Homosexuals
-
Chris Losinger wrote: utter B.S. total nonsense. I'm afraid I will have to trump you with a degree in biology and an understanding of simple mendelian genetics. Certainly any random gene can be inherited by an offspring, and certainly homsexuals possess the anatomy to bear viable children. But the simple matter is that over the course of long biological time, any gene significantly reducing the production of such offsprings, as a gene for homosexuality would, would simply be out competed by other genes. It would not be stable enough to produce any thing approaching a ten percent figure in any population, let alone the entire human populace. It simply is not possible. For it to be stable, homosexuals would have to be having children at about the same rate as everyone else in the population. You could argue that these individuals were under social duress to have children, but that would mean that every human social organization since the first apperance of our species was overtly homophobic. If so, than we can only conclude that homophobia must itself be genetic and is therefore as valid as homosexuality and should be protected on the same grounds. I mean, if I'm genetically predisposed to be a homophobe who are you to tell me I shouldn't be you intolerant bastard. ;) "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm afraid I will have to trump you with a degree in biology and an understanding of simple mendelian genetics. you're gonna have to go farther than simple Mendelian genetics here. humans are social creatures, not strictly individuals like snakes. there could be a non-obvious benefit from homosexuality to the society (or the species) as a whole which we just haven't figured out yet. for example, there's a non-obvious benefit to having grandparents around: even though they are not breeding anymore, not doing much hunting or hard work, etc. (are basically a drain on resources), they do help in raising children, which frees up time for the younger healthier people to do more hunting and hard work. living past the age of their own fertility and productivity still helps promote their own genes because they can help raise the offspring of their offspring. and no, i'm not saying homosexuals help promote homosexual genes - that was an example of"'non-obvious". maybe it's something as simple as providing a way to release sexual urges when there aren't any members of the other sex around: but it gets taken father than necessary (necessary for that goal, anyway) in some people, the same way eating gets taken farther than necessary in morbidly obese people - you're not going to argue that only divine intervention can explain people too fat to breed, right? and unlike people too fat to breed, homosexuals can still be productive members of society; which, like grandparents, helps everyone. if you believe the results of this study, homosexual acts are anything but rare: 80% of men and 90% of women report that they've had a same-sex partner at least once since age 18. it's clear that the tendencies for homosexual acts are present in everyone, perhaps some people just go to far. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Mazdak wrote: Well, the thingk I finally want to understand is , Does a person have the right to BE a gay or not. My answer to that would be "Yes, but..." Certainly, who a person choices to love and have a relationship with is their own damned business. But, the real question is if a person pursues such a relationship do I have the right to be intolerant of it? That is, are you and I to be legally required to tolerate behaviors we are morally predisposed to find objectionable. If we are to say that one person has the "right" to behave as a homosexual than why should I not have the "right" to behave as a homophobe? Why is their right to a defined set of behaviors any more valid than mine or yours? And if the state can force us to tolerate behaviors we do not wish to tolerate, how can we be said to possess a "free exercise of religion"? The good thing about all this is that by pursueing this course, the left has opened a can of worms which they will ultimately be unable to control. The irrationality which their religious beliefs are predicated upon, as with all such religions, will collapse like a house of cards. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: If we are to say that one person has the "right" to behave as a homosexual than why should I not have the "right" to behave as a homophobe? Damn good point! We could always use their line: I can't help it, I was born homophobic. ;) Jeremy Falcon
-
Stan Shannon wrote: This is the one argument where liberals have to depend on creationism to defend their beliefs. God created some people straight and some people gay, and that is simply the natural order of things. Uhm.. why do you have to bring God into this argument? Are you implying all liberals are religious? If rand() is divine, I'll buy your argument. ;P Stan Shannon wrote: The notion that I, as a parent, upon discovering that one of my children might be inclined towards homosexuality, could seek treatment for it, and to expect that we would apply standard scientific and medical methodologies to understanding the issue, unencumbered by politically correct dogma, is of course, one of the many "immoral" beliefs that the left demands that we reject. Ah yes, but what if your child says "No dad, I am what I am, and you cannot change me!" - is it still your right to "fix" him/her? Gay people don't know they're gay until their sex drive kicks in. Before that they just know they're different than others. Stan Shannon wrote: Apparently when the left say it is time for something to change, than we are all just supposed to mindlessly get in line and help them to change it. End of discussion. Society evolves. I mean, if it wasn't for this evolution, there would be no US, home of the brave, etc. Clinging on to the past or fighting progress is not always worth the effort - I mean, what do you have to earn by denying same sex marriages? -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Gay people don't know they're gay until their sex drive kicks in. Before that they just know they're different than others. How do you know this? :rolleyes: Jeremy Falcon
-
Mazdak wrote: Nothing happend if all people become left handed Being left-handed myself I can assure you it would be a revolution! Many, many things are designed for right-handed people :| But it's another debate :) Does it really matter why some people are gays and other aren't, if it comes from the genes or the education? The fact is, some people are gays, whatever the country and the period of history, knowing "why" has IMHO little interest. As long as Freedom consists in being able to do all that does not harm others, I see no reason to persecute or limit the rights of these people because of their sexual preferences, as long as they aren't breaking this generic rule, as the heterosexuals.
And I'm talking to myself at night because I can't forget Back and forth through my mind Behind a cigarette
KaЯl wrote: As long as Freedom consists in being able to do all that does not harm others, I see no reason to persecute or limit the rights of these people because of their sexual preferences Ok, let's say I'm a pedophile then. I love your 10 year old and daughter and she loves me. Then I should be able to marry her under this notion. Even if her mindset is different than mine because of her age, so what? She's still giving consent. Gays obviously have a different mindset too - their mental development is obviously different than that of a straight person. Yeah I know, it's different because pedophilia is not publicly accepted like being gay is. So, there's more people saying it's wrong than right (not like the case of being gay). But, it's the same concept whether or not people justify being gay. Jeremy Falcon
-
Ok friends , seriously ,these days there are so much discussions about gay marriage,now some questions come to my mind. Why there is no talking about lesbian marriage? Are they silent about it or they have some laws now which satisfy them or...? And another thing that I want to know,is not about their marriage,it is about their total consept, what cause people become gay/lesbian? I mean is that something genetically which they can't enjoy from opposite gender? I've heard some peoples like that or it comes from their childhood and the way they grown up. But there are some people that change their way from when they are not child. How about those? Some people say it is natural to be gay/lebian but how is it natural which most of human nature from the beginig up to now are NOT like this?(I don't think we can say we are not homosexual by mistake or by chance ;) ) Please don't answer last question that it is 21th century and many things have change , so does this one,This doesn't make any scense alone.(At least for me) Mazy "A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it." - Bob Hope
Mazy if you want real *diverse* answers you have to remember CP is not the place for it because most CPians are just girly guys anyway and to me that's just one step away from being gay. They will naturally be more inclined to promote gayness because most of them are girly/gay/slash take it any way they can get it. ;) Jeremy Falcon
-
Trollslayer wrote: If I thought there was a chance of cure then that would be great. So far all I have seen is people being pushed into denial or lying to protect themselves. But doesn't it seem logical that the the chances for such would improve considerably if there was legitimate ongoing research into the issue? Instead, we have a scientific community that exists under a moral authoritarism not seen since the days of Galileo. Any researcher with the audacity to even question the legitimacy of the established conclusions can kiss their career goodbye. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Actually the dutch do some research into this. It is useful for everyone in that they can find more out about how the brain works because this gives them large groups to compare. This is a rare opportunity in such an ares and it seems there are differences in some parts of the hypthalamus but too fine for scans so they have to wait on people donating teir bodies in oder to study the fine structures involved. An odd result is that there are physical indicators in odd places like the relative lengths of index and ring fingers ! Maybe the situation is as you decribe in the US, but not in Europe. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
KaЯl wrote: As long as Freedom consists in being able to do all that does not harm others, I see no reason to persecute or limit the rights of these people because of their sexual preferences Ok, let's say I'm a pedophile then. I love your 10 year old and daughter and she loves me. Then I should be able to marry her under this notion. Even if her mindset is different than mine because of her age, so what? She's still giving consent. Gays obviously have a different mindset too - their mental development is obviously different than that of a straight person. Yeah I know, it's different because pedophilia is not publicly accepted like being gay is. So, there's more people saying it's wrong than right (not like the case of being gay). But, it's the same concept whether or not people justify being gay. Jeremy Falcon
This definition of Freedom is for citizens. However, we don't consider children as citizens but as "minor people", with a specific legislation and derserving specific protections. We consider that in this case the consent of the child has no value, the child being not grown up, experienced enough to be able to understood his/her choice. The question could also be asked about people with mental deficience.
And I'm talking to myself at night because I can't forget Back and forth through my mind Behind a cigarette
-
This definition of Freedom is for citizens. However, we don't consider children as citizens but as "minor people", with a specific legislation and derserving specific protections. We consider that in this case the consent of the child has no value, the child being not grown up, experienced enough to be able to understood his/her choice. The question could also be asked about people with mental deficience.
And I'm talking to myself at night because I can't forget Back and forth through my mind Behind a cigarette
KaЯl wrote: We consider that in this case the consent of the child has no value, the child being not grown up, experienced enough to be able to understood his/her choice. For one I agree with this, but my point is... Why is it then considered right for us to say a child's consent is meaningless? Why is it right for us to even attempt to determine what's mentally ok or not? It's not up to us to influence someone else’s life right? Also, why is it ok to lock up the mentally insane as long as they don't hurt someone? Jeremy Falcon
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm afraid I will have to trump you with a degree in biology and an understanding of simple mendelian genetics. you're gonna have to go farther than simple Mendelian genetics here. humans are social creatures, not strictly individuals like snakes. there could be a non-obvious benefit from homosexuality to the society (or the species) as a whole which we just haven't figured out yet. for example, there's a non-obvious benefit to having grandparents around: even though they are not breeding anymore, not doing much hunting or hard work, etc. (are basically a drain on resources), they do help in raising children, which frees up time for the younger healthier people to do more hunting and hard work. living past the age of their own fertility and productivity still helps promote their own genes because they can help raise the offspring of their offspring. and no, i'm not saying homosexuals help promote homosexual genes - that was an example of"'non-obvious". maybe it's something as simple as providing a way to release sexual urges when there aren't any members of the other sex around: but it gets taken father than necessary (necessary for that goal, anyway) in some people, the same way eating gets taken farther than necessary in morbidly obese people - you're not going to argue that only divine intervention can explain people too fat to breed, right? and unlike people too fat to breed, homosexuals can still be productive members of society; which, like grandparents, helps everyone. if you believe the results of this study, homosexual acts are anything but rare: 80% of men and 90% of women report that they've had a same-sex partner at least once since age 18. it's clear that the tendencies for homosexual acts are present in everyone, perhaps some people just go to far. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: if you believe the results of this study, homosexual acts are anything but rare: 80% of men and 90% of women report that they've had a same-sex partner at least once since age 18. it's clear that the tendencies for homosexual acts are present in everyone, perhaps some people just go to far. Well I don't. :) You have to consider the context and the people questioned. Obviously if I walk into a gay bar and ask, "Who's been butt-fucked?" the percentage will be higher than say a straight bar. Also, it's an extremely unprofessional site, and you can't believe everything you read - especially since so many people are biased. And to save me from retyping it, my thoughts on this matter have been express as a reply to Karl below. Jeremy Falcon
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm afraid I will have to trump you with a degree in biology and an understanding of simple mendelian genetics. you're gonna have to go farther than simple Mendelian genetics here. humans are social creatures, not strictly individuals like snakes. there could be a non-obvious benefit from homosexuality to the society (or the species) as a whole which we just haven't figured out yet. for example, there's a non-obvious benefit to having grandparents around: even though they are not breeding anymore, not doing much hunting or hard work, etc. (are basically a drain on resources), they do help in raising children, which frees up time for the younger healthier people to do more hunting and hard work. living past the age of their own fertility and productivity still helps promote their own genes because they can help raise the offspring of their offspring. and no, i'm not saying homosexuals help promote homosexual genes - that was an example of"'non-obvious". maybe it's something as simple as providing a way to release sexual urges when there aren't any members of the other sex around: but it gets taken father than necessary (necessary for that goal, anyway) in some people, the same way eating gets taken farther than necessary in morbidly obese people - you're not going to argue that only divine intervention can explain people too fat to breed, right? and unlike people too fat to breed, homosexuals can still be productive members of society; which, like grandparents, helps everyone. if you believe the results of this study, homosexual acts are anything but rare: 80% of men and 90% of women report that they've had a same-sex partner at least once since age 18. it's clear that the tendencies for homosexual acts are present in everyone, perhaps some people just go to far. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
BTW, people are more inclined to do or accept something if there's social pressure and less stigma about it. Whether it's hating blacks, hating Jews, or being gay. History shows us people will sway. Mark my words, in years from now people will be having the very same debate on beastiality. Once we open this door it won't be shut. Jeremy Falcon
-
Chris Losinger wrote: if you believe the results of this study, homosexual acts are anything but rare: 80% of men and 90% of women report that they've had a same-sex partner at least once since age 18. it's clear that the tendencies for homosexual acts are present in everyone, perhaps some people just go to far. Well I don't. :) You have to consider the context and the people questioned. Obviously if I walk into a gay bar and ask, "Who's been butt-fucked?" the percentage will be higher than say a straight bar. Also, it's an extremely unprofessional site, and you can't believe everything you read - especially since so many people are biased. And to save me from retyping it, my thoughts on this matter have been express as a reply to Karl below. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You have to consider the context and the people questioned. of course. here is the study to which Volokh refers. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Also, it's an extremely unprofessional site the guy who runs that site is a very well respected (and conservative) law professor. it's not a gay propaganda site. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You have to consider the context and the people questioned. of course. here is the study to which Volokh refers. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Also, it's an extremely unprofessional site the guy who runs that site is a very well respected (and conservative) law professor. it's not a gay propaganda site. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: here is the study to which Volokh refers. Unless I missed it, it never said in the description where the survey questions were asked. It mentioned where the server was centered, but that's not the same thing. Chris Losinger wrote: the guy who runs that site is a very well respected (and conservative) law professor. it's not a gay propaganda site. Well, my opinion is of course biased because of my background as a web developer, but my I still believe if he's well respected and a law professor and could afford a better site. :) Also, if he's a law professor, why is he writing a book for Social Scientists? Would you read a programming book written by someone who's a chief? Jeremy Falcon
-
Chris Losinger wrote: here is the study to which Volokh refers. Unless I missed it, it never said in the description where the survey questions were asked. It mentioned where the server was centered, but that's not the same thing. Chris Losinger wrote: the guy who runs that site is a very well respected (and conservative) law professor. it's not a gay propaganda site. Well, my opinion is of course biased because of my background as a web developer, but my I still believe if he's well respected and a law professor and could afford a better site. :) Also, if he's a law professor, why is he writing a book for Social Scientists? Would you read a programming book written by someone who's a chief? Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Also, if he's a law professor, why is he writing a book for Social Scientists? he's citing a book, not writing a book.
Here's some data on this, though, from Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality 311 (1994).
http://volokh.com/2004_02_22_volokh_archive.html#107784473984779059[^] -c Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Jon Sagara wrote: you're saying that people should only be allowed to marry if they're going to procreate? Thats because defenition in west different from east. I don't say its only for give born to children but its one of its important reasons. Mazy "A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it." - Bob Hope
Mazdak wrote: Thats because defenition in west different from east. I don't say its only for give born to children but its one of its important reasons. But we're talking about the West. Way out West. Damn Californians. ;P Oh yeah, MA, too. I agree, that is an important reason to get married, but I don't agree that it is an important reason not to prevent marriage. If they ban one group from getting married because they aren't going to have children, then they must ban all groups from getting married because they aren't going to have children.
Jon Sagara Vegetarianism is unhealthy. Humans need protein, and lots of it. Put down those sprouts and pick up a T-bone! -- Michael Moore
Latest Article: Breadcrumbs in ASP.NET -
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Also, if he's a law professor, why is he writing a book for Social Scientists? he's citing a book, not writing a book.
Here's some data on this, though, from Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality 311 (1994).
http://volokh.com/2004_02_22_volokh_archive.html#107784473984779059[^] -c Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: he's citing a book, not writing a book. Well that would make a difference. :) But, I still don't see where the survey questions were asked. Jeremy Falcon
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm afraid I will have to trump you with a degree in biology and an understanding of simple mendelian genetics. you're gonna have to go farther than simple Mendelian genetics here. humans are social creatures, not strictly individuals like snakes. there could be a non-obvious benefit from homosexuality to the society (or the species) as a whole which we just haven't figured out yet. for example, there's a non-obvious benefit to having grandparents around: even though they are not breeding anymore, not doing much hunting or hard work, etc. (are basically a drain on resources), they do help in raising children, which frees up time for the younger healthier people to do more hunting and hard work. living past the age of their own fertility and productivity still helps promote their own genes because they can help raise the offspring of their offspring. and no, i'm not saying homosexuals help promote homosexual genes - that was an example of"'non-obvious". maybe it's something as simple as providing a way to release sexual urges when there aren't any members of the other sex around: but it gets taken father than necessary (necessary for that goal, anyway) in some people, the same way eating gets taken farther than necessary in morbidly obese people - you're not going to argue that only divine intervention can explain people too fat to breed, right? and unlike people too fat to breed, homosexuals can still be productive members of society; which, like grandparents, helps everyone. if you believe the results of this study, homosexual acts are anything but rare: 80% of men and 90% of women report that they've had a same-sex partner at least once since age 18. it's clear that the tendencies for homosexual acts are present in everyone, perhaps some people just go to far. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: humans are social creatures, not strictly individuals like snakes. there could be a non-obvious benefit from homosexuality to the society (or the species) as a whole which we just haven't figured out yet. Actually we DO understand it in a manner - its just not politically correct to discuss it in the terms it needs to be discussed. Some years ago there were several studies on rats as to what happens when the population density increases. One of the things was that the number of homosexual individuals increased proportionaly to the density. Perhaps its natures way of causing a decrease in population other than a pandemic or warfare. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
KaЯl wrote: We consider that in this case the consent of the child has no value, the child being not grown up, experienced enough to be able to understood his/her choice. For one I agree with this, but my point is... Why is it then considered right for us to say a child's consent is meaningless? Why is it right for us to even attempt to determine what's mentally ok or not? It's not up to us to influence someone else’s life right? Also, why is it ok to lock up the mentally insane as long as they don't hurt someone? Jeremy Falcon
If you're trying to demonstrate that moral grounds are subjective, I'll make it short, I can't agree more :) Anything related to morality is relative to space and time, and has nothing stable. We're just trying to deal with our conscience to discriminate between Right and Wrong. I should also emphasize the role of Education in the formation of the moral conscience.
And I'm talking to myself at night because I can't forget Back and forth through my mind Behind a cigarette
-
If you're trying to demonstrate that moral grounds are subjective, I'll make it short, I can't agree more :) Anything related to morality is relative to space and time, and has nothing stable. We're just trying to deal with our conscience to discriminate between Right and Wrong. I should also emphasize the role of Education in the formation of the moral conscience.
And I'm talking to myself at night because I can't forget Back and forth through my mind Behind a cigarette
Yes, that's what I'm getting at. However, it's just not on the ground of morality, but human nature and rationalization even being subjective. KaЯl wrote: We're just trying to deal with our conscience to discriminate between Right and Wrong. Yup. Well, at least it makes for interesting times to live in. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
Ok friends , seriously ,these days there are so much discussions about gay marriage,now some questions come to my mind. Why there is no talking about lesbian marriage? Are they silent about it or they have some laws now which satisfy them or...? And another thing that I want to know,is not about their marriage,it is about their total consept, what cause people become gay/lesbian? I mean is that something genetically which they can't enjoy from opposite gender? I've heard some peoples like that or it comes from their childhood and the way they grown up. But there are some people that change their way from when they are not child. How about those? Some people say it is natural to be gay/lebian but how is it natural which most of human nature from the beginig up to now are NOT like this?(I don't think we can say we are not homosexual by mistake or by chance ;) ) Please don't answer last question that it is 21th century and many things have change , so does this one,This doesn't make any scense alone.(At least for me) Mazy "A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it." - Bob Hope
Mazdak wrote: these days there are so much discussions about gay marriage It's not "gay" marriage, it's same-sex marriage. For instance, a lesbian and a male catholic priest (assumed to be gay due to the recent rash of news stories about their preferences for little boys) can marry each other if they want to, but the priest can't marry another priest... I do not think that same-sex marriage is acceptable, but I also don't think the federal government should be sticking their noses into that kind of business through abusive addition of a Constitutional ammendment. ------- sig starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 "You won't like me when I'm angry..." - Dr. Bruce Banner Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- sig ends
-
If I thought there was a chance of cure then that would be great. So far all I have seen is people being pushed into denial or lying to protect themselves. The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: If I thought there was a chance of cure then that would be great. Are you implying genetic variations are a disease and need to be cured? I dont think so, but it sounds like that ;-)
