|
On October 22 2011 13:35 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:28 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:24 ShadeR wrote:On October 22 2011 13:18 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:03 SecondChance wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married). I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort. However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably. On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them. So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread. As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously. Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you. edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'. I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this. To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban. You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves. Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion). Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
|
On October 22 2011 13:35 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:28 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:24 ShadeR wrote:On October 22 2011 13:18 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:03 SecondChance wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married). I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort. However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably. On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them. So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread. As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously. Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you. edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'. I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this. To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban. You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves. Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion). Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I was under the impression that a person being dense is the same as stupid? Maybe my English is bad?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dense : 'Slow to apprehend; thickheaded.'
Now, if that's not calling a person stupid, I don't know what is.
|
On October 22 2011 13:40 Badboyrune wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:35 ShadeR wrote:On October 22 2011 13:28 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:24 ShadeR wrote:On October 22 2011 13:18 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:03 SecondChance wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married). I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort. However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably. On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them. So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread. As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously. Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you. edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'. I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this. To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban. You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves. Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion). Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid... I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum. The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
|
What's so wrong about gay parenting? I'm sure two men are capable enough to raise a child, if gays are to be accepted then gay parenting too. But right now this may be hard in some countries, not sure about australia dont know squat about down under
|
On October 22 2011 12:40 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:36 Kickstart wrote:On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling? But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is: a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors. Fun fact; blue eyes was the result of genetic inbreeding which occurred around 5000BC, lol. Homosexuality doesn't occur naturally amongst animals, a dominant male 'rapes' competing males in an effort to humiliate and stamp their authority, happens in the navy quite often, homosexuality is the result of a feminine mind placed in a masculine body. 
Fun fact: meatbox is not as informed on the topic as he likes to think.
Fun fact 2: "genetic inbreeding" is not that uncommon in nature.
I'll just re-quote myself because it takes way too long to restate the probable evolutionary/genetic relevance to homosexuality:
On July 14 2011 12:28 Masamune wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 13 2011 06:52 Savern101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 06:09 drshdwpuppet wrote:On July 13 2011 05:34 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 04:57 Bengui wrote:
To the genetics crowd : has anyone ever heard of a study investigating the possibility of homosexuality being a natural mechanism to increase the ratio of parents to children ? Because the humans as a specie focus on having a low number of children and having all of them reaching puberty (as opposed to some species of fishes by example, who lay thousands of eggs hoping that a couple of them will reach adult state), and because it takes so long for human children to mature, it might be logical to think that having a little more adults taking care of a little less children could be an evolutionary advantage in the long run. Unfortunately its difficult to describe homosexuality positively in evolutionary terms as its basically an evolutionary cul-de-sac. If the entire human race were to become gay, it would end pretty quickly. Unless we evolved asexual reproduction or some other form of procreation. There are a lot of ways that homosexuality might be advantageous, but those are all I remember because my biology tutor was too cute for me to focus. I'm not hugely convinced by those arguments. (I'm replying to your whole post btw, it was just pretty big) The evolutionary reason for sexuality is to encourage reproduction, therefore preserving the species/genome. If you code for a sexual preference that prevents reproduction, as I said before, its a dead end for that person's genes (in general). Its very difficult to compare something like CF (with a very well understood genetic aetiology (mutation in the CFTR protein) to homosexuality which has the murkiest of genetic basis. A major argument against a genetic basis to homosexuality is of course, the vastly reduced chance of reproduction, thus obliteration of genetic continuity to pass on any "Gay" gene. Thats simplifying allele expression and such though. Prevalence of Homosexuality is an near impossible statistic to calculate accurately due to all the confounders. In the UK, the office of National Statistics has a figure of 1.5%. Who knows? I personally feel 5-10% is quite a large overestimate. Also I'm not particularly sold by the "Grandmother" argument. In the rest of the world, in species with high infant mortality, you see increased reproductive rates as a protective measure. In our own race, places like Africa (I've been to Uganda myself to talked to people about this subject) You have people having large numbers of children (10+ is not unusual). Why? For their own preservation. The children will work at a young age, help support them, and look after the parents and their other siblings. This is similar to the Grandmother model, but I fail to see the need for an extra adult to be gay to help look after the children. The idea that genes associated with homosexuality might offer an evolutionary advantage is difficult to support with basic evolutionary theory. If anything, as someone mentioned before, traits/genes associated with homosexuality should be weaknesses, disadvantages etc. as they would have a much reduced chance of transmission to the next generation. Against this is the fact that there are examples to the opposite. Huntingdon's in women is suggested to increase libido/fecundity, making it more likely for the genes to be passed on before the disease is symptomatic. Not really an advantage. CF is a great example of a horrific disease self-limiting by reducing fertility in its sufferers. This is just looking at it from a purely evolutionary/genetic standpoint. When it comes to sexuality there is a myriad of psychological/sociological factors that complicate it pretty heavily. Are you a medic/doctor btw? Your quote suggests so. I'm a medical student myself, 3rd year. I fucking hate genetics in general though. Yes, I’d hate genetics as well if I couldn’t grasp it... First of all, his quote doesn’t suggest him being a medic/doctor at all; it was just an excuse for you to state that you were in medical school, as if stamping a seal of authority on your post...which is actually quite embarrassing because if my doctor pretended to be so informed on a subject like genetics and evolution (so integral to the field of biology) when he really had no inkling on the subject, I’d probably find myself second guessing his medical advise as well. Then again, many doctors are clueless about these fields because it’s not essential to the practice of medicine (even though medicine is heavily based upon it) so I guess another one bites the dust. Anyway, let’s break down your post and point out the many flaws in it. Show nested quote + The evolutionary reason for sexuality is to encourage reproduction, therefore preserving the species/genome. . Actually, it’s still somewhat debateable as to why many organisms switched from asexuality to sexuality, factoring in all the costs associated with the latter, but the strongest theory as to why it occurred was definitely not to encourage reproduction; it was most likely to increase genetic variation in a dynamic and changing environment (which many multicellular organisms occur in), allowing evolution to work faster on these sexual organisms. Furthermore, if you think about it for a second, you would realize that sexuality would go against preserving one’s own genome as it causes you to pass on only half of it to your progeny... Show nested quote +If you code for a sexual preference that prevents reproduction, as I said before, its a dead end for that person's genes (in general). You may use the “in general” part of this quote as a cop-out for your misunderstanding, but given the nature of your post, I’d imagine you wouldn’t know how so. An organism being incapable of reproduction in no way means that their genes have reached a “dead end”. The answer lies in Hamilton’s Inclusive Fitness Theory (which Darwinian evolution is a subset of). To put it in layman terms, if I happened to die in a freak accident today, all my genes could theoretically still be passed on to the next generation due to having biological siblings who share DNA (and therefore genes) with me. This concept is the basis of eusociality in insects, common among many species of the order Hymenoptera. For those who are scratching their head at this last sentence, many of you have probably seen a wasp hive before of which it is inhabited by usually one queen and workers/soldiers. Well, it so happens that the workers in a colony are generally sterile (extreme but common), forgoing their own reproduction in favour of the gyne who in most cases is their mother. Like homosexuality, this behaviour remained elusive for many biologists prior to Hamilton’s ground breaking work (including Darwin, who considered eusociality as being fatal to his theory of evolution by natural selection) because why would an organism give up its own reproductive success in favour of its sibling? To make this short, many eusocial species (though not all) are generally haplodiploid, so sister workers are more related to each other than they would be to their own son or daughter (0.75 vs. 0.5), thus making sense why they would help take care of their supersisters in favour of their own offspring (the genetics behind this would take another two paragraphs to read so if you’re interested pm me, but I’m losing readers at this point so just take my word for it). Thus, like kin selection can be attributed to eusocial species, it can also be used to explain homosexuality in humans (I’ll get to that later). Show nested quote +Its very difficult to compare something like CF (with a very well understood genetic aetiology (mutation in the CFTR protein) to homosexuality which has the murkiest of genetic basis. A major argument against a genetic basis to homosexuality is of course, the vastly reduced chance of reproduction, thus obliteration of genetic continuity to pass on any "Gay" gene. Thats simplifying allele expression and such though. I’m not sure if you realize this but CF is a mendelian inherited trait while homosexuality most likely is a quantitative trait so of course the former would be much easier to detect and understand. Furthermore, if the genetic basis of homosexuality is murky, so is that of intelligence as both are complex inherited traits that have not had a gene identified for either. The theory behind their existence is there but the technology (lack of resolution in detecting biological factors associated with aforementioned traits) is still lagging behind. But we don’t question the idea that smarter parents will tend to have smarter children, despite the lack of proof for the existence of a gene for intelligence so why the fuss with homosexuality? Both traits and twin studies already prove the underling biological component in both (if requested I’ll search them up and post the abstracts here) so perhaps people should revise their perspective on the situation. And I have no idea why you would even mention allele expression when right before that you mention homosexuality being linked to a “vastly reduced chance of reproduction”. If you were right and there were no continuity in a gay gene’s lineage, why even mention allele expression to begin with? Do you even know what allele expression entails? Show nested quote +Prevalence of Homosexuality is an near impossible statistic to calculate accurately due to all the confounders. In the UK, the office of National Statistics has a figure of 1.5%. Who knows? I personally feel 5-10% is quite a large overestimate. Recent studies generally suggest a prevalence rate of between 2-5% in modern Western populations, but as you have conceded, there are many factors that can confound an accurate statistic. For every gay that is open and out, how many are closeted? In some countries you can receive the death penalty for being gay and Western society—although a lot more tolerant nowadays—still has a far way to go before gays even have a neutral portrayal. With that in mind, these recent estimates can at best tell you only a conservative estimate of the prevalence of homosexuality in humans, which cannot be explained by spontaneous mutation rates, but must persist due to biological factors conferring some kind of potential fitness benefit. Show nested quote + Also I'm not particularly sold by the "Grandmother" argument. In the rest of the world, in species with high infant mortality, you see increased reproductive rates as a protective measure. In our own race, places like Africa (I've been to Uganda myself to talked to people about this subject) You have people having large numbers of children (10+ is not unusual). Why? For their own preservation. The children will work at a young age, help support them, and look after the parents and their other siblings. This is similar to the Grandmother model, but I fail to see the need for an extra adult to be gay to help look after the children. Having more adults per children leads to greater survivorship of the latter and if these children harbour a gay gene that is not “active”, can further lead to a larger propagation of the gene. Remember (not sure if it’s even in your memory to begin with...) but the unit of selection is the gene, not the individual or the group. Show nested quote +The idea that genes associated with homosexuality might offer an evolutionary advantage is difficult to support with basic evolutionary theory. If anything, as someone mentioned before, traits/genes associated with homosexuality should be weaknesses, disadvantages etc. as they would have a much reduced chance of transmission to the next generation. Against this is the fact that there are examples to the opposite. Huntingdon's in women is suggested to increase libido/fecundity, making it more likely for the genes to be passed on before the disease is symptomatic. Not really an advantage. CF is a great example of a horrific disease self-limiting by reducing fertility in its sufferers. Once again, you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of evolution and genetics with this excerpt. Although one’s direct fitness would be greatly reduced due to homosexuality, the same fate would not necessarily apply to their indirect fitness, and the scientific literature supports this perspective. Your example of Huntington’s disease and its effect of an increased libido/fecundity in females actually parallels what is thought to occur with homosexuality—and this is an advantage from the perspective of the gene for these traits. You need to realize that that’s all that really matters when it comes to evolution. A gene doesn’t care about its bearer but about itself only. If it can increase its propagation at the expense of other genes, then such a scenario is likely to occur. In either case, evolution can explain these examples that you list. With Huntington’s disease, if I’m not mistaken, the age of onset is generally in adulthood and is a recessive disorder. Thus, people still tend to have kids without knowing they could be carriers of the disease. Furthermore, recessive mutations are hard to weed out of populations because they can hide in heterozygotes, and if it confers an increase in libido/fecundity, could also be classified as a balanced polymorphism (provided that the effect is still present in heteros). With Cystic Fibrosis, it may be detrimental to be homozygous for the disorder-causing alleles but if you are heterozygous for them, then you can generally live a normal life and also be generally immune from cholera and other diarrheal illnesses. Thus, balanced polymorphism can also explain this disorder's prevalence in the population. With regards to homosexuality, I found this post in my history (didn’t even realize it was within this same thread as well...I know there are more in other threads scattered on the forum but I guess this proves you didn’t at least read through this one) which explains the evolutionary reason behind homosexuality: Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 07:56 Masamune wrote:On August 30 2010 07:00 Apexplayer wrote:On August 30 2010 06:29 Danger_Duck wrote:On August 30 2010 06:24 Apexplayer wrote:
This is just an arbitrary thought that I was kinda curious about.
Let's assume that being gay is genetic.
If that is true then isn't it a "disorder"(in the reproductive sense) that is worse than having a mental illness or most other genetic diseases?
The more open people are about being gay, the faster the whole idea of being gay will be a thing of the past and in some obscure section of the history book. Simply because it's something that cannot be passed on to the next generation because of the lack of a next generation.
Before you talk about genetics, study genetics first. There's something called recessive traits. That's not to say it's definitely genetic, it's just that such an argument is invalid. The only thing you could say is that the gene (if there is one) is not dominant I have studied genetics, thanks for the needless flame. If you studied genetics you would know that there isn't only recessive and dominant genes. The majority of gay people will tell you that they believe their sexuality is genetic, and people are finding evidence for this constantly. Maybe you have heard of the choice vs genes controversy? Aside from the flame. It is, reproductively, and unwanted trait which does cause the % of the trait in the population to diminish over time, recessive, dominant, co-dominant or not. If you have studied genetics, it wasn't very well. Anyone who studies genetics seriously will know that evolution goes hand-in-hand with it (and everything else in biology) and that's where your post is flawed. I'm guessing you believe it's a choice or else it would have dwindled away by now? Well make sure to read my post because I'm starting to sound like a broken record. Like I mentioned earlier, just because you can't directly reproduce does not mean that your genes are forever barred from the next generation--your relatives can pass on your genes for you as well. Homosexuality can be seen as an alternate mechanism to evolution (albeit less frequent) in that it adheres to kin selection. From the wikipedia entry on it: Kin selection refers to apparent strategies in evolution that favor the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, in which sterile females act as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring. Switch sterile females for voluntarily sterile brothers and mother to sisters in that last sentence and voila! The case of homosexuality makes a little more sense. If I had to classify homosexuality, I'd say that it acts similarly to an outlaw gene in that it jeopardizes the reproduction of other genes in favour of itself. I say this because there have been studies done where they have found that female relatives of gay males tend to be more fecund than females not known to have any gay relatives. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that under the right environmental conditions, males with the gay gene have a great chance of becoming homosexual, whereas this same gene in their female relatives makes them hornier (who knows, but they tend to have more children than average). With the brother having no children of his own, he works to ensure the survival and replication of his nieces and nephews, which in turn share his genes as well. So it benefits the sister's genes, while fucking over some of the brother's genes. It would also help his brothers who may not be expressing the homosexual trait but whom have the "gene" anyway Now the environment probably does have a bit to do with homosexuality, but I'd wager my life on their being a genetic precursor. I'd imagine that their could be some possible epigenetic factors involved or maybe even the way a certain portion of mRNA is spliced or something. Who knows, but there is something biological going on and the environmental component of it definitely wouldn't be a choice someone makes. I'm not so sure about the genetic processes of lesbians, but it leads me to believe that their may be alternative modes of inheritance of homosexuality, be it genes themselves or other biological factors. Show nested quote + This is just looking at it from a purely evolutionary/genetic standpoint. When it comes to sexuality there is a myriad of psychological/sociological factors that complicate it pretty heavily. I’m sure (I hope) that you’ve heard the phrase that sociology is a subset of psychology which is a subset of biology which is a subset of chemistry which is a subset of physics which is a subset of math. Well it’s true; evolution is integral to the field of biology and happens to be highly influential in the fields of psychology and sociology, which genetics also plays a major role in. Although the environment does complicate such a complicated issue as homosexuality in humans, it is less influential on many of the other myriad of species in nature used to discern many of its mysteries. Regardless, when you look at homosexuality from an evolutionary/genetic standpoint, you also happen to be looking at it from a psychology/sociological standpoint as well. Sorry to come off as a douchebag with this monstrous post, but when someone comes into a thread dedicated to a minority group—still persecuted and viewed negatively today—only to try and flaunt their knowledge (or in this case, lack thereof) at the expense of these individuals (because let’s face it, your post was basically implying that homosexuality is a disease almost on par with life threatening ones such as Huntington’s and CF) who already have enough shit on their plates, I had no choice but to reply.
tl;dr homosexuality is most likely biological and has its evolutionary advantages.
If your argument is "gay people can't have kids, therefore homosexuality is unnatural durrr", spend more time getting out of bronze league and less time speculating about an area of science you have no clue about.
|
United States1941 Posts
Monkeyz you cried about this earlier and were shot down then, why are you bringing it up again. Earlier in this thread, on page 14, you wrote: Good points about the ban, I get it now and I also should have backed up my opinion earlier. in response to someone explaining that ban to you. You also stated that you should have backed up your opinion earlier. Surely you realize that this is all we want. You have an opinion on the matter, that's wonderful, but worthless unless backed up by something. Maybe you should have read what I posted earlier on page 27 about opinions: After coming home and reading the last few pages that were posted after I was at work it seems like half the people haven't even read the thread and keep posting questions that have been answered....
And whoever has been telling you that everyone's opinion is valid and beyond scrutiny has lied to you.
If it is your opinion is that the Earth is the center of the Universe, I don't have to respect or tolerate that opinion.
If your opinion is that the Earth is 6000 years old and flat, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
And if you think that Homosexuals are second class citizens that don't deserve the same benefits and protections from the government, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
Respect and tolerance are over rated.
And someone said your post was stupid, not that you are stupid, and you responded by making a personal attack on them: Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 05:24 Badboyrune wrote:
Trying to invalidate multiple scientific studies that you have not even read by assuming bias in the ones conducting them is one of the stupidest post I've seen on this forum. You're a real genius though, comparing geography to psychology, I'm sure you must have been a real winner in school. User was warned for this post
|
On October 22 2011 13:45 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:40 Badboyrune wrote:On October 22 2011 13:35 ShadeR wrote:On October 22 2011 13:28 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:24 ShadeR wrote:On October 22 2011 13:18 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:03 SecondChance wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married). I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort. However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably. On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them. So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread. As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously. Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you. edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'. I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this. To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban. You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves. Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion). Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid... I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum. The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified. Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area.
|
On October 21 2011 06:46 Deekin[ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:42 Darclite wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them. As long as you aren't forcing that disgust on others, I don't really care and respect that you can keep it to yourself. But consider that homosexuality exists in most animals (so it isn't like gay humans are unnatural, it exists in nature). Also consider that if something wasn't natural, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place. Yeah I kind of think same way what you said about "forcing that on others" I think that is wrong. But there is nothing worse than having someone do the same thing onto me but as like "forcing the gayness upon me" when Im out on some club or whatever, and some sleazy guy tries to hit on me or whatever. Its really really disgusting and I cant take it. But no ofcourse you shouldnt force it upon others.
How do you expect them to find a partner then?
If you impose the same arbitrary rules on heterosexuals, our species would die out with the next generation.
Saying 'Sorry I'm not gay' is too much of a hassle for you to allow a person his freedom of speech?
Women having a fun time with her friends at the bar probably think Joe Hobo who puts his hand in her lap while looking into her eyes, and with a hissing drunken voice asks if she's ok with going round the corner to fuck is pretty disgusting as well FYI.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality, but rather people who lack social skills.
|
On October 22 2011 13:10 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:45 meatbox wrote:On October 22 2011 12:37 Def Leppard wrote:On October 22 2011 12:33 meatbox wrote:On October 22 2011 12:32 Def Leppard wrote:On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? If masturbating is natural, then how come we can't create babies by masturbating? LOL, what a ridiculous rebuttal. LOL, what a ridiculous yourface. No need to get personal.  Quit asking for people to be banned. You been a complete asshat this entire thread.
Everyone keeps attacking me. 
|
Is it possible at all, if you didnt have a gay gene to become gay?
|
United States1941 Posts
AFAIK there is no one gene that makes one gay are not, I think the consensus is that a mixture of biological and social factors lead to homosexuality ( I myself am not convinced that social factors play a role because as a gay man I don't see it , though admittedly I have not looked into that aspect of it and it could play a role in someone else, I just don't think it did in my case).
EDIT: I think I confused social factors with what was supposed to be environmental factors, which makes more sense to me ^^. Biological and environmental factors.
|
On October 22 2011 13:14 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:06 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2011 12:40 meatbox wrote:On October 22 2011 12:36 Kickstart wrote:On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling? But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is: a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors. Fun fact; blue eyes was the result of genetic inbreeding which occurred around 5000BC, lol. Homosexuality doesn't occur naturally amongst animals, a dominant male 'rapes' competing males in an effort to humiliate and stamp their authority, happens in the navy quite often, homosexuality is the result of a feminine mind placed in a masculine body. ...this does seem like a straight up troll. Yes, homosexuality does occur in nature. We've known this for a while. No it is not humilating or rape. The entire idea that gay => feminine is not only bullshit but a shameless stereotype that has absolutely no bearing on reality. Gay is not transgender. It is not acceptable to make random assertions. You have to look at reality and see what is actually true. Provide evidence. Quite an interesting read, studies carried out by neurologists show that the mind of a heterosexual female is no different to the mind of a homosexual male structurally that is. "In the Swedish study, when sniffing a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains involved in sexual activity were activated in gay men and straight women, but not in straight men, the researchers found." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7791888/#.TqJC895jJGQ)
No, that's a hormonal reaction. It's not saying that the "mind of a heterosexual female is no different to the mind of a homosexual male structurally." It's not saying that gays are feminine and lesbians are masculine. It's saying that gays respond to male hormones the same way that straight females respond to male hormones.
Gay is not transgender. Ask any gay or any transgender.
|
On October 22 2011 14:01 taldarimAltar wrote:
Is it possible at all, if you didnt have a gay gene to become gay?
It's kinda hard to actually say because behavioural traits all have some sort of a genetic basis and are not as black and white as your classical brown eye/blue eye example. So with that said, no, I don't think a person is likely to become gay without some underlying biological predisposition... I mean it's not like someone can eat some magical cheerios or something and turn gay. The environment would have to act in combination with your biology to change such an important trait like sexual orientation, so in essence, a "gay gene" or a "gay biological factor" would most likely be required for a person becoming gay.
|
My opinion:
Being christian, I don't think homosexuality is ok.
However, if people are gay, then they should be allowed to be gay. It's not as if it is hurting anyone. Why should my view of morality be forced on everyone? I don't want others to force their weird morality on me.
If we accept that homosexuality is allowable, then it is not to big a leap to accept that homosexual marriage is allowable. Marriage is not just a christian institution, it is a cultural & legal thing as well.
|
On October 21 2011 16:15 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 15:40 CharlieBrownsc wrote:
I still don't understand how it was ever illegal for gay marriage to occur in a democratic country Tthe majority is against it... do you understand democracy? (hehe)
I don't think democracy understands democracy, I mean, Julia didn't become Prime Minister on a majority vote.
|
One party is bringing the Carbon Tax while the other will cut FibreOptic...
:S
|
On October 22 2011 14:54 Bobble wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 16:15 meatbox wrote:On October 21 2011 15:40 CharlieBrownsc wrote:
I still don't understand how it was ever illegal for gay marriage to occur in a democratic country Tthe majority is against it... do you understand democracy? (hehe) I don't think democracy understands democracy, I mean, Julia didn't become Prime Minister on a majority vote.
Most important at all, it's a governments responsibility to avoid the 'tyranny of the many'. If 55% votes to slaughter the remaining 45% systematically, this would not pass.
Likewise it's the governments job to look out for minorities.
Are black people not allowed to ride the public bus in Australia either? After all I assume they're minority, and they do take up bus seats that could've been used for a person who was in the majority.
Do you have more men than women by some margin? Why not legalize rape? Legalize it!
In this case gays are a target of unjustice for no good reason.
Edit: (hehe)
|
On October 21 2011 07:26 Darkalbino wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:14 bkrow wrote:On October 21 2011 07:11 LashLash wrote:In the 2010 election, there was this user/party spreadsheet with the policy stances of different parties then: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgwGFHFd0TUIdExCbkNZWllUaVRsRG9yZXVVTXhUN0E&hl=en_US#gid=0It has sources and everything. At that time, Labor and Liberal are against gay marriage. My opinion is that gay marriage should be legal. It is purely symbolic that it should be called marriage and not something else, but it is a strong symbol and would be a milestone for civil rights in our country. Lol mandatory internet filter at the ISP level - Support by labor? That spreadsheet is good - highlights the big issues like carbon tax, NBN, mining tax and workplace agreements Wow I did not realise how much I agreed with the greens, the only thing (and it is quite a big issue for them, lol) I dont agree with is their stance on nuclear energy. Guess I'm now a green :S
Oh damn same here. Guess I'll start voting instead of drawing clouds and sunshine on ballot forms. How accurate does that spreadsheet look to you guys?
OT: On views about gay marriage, support would vary depending on which part of Australia you happen to be in. I could see strong support in Victoria and New South Wales, perhaps not so much in Queensland.
That said what happens if the conscience vote is passed in parliament? Does it then go through and become law?
On October 22 2011 14:51 ControlMonkey wrote:
My opinion:
Being christian, I don't think homosexuality is ok.
However, if people are gay, then they should be allowed to be gay. It's not as if it is hurting anyone. Why should my view of morality be forced on everyone? I don't want others to force their weird morality on me.
If we accept that homosexuality is allowable, then it is not to big a leap to accept that homosexual marriage is allowable. Marriage is not just a christian institution, it is a cultural & legal thing as well.
I wish the rest of the religious cohort could be as flexible as yourself. The problem is, when these ideas are presented as 'infallible truths' handed down by God, a live and let live attitude can be hard to develop.
|
On October 22 2011 13:55 Badboyrune wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:45 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:40 Badboyrune wrote:On October 22 2011 13:35 ShadeR wrote:On October 22 2011 13:28 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:24 ShadeR wrote:On October 22 2011 13:18 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:03 SecondChance wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married). I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort. However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably. On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them. So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread. As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously. Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you. edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'. I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this. To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban. You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves. Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion). Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid... I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum. The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified. Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man. The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area.
Peer reviewed or not, these aren't rock hard facts that you're using it as. None of you distinguish between natural sciences (where you have rock hard facts, I.E. the world is round) and human sciences (Does having homosexual parents effect the child's views on sexuality or the parents ability to be good parents), you just accept one study as rock hard facts. Posting a study or a survey on something does not make it fact. In addition, if you actually conducted and published a study that proved homosexual parents to be bad parents or their parenting to have an adverse effect on their children's view on sexuality, what would happen? In Denmark you'd get hanged in the press and called a biggot, just like when one of our university professors published a study showing men had higher average iq's than women.
|
On October 22 2011 16:17 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:55 Badboyrune wrote:On October 22 2011 13:45 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:40 Badboyrune wrote:On October 22 2011 13:35 ShadeR wrote:On October 22 2011 13:28 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:24 ShadeR wrote:On October 22 2011 13:18 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:03 SecondChance wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married). I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort. However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably. On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them. So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread. As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously. Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you. edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'. I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this. To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban. You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves. Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion). Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid... I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum. The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified. Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man. The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area. Peer reviewed or not, these aren't rock hard facts that you're using it as. None of you distinguish between natural sciences (where you have rock hard facts, I.E. the world is round) and human sciences (Does having homosexual parents effect the child's views on sexuality or the parents ability to be good parents), you just accept one study as rock hard facts. Posting a study or a survey on something does not make it fact. In addition, if you actually conducted and published a study that proved homosexual parents to be bad parents or their parenting to have an adverse effect on their children's view on sexuality, what would happen? In Denmark you'd get hanged in the press and called a biggot, just like when one of our university professors published a study showing men had higher average iq's than women.
Are you seriously saying people who are anti gay get persecuted? lol...what about the gay kids? It has nothing to do with "hard facts." The natural sciences are just as fuzzy most of the time. There is a lot of room for ambiguity and it's difficult to get at the real universe directly. It's different than something like physics, but not in the same way you think, i believe. And no, it's not about 1 study that says something one way or the other. It's about a whole body of work.
Unfortunately, you appear to believe that it's all part of the agenda and that the work that's been done is all biased. I dont understand this point, and i don't think you have sufficient exposure to all the facets in this debate. Just look at Masamune's post for instance. Does he also have an agenda because he's got a lot of knowledge on current genetics and evolution theory?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
