Homosexuals
-
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 ;-)
-
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
I don't dismiss that possibility out of hand. However, I would point out that with the grandparents example you use, the grandparents do more than simply help raise children and free up time, they also overtly contribute to the gene pool, as evidenced by the fact that they are grandparents. Your other example of people "to fat to breed" doesn't hold up, IMO. The tendecny towards morbid obesity would only become a factor in situations like the modern world where food was readily available with little expenditure of energy. So a gene of that type could have thrived in times of less plenty. Could it be possible that families with homosexual relatives gain some kind of evolutionary advantage based on thier presence and could that trump Mendel? Well, perhaps. If so, however, it stands to reason that it would not be a subtle sort of behavior, but an overtly obvious one, even more so than grandparents, in order to overcome the enormous evolutionary disadvantage of depending upon siblings and cousins to do the lion share of the breeding for you. Not to be flippant, but I don't see how hanging out in prehistoric bath houses could have provided such a familial benefit. I am dubious about statistics such as you mention. If it is true most of the people I know are certainly hiding it damned well. I will say that I feel you cannot seperate sexuality from psychology. Given the enormous pressure of the sexual instinct combined with the incredible human desire for diverse experiences and curiosity, it is a wonder there are not even more sexual "perversity" (for lack of a better word) than we in fact actually see. I think that we don't is a testimonty of the power of socialization within human communities - which might not be an altogether bad thing. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
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
So most CPians, you think, are un(der)sexed flakes who promote homosexuality in hopes of taking/giving one in the kiester? :confused: BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
-
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 ;-)
Sorry, maybe I didn't make it clear. There seems to be a natural variation in how genes work and homosexuality is part of that. Just like some people like working indoors, some outdoors. Even if it were possible to prevent this natual tendency, I suspect it would be danerous since diversity provides flexibility when things change. Imagine if there was a disease that everyone in the population was vulnerable to, instead of some more and some less. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
So most CPians, you think, are un(der)sexed flakes who promote homosexuality in hopes of taking/giving one in the kiester? :confused: BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
Not quite, but I do believe people will find sexual gratification by other means if they don't get it by normal means. Jeremy Falcon
-
Not quite, but I do believe people will find sexual gratification by other means if they don't get it by normal means. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Not quite Whew, I was making plans to come down there and kick your ass. ;) Jeremy Falcon wrote: I do believe people will find sexual gratification by other means if they don't get it by normal means. I would guess mostly through masterbation, but there probably is a not insignificant number of "homosexuals" who are just getting their rocks off that way, because they feel an easy acceptance into that circle, and have other issues keeping them from approaching women. BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
-
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
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: 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. I agree. Marriage is a church doctrine and the state is supposed to be separate from the church. The founders of the US made it this way to protect our religious freedom. Brad Jennings Sonork: 100.36360 AIM: hongg99
