it could not be considered a defect. But because it is hormonal, it can be.
-
Nope, it's a defect, just like limbs, just like triploblastic body shapes, just like lungs, gills, eyes, smell and a million other things that creatures use to survive on a daily basis. Every single one of them is a defect that has carried on until it divides that organism into a distinct species. That's how evolution works, and if you believe in Creation, it gets worse, because either God creates gay men (and women), or he makes mistakes.
So, in a way, homosexuality is a defect, but that does not neccesarily mean it is a bad or restrictive one, just like having limbs, eyes or intelligence. It's certainly not speceitic divider, it is not impossible for a Homosexual to breed, they merely choose not to (and considering the adoption debate, it's not that they have no urge to raise young). Once again, to refer to the animal kingdom, look at Bonobo monkeys, a society that is almost entirely bisexual, yet male/male or female/female sex serves no discernible purpose other than as a recreational or social past-time. What defines our own reaction to homosexuality is purely a social effect, just as we find Excess weight undesireable now, but a century ago, it was the preferred shape, I also wouldn't be surprised if societal pressure had a lot more to play in people being homosexual, rather than bisexual. Remember, monogomy is the accepted norm, so they can either be one or the other. There's this assumption that Gay men look at Women in the same light as straight men look at other men, I'm not certain that is the case at all.
It just surprises me that a country adopts a 'Freedom of Expression' clause, creates a monogomous society, and then gets all up in arms when some of that society decides to be same-sex preference because they didn't want that much Freedom of Expression.
-
readin that post, i think that homosexuals=non-breeding child raisers
they're more civilized than us, then, but rely on us to raise children (adoption).
-
they're more civilized than us, then, but rely on us to raise children (adoption).
Actually, since heterosexuals make up most of our civilization, we are technically more civilized then them, as we set the norm in the society due to our majority.
-
civilized=more civil, not barbaric, not ugly to the mind
-
*Stuff*
You still don't get it, do you? There is a subtle difference between a change in genetic structure and a change in hormonal balance. You CAN NOT compare adaptive evolution to brain/nervous function and malfunction. They are two different things. One has to do with genetics, the other has to do with hormones. You might know the two are somewhat related, considering they both have something to do with something else, but that does not make them an identical grounds for comparison. I'm sorry, sir, you fail.
readin that post, i think that homosexuals=non-breeding child raisers
they're more civilized than us, then, but rely on us to raise children (adoption).
Actually, since heterosexuals make up most of our civilization, we are technically more civilized then them, as we set the norm in the society due to our majority.
civilized=more civil, not barbaric, not ugly to the mind
God dammit guys, will there EVER be a time when you don't make yourselves look like complete imbeciles?
-
Oh my god this is too funny.... :)
-
:nod:
So, is it hormonal imbalance or brain/nervous defect, you managed to call it both in the same post, whilst accusing me of not getting it.....
-
theres a "gay fitness comnunity" banner ad at the top of this page. :wtf:
-
:nod:
So, is it hormonal imbalance or brain/nervous defect, you managed to call it both in the same post, whilst accusing me of not getting it.....
/me gives up
EDIT: Ummm... DIFFERENCES IN HORMONES ARE CAUSED BY THE BRAIN!!
-
Last time I checked, most of my sexuality related hormones came from my testes, which, I certainly hope, are not in my brain, though I'm sure there are girls that would disagree.
-
FFS!!
Did I say hormones were created in the brain? NO! I said the imbalances are CAUSED by the brain! Just because testes can produce certain hormones does not mean it does. A decapitated man's balls do not release testosterone. Likewise a highly challenged man's balls do not release a negligible amount of testosterone. If it does, something is going against the nature of reactive testosterone production. That is just one of many factors for any of it. Fact: Hormone production is demanded by the brain. If there is something wrong with the brain, or if there is a miscommunication between the brain and testes, then a DEFECT is the most likely outcome... And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Oh, and you're right, your testes are not in your brain.
-
ITT we think /b/ makes us smart. :p
-
I still haven't forgiven Shrike for my title...
-
So you are saying that every hormonal imbalance in the history of mankind is caused by a brain defect? Or are you merely generalising and saying that every homosexual has a hormonal problem that can only be caused by an incredibly specific and limited brain defect that has no other negative effect on the person, at least until other societal fears get involved?
You see, it still doesn't go near my original point, which is mankind is not unique in using bisexuality, that societal views can visibly change over time and that homosexuality, even if it IS a 'brain defect' is still a factor of humanity, even if I adhere to your somewhat vague description, which I don't because 'hormonal imbalance' and 'brain defect' are two entirely separate conditions whether you acknowledge it or not, it's still no better than refusing to acknowledge anyone else with some kind of 'disorder'. That's why this is powered by fear and prejudice, because no matter what side of the line you stand, it's still the wrong thing to do.
-
So you are saying that every hormonal imbalance in the history of mankind is caused by a brain defect?
No. Missing testes would also cause for a hormonal imbalance. Or a brain injury. Or a central nervous system defect/injury.
]Or are you merely generalising and saying that every homosexual has a hormonal problem that can only be caused by an incredibly specific and limited brain defect that has no other negative effect on the person, at least until other societal fears get involved?
I wouldn't put it that way, but yes. Most (not every) homosexual/bisexual person has a hormonal problem that can only be caused by a vaguely specific and limited brain/CNS defect/injury. Other homosexual people either do it by choice (rare), or because of a life altering event (i.e. a woman was raped by a man, and associates men with rape). Either way, specific hormone treatments have been found for the mother of the fetus, and people are continuing research in hormone treatments for adults who are homosexual.
You see, it still doesn't go near my original point, which is mankind is not unique in using bisexuality, that societal views can visibly change over time and that homosexuality, even if it IS a 'brain defect' is still a factor of humanity, even if I adhere to your somewhat vague description, which I don't because 'hormonal imbalance' and 'brain defect' are two entirely separate conditions whether you acknowledge it or not, it's still no better than refusing to acknowledge anyone else with some kind of 'disorder'. That's why this is powered by fear and prejudice, because no matter what side of the line you stand, it's still the wrong thing to do.
No, your original point was that because homosexuality is found in nature (nobody with half a brain will argue against that), it belongs in the same vein as adaptive evolution and natural selection. Very invalid point. Also, homosexuality is no more a factor of humanity than narcolepsy. And for the third time, hormonal imbalances are caused by brain defects. I also refuse to acknowledge anyone else with that kind of disorder. It would require too much effort to even differentiate it. Fear and prejudice are slowly but surely fading away, the majority of people have the mindset of, "OK. You're gay. I care."
Sometimes people think, "STFU about being gay already. You said it many times before, there's no reason to continue saying it."
Perhaps even, "Throw that god damned flag away!! You gay pride activists make me SICK!! I dont walk down the street in parade, waving a special flag because I'm straight, why should you because you're gay? Give me one good reason, dip****!!"
I bet society would accept homosexuals a lot faster if they didn't shove their 'agenda' down our throats... Pun intended.
-
I bet society would accept homosexuals a lot faster if they didn't shove their 'agenda' down our throats... Pun intended.
No. They wouldn't.
Actually it doesn't really make any difference, since mankind has proven it sucks... If you are gay, you are not part of the "Majority"... and what happens then?
-
I bet society would accept homosexuals a lot faster if they didn't shove their 'agenda' down our throats... Pun intended.
It's just a natural reaction after being subject to decades of hate and repression.
Oh, and remind me again why people can't just walk away or, heaven forbid, ignore gay-pride celebrations if they have such a problem with it?
-
Oh, and remind me again why people can't just walk away or, heaven forbid, ignore gay-pride celebrations if they have such a problem with it?
It's not the celebrations that bother me, it's the people making the celebrations possible. If even half the black/gay/feminist/democrat demonstrations would cease, the world would be a much better place. In an ideal world, or a world where reasonable people existed, something of difference would be acknowledged as matter-of-fact, and dismissed just as quickly. However, as history and human nature has proven time and time again, when the underprivileged get their message across, they just keep going, whether or not the ones in power think like they used to.
Oh well...
-
I think the above user is white, hetero, non-feminist, and a reblupican...
-
How DARE you insist I'm republican! Those damn gold-pocketers have been in control for far too long!
FIGHT THE POWAH!!
But yes, I am white, hetero, and non-feminist. I guess that means my ideas aren't valid :(.
-
I guess that means my ideas aren't valid :(.
No, of course not. You're just coming across a bit of a prat.
Joshua was out of line to make the remark, but you've got to agree that a white, heterosexual male claiming that the world would be a better place without black/gay/feminist/democrat demonstrations is a bit Republican, eh?
-
Sorry about that... I think I would have completely freaked out if you left out "Demonstrations"...
-
Nope, it's a defect, just like limbs, just like triploblastic body shapes, just like lungs, gills, eyes, smell and a million other things that creatures use to survive on a daily basis. Every single one of them is a defect that has carried on until it divides that organism into a distinct species. That's how evolution works, and if you believe in Creation, it gets worse, because either God creates gay men (and women), or he makes mistakes.
LOL... explain to me HOW homosexuality helps us to survive.
So, in a way, homosexuality is a defect, but that does not neccesarily mean it is a bad or restrictive one, just like having limbs, eyes or intelligence. It's certainly not speceitic divider, it is not impossible for a Homosexual to breed, they merely choose not to (and considering the adoption debate, it's not that they have no urge to raise young).
Limbs are used to move...eyes to see...what's the use of homosexuality? It's got NO positive purpose WHATSOEVER. It's negative effects are minimal, that's true, but are still there...thus a defect. period.
It just surprises me that a country adopts a 'Freedom of Expression' clause, creates a monogomous society, and then gets all up in arms when some of that society decides to be same-sex preference because they didn't want that much Freedom of Expression.
"decides"?? Theres no decision involved here...It's not a "lifestyle choice" regardless how some prefer to call it liek that. You're either born that way or not.
You see, it still doesn't go near my original point, which is mankind is not unique in using bisexuality, that societal views can visibly change over time and that homosexuality, even if it IS a 'brain defect' is still a factor of humanity, even if I adhere to your somewhat vague description, which I don't because 'hormonal imbalance' and 'brain defect' are two entirely separate conditions whether you acknowledge it or not, it's still no better than refusing to acknowledge anyone else with some kind of 'disorder'. That's why this is powered by fear and prejudice, because no matter what side of the line you stand, it's still the wrong thing to do.
Rubbish.. whether it appears somewhere else has nothing to do with it.. cancer and a whole s***load of other desiseas, deformities and defects appear trought the animal kingdom. Should we accept them as a "standard" part of humanity and not try to cure them?
And IMHO, it's partially a problem of people not acknowledging other people with some kind of disorder, but also partially that some people with a disorder refuse to face the truth about their condition.
Fear and prejudice are slowly but surely fading away, the majority of people have the mindset of, "OK. You're gay. I care."
Sometimes people think, "STFU about being gay already. You said it many times before, there's no reason to continue saying it."
Perhaps even, "Throw that god damned flag away!! You gay pride activists make me SICK!! I dont walk down the street in parade, waving a special flag because I'm straight, why should you because you're gay? Give me one good reason, dip****!!"
I bet society would accept homosexuals a lot faster if they didn't shove their 'agenda' down our throats... Pun intended.
:nod: :nod: :nod:
-
I don't care if someone's gay, I just don't want to see them up in my face with "I'M GAY AND YOU GOTTA DEAL WITH IT" when I didn't have a problem with it in the first place. Gay pride parades are just that, pointless screaming that I don't really want or need to hear.
People can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't cause an inconvenience to others, violating religious belief not counting as "inconvenience" BTW. Considering religious belief is a choice, so you're choosing to be inconvenienced. :p
-
I don't care if someone's gay, I just don't want to see them up in my face with "I'M GAY AND YOU GOTTA DEAL WITH IT" when I didn't have a problem with it in the first place. Gay pride parades are just that, pointless screaming that I don't really want or need to hear.
Oh, and remind me again why people can't just walk away or, heaven forbid, ignore gay-pride celebrations if they have such a problem with it?
-
I don't care if someone's gay, I just don't want to see them up in my face with "I'M GAY AND YOU GOTTA DEAL WITH IT" when I didn't have a problem with it in the first place. Gay pride parades are just that, pointless screaming that I don't really want or need to hear.
Oh, and remind me again why people can't just walk away or, heaven forbid, ignore gay-pride celebrations if they have such a problem with it?
Well, they sure don't make them easy to ignore. The news eats em up, and it's hard not to see the news nowadays. I'm not complaining though, up until this point I've not really had the problem I mentioned earlier. Whether it's going to happen or not is up to chance.
-
Sometimes people think, "STFU about being gay already. You said it many times before, there's no reason to continue saying it."
Perhaps even, "Throw that god damned flag away!! You gay pride activists make me SICK!! I dont walk down the street in parade, waving a special flag because I'm straight, why should you because you're gay? Give me one good reason, dip****!!"
I bet society would accept homosexuals a lot faster if they didn't shove their 'agenda' down our throats... Pun intended.
I don't care if someone's gay, I just don't want to see them up in my face with "I'M GAY AND YOU GOTTA DEAL WITH IT" when I didn't have a problem with it in the first place. Gay pride parades are just that, pointless screaming that I don't really want or need to hear.
Well, what did the blacks do when they were denied equal rights? they made a big stink about it! (Remember MLK?) Then do you know what happened? Things changed for them! I admit though some homosexuals aren't quite as tact as the rest of them would like them to be, it doesn't change the fact that they need to get peoples attention, demonstrate their numbers, and demonstrate their will to get things changed.
I realize some people are offended by the gay pride events where there is much indecent exposure, etc. But I only know of that happening on a regular basis in California, and even there the percentage of gay pride events with this happening is minimal, maybe only two or three a year. Remember, only the indecent/outlandish ones get the news! (Those in America will understand California is a totally different culture that people who grew up in other areas can never hope to understand.:lol:) Ive been to many gay pride events in my area (Michigan) and Ive not seen anything that even borderlined indecent.
-
If it were peacefull marches like Mr. King did it I wouldn't say anything...but 90% of all gay prides I witnessed were...sick, peverted, uncalled for.
parading in black learther thongs with whips and signs "Peversion is OK!"... gah! Makes me wanna shoot em.
-
Euuugghhh. :ick:
-
If it were peacefull marches like Mr. King did it I wouldn't say anything...but 90% of all gay prides I witnessed were...sick, peverted, uncalled for.
parading in black learther thongs with whips and signs "Peversion is OK!"... gah! Makes me wanna shoot em.
Well for one you live in Croatia.... Things work much differently over there.
...Are you sure you weren't witnessing a BDSM community celebration instead?
-
It's amazing, the amount of selective reading going on from both Scuddie and Trashman is unbelievable, you don't know what it is or what causes it, but it scares you, and THAT is why Gay Pride exists.
As has been pointed out, and once again, simply saying 'Bah... that's not the same thing' doesn't change a word of it, they are genetically, and evolutionarily errors, as I said in my first post, but you both chose to ignore it, it's not along the same lines as Arms or Lungs, but that doesn't make it any the less natural, and does not always mean it needs 'curing'.
Once again though, it's better to zero in on homosexuals because they are...well.. homosexuals, and everyone knows we should pick on them because...well.. they have sex with other men. It's that which it boils down do, and that which they've been persecuted with for years. That's why, when Pride was finally formed they took it to extremes.
As has been mentioned before, there are a great deal of traits that are considered 'errors' and a great deal of prejudice against them, stop whining and they'll stop winding you up, trust me, you get offended only at Gay Pride festivals, you only have to read this thread to see what way attitudes go for the rest of the year.
If you dislike having Gay Pride rubbed in your face, then fine, but this whole 'Homosexuality is a disease' bull**** is generalisation and vague speculation that even Scientists aren't certain of how or why it exists, but you've already decided that it's something 'different' from say having a Birth Mark.
-
Well for one you live in Croatia.... Things work much differently over there.
...Are you sure you weren't witnessing a BDSM community celebration instead?
Very sure. Things don't work differenently back here...unless by different you mean that Gay Pride parades don't act like a magnet for every perv in a 100 mile radius
It's amazing, the amount of selective reading going on from both Scuddie and Trashman is unbelievable, you don't know what it is or what causes it, but it scares you, and THAT is why Gay Pride exists.
As has been pointed out, and once again, simply saying 'Bah... that's not the same thing' doesn't change a word of it, they are genetically, and evolutionarily errors, as I said in my first post, but you both chose to ignore it, it's not along the same lines as Arms or Lungs, but that doesn't make it any the less natural, and does not always mean it needs 'curing'.
No Floppy...I read every single word written in this thread. If anyone here is selective and ignoring, that would be you.
I've stated more than enough reasons as to why I think like I do.. all are valid.
If you think otherwise - well...that's your problem. Live with it.
-
No Floppy...I read every single word written in this thread. If anyone here is selective and ignoring, that would be you.
I've stated more than enough reasons as to why I think like I do.. all are valid.
If you think otherwise - well...that's your problem. Live with it.
Well, since you're going to start calling me Playground names, and basically stick your fingers in your ears, yes, I think I'll live with it, thanks :)
Edit: I won't lock this thread, since I'm invloved, but if it's going to sink into rather pathetic jibes like that, I think it's time it happened.
-
Well, since you're going to start calling me Playground name
Tsk, tsk :rolleyes:...
maby it's better you do lock it.....it ran it's course anyway.... and I see there's little to discuss left anyway
-
Intelligence is the main trait that defines a human. How can it possibly be a defect? And I fail to see how it stand in the way of reproduction..
Did you even click the link?
God dammit guys, will there EVER be a time when you don't make yourselves look like complete imbeciles?
Any more of that and you'll be getting a lovely simian avatar.
-
It's amazing, the amount of selective reading going on from both Scuddie and Trashman is unbelievable, you don't know what it is or what causes it, but it scares you, and THAT is why Gay Pride exists.
Yeah. It scares me. Did you come to that conclusion on your own, smart stuff, or did you use that bizarro logic you have?
As has been pointed out, and once again, simply saying 'Bah... that's not the same thing' doesn't change a word of it, they are genetically, and evolutionarily errors, as I said in my first post, but you both chose to ignore it, it's not along the same lines as Arms or Lungs, but that doesn't make it any the less natural, and does not always mean it needs 'curing'.
Homosexuality has zero to do with genetics and evolution, as I have been saying from the beginning, but you choose to ignore it. It is a disorder, but it is not an affliction. Some people (i.e. you) just can't see that.
Once again though, it's better to zero in on homosexuals because they are...well.. homosexuals, and everyone knows we should pick on them because...well.. they have sex with other men. It's that which it boils down do, and that which they've been persecuted with for years. That's why, when Pride was finally formed they took it to extremes.
There is a subtle difference between gay pride demonstrations and MLK type demonstrations. How is anybody supposed to take them seriously when they don't have an assertive attitude about social equality? Oh, I know, they can dress up in gimp suits and use long pink dildos and swordfight with them. What a great idea!
As has been mentioned before, there are a great deal of traits that are considered 'errors' and a great deal of prejudice against them, stop whining and they'll stop winding you up, trust me, you get offended only at Gay Pride festivals, you only have to read this thread to see what way attitudes go for the rest of the year.
Yes. There is a great deal of prejudice against them, but barely a fraction as much prejudice as the blacks had to deal with. Now the black American community has FAR less prejudice against them (still a bit more than homosexuals), but they are still going with the same movement... but that movement doesn't happen to be one involving big lipped, bloody knuckled old men listening to quasi bluegrass music while eating ribs and watermelon in their raggedy overalls and saying "We's aims to please". These demonstrations are supposed to disarm stereotypes, not reinforce them.
If you dislike having Gay Pride rubbed in your face, then fine, but this whole 'Homosexuality is a disease' bull**** is generalisation and vague speculation that even Scientists aren't certain of how or why it exists, but you've already decided that it's something 'different' from say having a Birth Mark.
I never said it was a disease, I said it was a defect. As a gamer, I would expect you of all people to know that some bugs are irrelevant in nature, and some are actually beneficial. Homosexuality being a defect is in no way a generalization, and scientists are very certain how and why it exists. And yes, it is different from having a birth mark. Homosexuality is not a pre-birth skin lesion.
EDIT: Where is Raa/Taristin when you need him? He'd be one to agree with me. He being... you know... intelligent and all.
-
Yeah. It scares me.
Have you ever considered that the entire reason that some people dress up in catsuits etc is because it inspires raging fury in people who think of them as somehow 'imperfect' and hate the nature of that imperfection being waved in their face? I don't agree with flamboyancy as seen in Gay Pride parades any more than you do, but I don't get so vehemently acidic about it as you do, so, with you, they achieve exactly what they set out to.
Secondly, as far as I'm aware, the cause of homosexuality isn't 'clearly known by scientists' in the slightest, there are STILL massive arguments going on in that department.
Finally....
He being... you know... intelligent and all.
As Karajorma said, any more of that and I don't care if it looks bad.
Edit: Locked, if the response to my every comment is going to be interlaced with infantile comments and insults then there is no point continuing.
-
Any more of that and you'll be getting a lovely simian avatar.
You were warned Scuddie. Enjoy a holiday from the off-topic for a few days.