Gay?

[Roger Dodger]

bah

[DIRESTRAITS]

Looking at it from a purely scientific standpoint, homosexuality is not natural.

There are a dozen ways you can approach this one and it really depends on your definition of 'natural'. At the most generalised definition, it means that which falls within human experience, making homosexual natural. At a slightly more precise definition of it occuring within nature, homosexuality also fills that definition. The definition which is often used erroneously is simply that it goes against the norm. In the same way, one could define any minority interest as unnatural - for example, if less than the majority liked ice-cream then eating ice-cream would be unnatural under this definition.

I used poor word choice here, I should have said genetically unnatural

It occurs in nature apart from humans, as well. Homosexual behaviour has been noted in over 450 species, including penguins. A common counter-claim to this is that they are not exclusively homosexual or that they are simply going for same-sex mates due to lack of opposite-sex mates, which is not always true; the penguins mentioned in the link above would not leave their current same-sex mate even when female penguins were introduced.

I never said other species can't be homosexual. I believe homosexuality is linked to psychology, and many animals display the effects of psychological issues, such as dogs becoming violent after a lifetime of abuse

In the debate as a whole, though, whether it is natural or not is moot (though it most certainly is by anything but the wooliest of definitions). Not everything that is natural is good (for example, otters are known to eat their young) and not everything that is unnatural is bad (how many people do you know who refuse to wear glasses when they need them because they don't occur in nature?).

I am not saying homosexuality is bad, just that is not genetically natural. I personally have no problem with homosexuals, I just don't believe the behavior is genetically natural.

Scientifically speaking, the purpose of life is to reproduce, which is impossible for homosexuals, therefore the trait never would have developed in the species. Furthermore, if it was an inherited genetic trait, it would have died long ago as those who possess it would have been unable to reproduce.

There are dozens of reasons why this argument falls flat on its face, so I'll say them all methodically. Firstly, it is questionable that the purpose of life is to reproduce. While as a population it is obviously necessary to our survival, it hardly follows that the only ambition every human has is to reproduce. On the contrary, I know many people (and I'm sure you do) who do not wish to reproduce and have other desires in their lives. Purpose tends to be self-defined and is not so simple as to sum up in one thing.

So you are trying to disprove Darwin? Did Jay hack your account?

Also, there is the assertion that homosexuals cannot reproduce. Homosexuality is not linked to infertility in any way. If a gay man copulates with a woman, he is as likely to impregnate her as a heterosexual man is, all other things being equal. With modern techniques, such as surrogate mothering or IVF, it is possible for homosexuals to have children.

So are you saying that homosexuals have a greater chance of reproducing than heteros? Before about 30 years ago(?) the only way they could have reproduced was by acting the opposite of their sexuality, so why develop the trait in the first place?

The hidden reasoning behind the above argument tends to be that by not reproducing, that couple is not contributing the society and humanity's survival. This is flawed reasoning on several counts; firstly, having more children is very questionable in helping humanity's survival, as overpopulation is a present and very important problem.

Secondly, it implies that the only way to benefit humanity is by having children. Not is this pseudologous if we take it as true, but is also nonsense because it simply isn't true; anyone heterosexual couple can pop out babies, and if those children are not looked after (as quite a few aren't) then the benefit to society is very questionable as well. Raising the child is just as, if not more, important than merely having the child. Homosexuals have, are, and will continue doing this for the foreseeable future.

Once again, I would suggest reading the Origin of the Species by this guy named Darwin. You might have heard of him[/quote]

[max is gr8]

Do homophobes like direstraits really think that people 'decide' their sexuality?

well, ppl like hitman and max still have a chance...

Is it just me or are you trying to make me gay in the past 2 threads I've read you've tried to make me sound gay.

Oh And RD i didn't read all of the very long speech but I read most of it

[unriggable]

First, most microbes that require hosts don't want to cause extinction of species they require for survival. Second, sickle cell anemia is not a recessive trait. It is the negative possibility of a gene that helps people survive from malaria.

Do you think that this gay disease was genetically engineered to punish homosexuals or just occurred naturally?

Okay, bad example. For the record, I'm all for gay rights, it's just my idea of how the gayosity trait got around in the first place that's left me stumped. But anyways:
1. Sickle cell anemia is recessive. I actually carry the trait myself.
2. Most genetic diseases, like huntington's just kill the host outright.
3. I never said anything about punishment. I dont see why this society should push anti-gay laws anyways - let them live and be happy.

I understand you're trying to paint a creative picture of your ideas about homosexuality.....but you said it yourself...the idea is pretty cruel.

I think it's funny how people think one's feelings of sexual attraction are predetermined.

They are learned, as most feelings are, through our life experiences. Depending on how one is raised as a child and who he interacts with is probably the strongest factor.

That would brilliantly explain Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter.

[Stopper]

I understand you're trying to paint a creative picture of your ideas about homosexuality.....but you said it yourself...the idea is pretty cruel.

I think it's funny how people think one's feelings of sexual attraction are predetermined.

They are learned, as most feelings are, through our life experiences. Depending on how one is raised as a child and who he interacts with is probably the strongest factor.

Piffle! Neither nature nor nurture has absolute control over one's sexuality. I don't know why people have to be so fundamentalist either way. Human beings "learn" a great deal of their personalities in their lives, but I think it's pretty well established now that we aren't blank slates at birth.

Of course, all these arguments will become irrelevant over the next few decades, if the purposes of particular genes, through research, starts to become clearer.

[unriggable]

I understand you're trying to paint a creative picture of your ideas about homosexuality.....but you said it yourself...the idea is pretty cruel.

I think it's funny how people think one's feelings of sexual attraction are predetermined.

They are learned, as most feelings are, through our life experiences. Depending on how one is raised as a child and who he interacts with is probably the strongest factor.

Piffle! Neither nature nor nurture has absolute control over one's sexuality. I don't know why people have to be so fundamentalist either way. Human beings "learn" a great deal of their personalities in their lives, but I think it's pretty well established now that we aren't blank slates at birth.

Of course, all these arguments will become irrelevant over the next few decades, if the purposes of particular genes, through research, starts to become clearer.

I personally think it's nature, completely. Of course how you act on that is completely nurture.

If it was nurture, why are there gays born in the bible belt.

[hecter]

Wow, this is so not what I intended this to be. Has anybody even watched the video in the link of the first posts?

[max is gr8]

No

[Lord Canti]

I understand you're trying to paint a creative picture of your ideas about homosexuality.....but you said it yourself...the idea is pretty cruel.

I think it's funny how people think one's feelings of sexual attraction are predetermined.

They are learned, as most feelings are, through our life experiences. Depending on how one is raised as a child and who he interacts with is probably the strongest factor.

Piffle! Neither nature nor nurture has absolute control over one's sexuality. I don't know why people have to be so fundamentalist either way. Human beings "learn" a great deal of their personalities in their lives, but I think it's pretty well established now that we aren't blank slates at birth.

Of course, all these arguments will become irrelevant over the next few decades, if the purposes of particular genes, through research, starts to become clearer.

I personally think it's nature, completely. Of course how you act on that is completely nurture.

If it was nurture, why are there gays born in the bible belt.

I didn't say that one was likely to act as they were brought up to act. It is perhaps more likely to rebel against the way you were nurtured. The way you react to your nurturing is probably the genetic trait, not sexual preferance.

[max is gr8]

Ah that suddenly explains everything

So as I've been nutured in an interesting way I'll be boring

[I GOT SERVED]

I personally think it's nature, completely. Of course how you act on that is completely nurture.

If it was nurture, why are there gays born in the bible belt.

I have to disagree with you on that one. Nature doesn't shape how one lives in their life. The way I read it, you make it sound like it's one persons "destiny" to be gay or straight (I apologize if I twisted your words on that, that's just how I interpreted it).

As for the gays in the bible belt: My guess as to why that happens is because they probably feel oppressed by the bible, hence trying something new (homosexuality).

I don't know about that from experience, it's just a guess.

but I think it's pretty well established now that we aren't blank slates at birth.

I'm curious about this. Do you have any evidence that backs this viewpoint?

[hecter]

but I think it's pretty well established now that we aren't blank slates at birth.

I'm curious about this. Do you have any evidence that backs this viewpoint?

Then why is it that some babies cry a lot, yet others are very quiet. It's a pretty basic example, yet valid none the less.

[unriggable]

I'm still bringing up Dick Cheney's gay daughter. If your theory is valid she would be straight. But she's not.

[Stopper]

but I think it's pretty well established now that we aren't blank slates at birth.

I'm curious about this. Do you have any evidence that backs this viewpoint?

Sigh. Why do I always have to back up my sweeping statements with facts? It's so tiresome.

I was just talking about sexual orientation, BTW, not everything about humanity - I may have given that impression. I like to make sweeping statements, but not that sweeping.

Anyway, I could say that if we were all blank slates, then if someone "becomes" homosexual, then some form of treatment might be possible that could change someone's sexuality. But of course, no-one in the medical profession takes that idea seriously anymore, and in fact "treatments" for changing sexual orientation are generally regarded as harmful and unethical.

I don't suppose there will be any final proof of the fixture of sexual orientation at conception or by the date of birth, or at least not soon, but the groups of people who would like to prove that homosexuality is: either a decision taken by the individual, or a result of environmental influence on the individual, are people who would like to give some scientific backing to their religious and political beliefs, and are not necessarily trying to prove anything out of scientific curiosity.

[Blueoctober]

my theory is you are wound up to tight and cant just watch a funny video without getting political and shit.

it was funny gay or not.

[Stopper]

Video?

[hecter]

Yes, video. There is a video in the link in the first post. Watch it. It's pretty funny.

[static_ice]

Okay I'm gonna respond to this bit by bit inside your quote. All my responses will be bold. (and sorry this is a bit late.)

Looking at it from a purely scientific standpoint, homosexuality is not natural.

There are a dozen ways you can approach this one and it really depends on your definition of 'natural'. At the most generalised definition, it means that which falls within human experience, making homosexual natural. At a slightly more precise definition of it occuring within nature, homosexuality also fills that definition. The definition which is often used erroneously is simply that it goes against the norm. In the same way, one could define any minority interest as unnatural - for example, if less than the majority liked ice-cream then eating ice-cream would be unnatural under this definition. actually, no. unnatural means something that was not meant to be or not meant to be possible...ice cream was and will always be possible no matter how few ppl like it. Things like stem cell research and abortion are unnatural because we humans tinkered too much, and no matter how popular or normal it may become, it will always be unnatural. That is what I think the definition is.

It occurs in nature apart from humans, as well. Homosexual behaviour has been noted in over 450 species, including penguins. A common counter-claim to this is that they are not exclusively homosexual or that they are simply going for same-sex mates due to lack of opposite-sex mates, which is not always true; the penguins mentioned in the link above would not leave their current same-sex mate even when female penguins were introduced. yes, that is weird, but humans should never base their lives or morals on what animals do, that just makes us animals. I think we can all agree that no matter how cool or tough it makes you, free sex is wrong, even science agrees with that with all the STD's and everything. and there is no religion that, in the general ancient rules, allows free sex. And guess what? animals started free sex, and the reason we are supposed to be above animals is that we are too good for it.

In the debate as a whole, though, whether it is natural or not is moot (though it most certainly is by anything but the wooliest of definitions). Not everything that is natural is good (for example, otters are known to eat their young) and not everything that is unnatural is bad (how many people do you know who refuse to wear glasses when they need them because they don't occur in nature?). okay, again, don't use animals to justify what humans can do! sharks eat their young because they don't know any better, I mean some fish's memory span only lasts 24 hours, animals are not always right! and I'm not sure on the glasses part, please use an example that is more important in human lives than glasses.

Scientifically speaking, the purpose of life is to reproduce, which is impossible for homosexuals, therefore the trait never would have developed in the species. Furthermore, if it was an inherited genetic trait, it would have died long ago as those who possess it would have been unable to reproduce.

There are dozens of reasons why this argument falls flat on its face, so I'll say them all methodically. Firstly, it is questionable that the purpose of life is to reproduce. yes, the purpose of life is to be happy. Why would you get up in the morning if you didn't think that something would make you happy? but eventually to be happy, we need to reproduce. While as a population it is obviously necessary to our survival, it hardly follows that the only ambition every human has is to reproduce. On the contrary, I know many people (and I'm sure you do) who do not wish to reproduce and have other desires in their lives. Oprah Purpose tends to be self-defined and is not so simple as to sum up in one thing. I don't think people should be able to define their own purposes. that is kinda egotistical IMO

Also, there is the assertion that homosexuals cannot reproduce. Homosexuality is not linked to infertility in any way. If a gay man copulates with a woman, he is as likely to impregnate her as a heterosexual man is, all other things being equal. With modern techniques, such as surrogate mothering or IVF, it is possible for homosexuals to have children. Okay, again relying on the "no free sex" argument, basically you are supposed to be with one person you're whole life. if you're gay and you have a partner, but you want kids (to be happy and fulfill a purpose) you would have to A) cheat on your partner with a woman or B) do UNNATURAL things like surrogate mothers. Gay adoption might be okay, but it puts a lot of unnecessary stress on the kid, and traditionally the original parents should raise him, there shouldn't be crack parents that give up their own kid.

The hidden reasoning behind the above argument tends to be that by not reproducing, that couple is not contributing the society and humanity's survival. This is flawed reasoning on several counts; firstly, having more children is very questionable in helping humanity's survival, as overpopulation is a present and very important problem. overpopulation is a result of free sex and the EVIL BOOMER GENERATION (j/k). Originally, having a lot of children IS supposed to help society, and you can't justify gays by saying "it will help lower the population" just like you can't justify war by saying "it will kill off the high population".

Secondly, it implies that the only way to benefit humanity is by having children. Not is this pseudologous if we take it as true, but is also nonsense because it simply isn't true; anyone heterosexual couple can pop out babies, and if those children are not looked after (as quite a few aren't) then the benefit to society is very questionable as well. Raising the child is just as, if not more, important than merely having the child. Homosexuals have, are, and will continue doing this for the foreseeable future. it is implied and supposed to be that you have a child because you want a child, not because of free sex or that you had too much sex with your wife (because you wanted her only for sex or because she's hot) and now you're stuck with a kid you don't want. That attitude shouldn't be used.

basically, you can't use the fact of how bad this modern world has become to justify gays. NOW you can flame me.

oh and max, sorry dude about all these gay references to you, I'm just subconsciously (sp?) pissed at a lot of preteens/middle schoolers right now

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Looking at it from a purely scientific standpoint, homosexuality is not natural.

There are a dozen ways you can approach this one and it really depends on your definition of 'natural'. At the most generalised definition, it means that which falls within human experience, making homosexual natural. At a slightly more precise definition of it occuring within nature, homosexuality also fills that definition. The definition which is often used erroneously is simply that it goes against the norm. In the same way, one could define any minority interest as unnatural - for example, if less than the majority liked ice-cream then eating ice-cream would be unnatural under this definition.

I used poor word choice here, I should have said genetically unnatural

Doesn't make a difference, as you will see.

It occurs in nature apart from humans, as well. Homosexual behaviour has been noted in over 450 species, including penguins. A common counter-claim to this is that they are not exclusively homosexual or that they are simply going for same-sex mates due to lack of opposite-sex mates, which is not always true; the penguins mentioned in the link above would not leave their current same-sex mate even when female penguins were introduced.

I never said other species can't be homosexual. I believe homosexuality is linked to psychology, and many animals display the effects of psychological issues, such as dogs becoming violent after a lifetime of abuse

If it were linked to psychology, then why have animals in captivity been shown to choose the same sex as a mate when they have all gone through the same experiences?

In the debate as a whole, though, whether it is natural or not is moot (though it most certainly is by anything but the wooliest of definitions). Not everything that is natural is good (for example, otters are known to eat their young) and not everything that is unnatural is bad (how many people do you know who refuse to wear glasses when they need them because they don't occur in nature?).

I am not saying homosexuality is bad, just that is not genetically natural. I personally have no problem with homosexuals, I just don't believe the behavior is genetically natural.

Well, you may think that, but until you have proof, it's conjecture, relies on little proof and remains unsubstantiated.

Scientifically speaking, the purpose of life is to reproduce, which is impossible for homosexuals, therefore the trait never would have developed in the species. Furthermore, if it was an inherited genetic trait, it would have died long ago as those who possess it would have been unable to reproduce.

There are dozens of reasons why this argument falls flat on its face, so I'll say them all methodically. Firstly, it is questionable that the purpose of life is to reproduce. While as a population it is obviously necessary to our survival, it hardly follows that the only ambition every human has is to reproduce. On the contrary, I know many people (and I'm sure you do) who do not wish to reproduce and have other desires in their lives. Purpose tends to be self-defined and is not so simple as to sum up in one thing.

So you are trying to disprove Darwin? Did Jay hack your account?

No, I am not attempting to subvert Natural Selection. If you're heading in the direction I think you're heading in, then you're falsely assuming that the only way for us to survive is through reproduction. You must also take into account that overpopulation threatens survival just as much as under-population.

A built in genetic mechanism that prevents overpopulation is just as useful as a genetic mechanism that works sexual drive.

Also, there is the assertion that homosexuals cannot reproduce. Homosexuality is not linked to infertility in any way. If a gay man copulates with a woman, he is as likely to impregnate her as a heterosexual man is, all other things being equal. With modern techniques, such as surrogate mothering or IVF, it is possible for homosexuals to have children.

So are you saying that homosexuals have a greater chance of reproducing than heteros? Before about 30 years ago(?) the only way they could have reproduced was by acting the opposite of their sexuality, so why develop the trait in the first place?

A greater chance? No, I never stated the possibility. I did however, state that they are just as able to reproduce.

The hidden reasoning behind the above argument tends to be that by not reproducing, that couple is not contributing the society and humanity's survival. This is flawed reasoning on several counts; firstly, having more children is very questionable in helping humanity's survival, as overpopulation is a present and very important problem.

Secondly, it implies that the only way to benefit humanity is by having children. Not is this pseudologous if we take it as true, but is also nonsense because it simply isn't true; anyone heterosexual couple can pop out babies, and if those children are not looked after (as quite a few aren't) then the benefit to society is very questionable as well. Raising the child is just as, if not more, important than merely having the child. Homosexuals have, are, and will continue doing this for the foreseeable future.

Once again, I would suggest reading the Origin of the Species by this guy named Darwin. You might have heard of him

Indeed I have heard of Darwin, but this is no place for sarcasm. But I see little relevance to this discussion in regards to Darwin.

[I GOT SERVED]

Sigh. Why do I always have to back up my sweeping statements with facts? It's so tiresome.

I was just talking about sexual orientation, BTW, not everything about humanity - I may have given that impression. I like to make sweeping statements, but not that sweeping.

Sorry. That's my fault. Probably should have read that one over again. My bad.

Anyway, I could say that if we were all blank slates, then if someone "becomes" homosexual, then some form of treatment might be possible that could change someone's sexuality. But of course, no-one in the medical profession takes that idea seriously anymore, and in fact "treatments" for changing sexual orientation are generally regarded as harmful and unethical.

I agree with part of this, but I have a question: If people aren't blank slates, and someone is gay and they want to change that, how would they change their sexuality if the "treatments" are unethical?

but the groups of people who would like to prove that homosexuality is: either a decision taken by the individual, or a result of environmental influence on the individual, are people who would like to give some scientific backing to their religious and political beliefs, and are not necessarily trying to prove anything out of scientific curiosity.

This sweeping statement for the most part is right, but I personally don't ask for scientific backing about politics or religion, as those are entirely different subjects. But the scientific curiosity is pretty much right on the money.

[flashleg8]

@static_ice

In your confusingly emboldened replies to Jesse's post above, I couldn't disagree more with every one of your statements.
Who are you to say that “I think we can all agree that no matter how cool or tough it makes you, free sex is wrong, even science agrees with that with all the STD's and everything.” Don’t press you prudish attitude on the rest of us. Just because you have a Victorian attitude to sex doesn’t mean everyone else has to conform to your views. And with respect to STDs, what is the problem? Humans catch diseases, its part of life. Science works towards finding cures for all diseases, there’s nothing especially dirty about one transmitted through sex compared to one that is airborne through coughs etc.

“but eventually to be happy, we need to reproduce.” In your opinion. I know lots of people who have no children and lead perfectly happy lives – not everyone wants the same things as you do.

“Okay, again relying on the "no free sex" argument, basically you are supposed to be with one person you're whole life.”
Says who? Your fictional God? People can do what ever they want with their lives. And if you mean biologically I think you’ll find the vast majority of the mammal animal kingdom has dominant males with groupings of females – but I forgot, according to you we are not part of this animal kingdom at all.

[hecter]

I think some of you guys need to lighten up and read a bit more Savage Love

[Stopper]

Anyway, I could say that if we were all blank slates, then if someone "becomes" homosexual, then some form of treatment might be possible that could change someone's sexuality. But of course, no-one in the medical profession takes that idea seriously anymore, and in fact "treatments" for changing sexual orientation are generally regarded as harmful and unethical.

I agree with part of this, but I have a question: If people aren't blank slates, and someone is gay and they want to change that, how would they change their sexuality if the "treatments" are unethical?

Erm, I've never heard of a widespread phenomenon where people really want to change the fact that they are gay (or heterosexual, for that matter). Many homosexuals feel ashamed of their sexuality, but that is because of societal pressure and norms, not because they are inherently ashamed of it.

[hecter]

I liked the fact that most homosexuals are "cured" after decades of hardship and struggle, yet everybodies favourite male escort blowing pastor, Ted Haggard, was "cured" of his homosexuality after just something around 21 days of therapy. Also, just for the record, many "cured" homosexuals don't stay straight for that long.

[static_ice]

I don't understand how my replies were confusing, I explained it at the top...also I see that you didn't reply to all of my comments, meaning you either agree with those or couldn't think of an argument... oh and my replies to this one are bold at the bottom of each paragraph, now I shall allow you to complain about them being confusing...

@static_ice

In your confusingly emboldened replies to Jesse's post above, I couldn't disagree more with every one of your statements.
Who are you to say that “I think we can all agree that no matter how cool or tough it makes you, free sex is wrong, even science agrees with that with all the STD's and everything.” Don’t press you prudish attitude on the rest of us. Just because you have a Victorian attitude to sex doesn’t mean everyone else has to conform to your views. And with respect to STDs, what is the problem? Humans catch diseases, its part of life. Science works towards finding cures for all diseases, there’s nothing especially dirty about one transmitted through sex compared to one that is airborne through coughs etc.
*sigh* I wasn't being victorian or religious, believe it or not I was trying to explain my point with science and logic but I guess not detailed enough But thanks for the judgement!

anyway back to my said point, I believe that AIDS is nature's answer to too much free sex because we abused it...science shouldn't have to fight it...

“but eventually to be happy, we need to reproduce.” In your opinion. I know lots of people who have no children and lead perfectly happy lives – not everyone wants the same things as you do. ya, maybe a little too much of a utopian comment...for now...but the people you know...are they single or married or just a nonmarried couple...? cuz what will you do when you get old and you are no longer sexually attracted to eachother (this one I'm not so sure of as obviously I am not an old geezer...)?

“Okay, again relying on the "no free sex" argument, basically you are supposed to be with one person you're whole life.”
Says who? Your fictional God? People can do what ever they want with their lives. And if you mean biologically I think you’ll find the vast majority of the mammal animal kingdom has dominant males with groupings of females – but I forgot, according to you we are not part of this animal kingdom at all. obviously we are a part of it through evolution...but we are advanced for a reason...there are things we can learn from animals...like only fighting when absolutely necessary for survival...but you CANNOT say free sex is okay because animals do it...then again, its your choice, you can go to the jungle if you want to...

oh ya, something I forgot to say earlier: men are "convex" and women are "concave" for a reason! it isn't by accident or luck...this was the foundation for all life on earth...even plants, the earliest life forms, had the sperm and the egg within themselves...there are no gay plants because other than pollination (which wasn't popular at the beginning of the earth) a plant with 2 stamens or 2 pistols can't make a seed! of course, we also shouldn't copy everything a plant does...

and get this: if it weren't for the basic reproduction ability that straight humans had, gays wouldn't exist because humanity would have become extinct!

okay your turn