|
On February 16 2012 07:10 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome. Who cares if its a 'positive' or 'negative' trait? Being anything short of Chuck Norris fused with Albert Einstein is a 'negative' trait. Being Asian, Khoasian, Bantu, Caucasian, Arabic, Indian, etc. are also not "slowly becoming more prevalent". Um, so? Why should this tell us how we should treat people? And monkeys are homosexual because of social norms? What evidence do you have for this? It's also not clear to me that you know how the kin selection hypothesis works. The premise is that a few homosexual individuals assist in raising the children of their heterosexual family members. Their individual genes were passed on through their family members. Homosexuality may be a 'panda's thumb'. That doesn't matter at all. You still don't touch on the point about evolution being separate from morals and ethics. That's a dangerous slope into the eugenics movement, which argued for social policies based on evolutionary viability. And it wasn't nice at all. Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 07:03 Roe wrote:On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome. still doesn't counter what he said at all. It wasn't meant to. He never countered what I said. He just says that homosexuality has been around a long time and hasn't died out. I don't object to that at all, and it doesn't have really anything to do with my statement. No. Your entire premise is that this was not 'evolutionary viable', except that it has been in baboons, lemurs, chimapnzees, and guess what? Humans. It's not clear to me how any of what you're arguing has anything to do with gay parents adopting.
Numbering response by your paragraph because I'm lazy right now:
1. When I say "postive" I'm referring to the fact that it assists in reproduction and survival of a speciest (talking evolution here). I'm not using it to say it's "preferrable."
2. One POSSIBLE explanation is that people are only "gay" when their surroundings enable it. In other words, it's more about an act of opportunity. I'm not saying this is the case, we really don't know enough about this. I'm just throwing out an alternative hypo.
3. I think I understand what you're saying, and I think it's interesting. But at the same time I'm not jumping into it without hesitation. My conscience says "that'd be really cool if that were true", but my brain is saying "I'm not sure that fully makes mathematical sense."
4. I'm not sure how hesitating at the idea of gay adoption constitutes eugenics. I'm not saying "Gays shouldn't reproduce" or "Gays should be massacred". I'm saying that I have reservations about them raising and nurturing kids which are not theirs. It's more social commentary than anything. I have no idea how you pulled eugenics out of that.
About the ethics comment: If a gay dude wants to bang a girl and have a kid and raise it, I have absolutely no objection to that. But toying with genetics to pass on genes that would otherwise die out by using artificial insemination concerns me. I find it unethical. Especially if this is a hereditary thing, as it creates compounding ethcial decisions in the future.
5/6. I'm not sure I fully understand it myself... there is a lot we don't know (surpisingly, given how long it has been around). Is it nurture? Is it nature? Is it a combination? How is it relevant? How does it affect the children?
In short, I support gay marriage because it's two consenting individuals... If they want that for themselves, all the power to them. However, I hesitate when a third party gets dragged into something like this when they have no say in it.
|
What? I'm confused - your argument against letting gay couples have children via artificial insemination is that it allows genes to be passed on that otherwise wouldn't be by a means that isn't actual sex?
How is this a principled reason not to allow artificial insemination for gay couples? We're more than happy to have legal fertility treatments for otherwise infertile people that otherwise wouldn't be able to pass on their genes. We're more than happy to cure sick people that otherwise wouldn't pass on their genes...
I'm puzzled as to what ethical leg you think you're standing on here.
Edit: You're anti-adoption for homosexuals, too?
|
On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:
But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome. Therefore limits on said behavior are not eugenics, but rather social health/welfare issues.
I don't have a strong opinion on this myself, but here are some counter-arguments to consider on the question of genes vs social environment:
1) Scientists have successfully caused individuals in other species to exhibit homosexual behavior via gene manipulation.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050531/full/news050531-9.html
2) As mentioned above, homosexuality occurs naturally in numerous animal species, including primitive ones where their behavior in general is heavily determined by genetics and pheromones (which basically boil down to genetics).
3) A gene can be beneficial to the group's ability to reproduce even if it is detrimental to the individual's. A few years ago, I read an article about how herds of sheep that had some gay males actually reproduce at higher rates than groups where all of the males were heterosexual. (sorry, I couldn't find this in a quick google search, so take it fwiw) Regardless of that example, the principle of a gene being selected because it causes the group to have higher reproductive success even if it diminishes an individual's success is plausible, no? (for example, there could be a "gay gene" that is recessive, and heterozygotes gain a reproductive advantage that outweighs the lack of reproduction from homozygotes. Or the gene itself might not cause homosexuality per se, but could cause a female to have gay offspring by causing chemical changes in her womb.)
|
Nice, finally catching up to the rest of the world 
|
On February 16 2012 07:13 arbitrageur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Prosthetic legs are also not natural. Should we not support the distribution of these to people who have lost their real legs? Do you see the fallacies in your thinking?
Man was intended to walk, some people just aren't born or are hurt into not being able to do so. Prosthetic legs are a fine way to assist them. They aren't mentally ill... They just can't walk which is something we can easily fix. Being gay goes against everything that is nature. Sure there has been evidence that gay's have existed for an extended period of time, however it just happens to be the same genetic mistake made countless times. Humans are not meant to fly, that isn't natural yet I support that. It's human invention and evolution that led us to be able fly and create these prosthetic legs. This is science and humanity moving forward, however trying to gain leeway on rights for a genetic deficiency is time consuming and goes against what the majority of the world believes in.
If you want to be gay, practice any form of physical / mental relationship with the same sex go ahead. Just don't be a burden on society and don't expect us to cater to it. You want marriage? Do you know what marriage means?
marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
You want something.. that by it's very definition can not involve the same sex. Why not come up for a different name for what you want? Not that I would support that either, I mean... why would I support a genetic deficiency? I'd much rather try to assist you into following the proper world order. I mean... we don't cater to psychopaths on equal rights. If we see that they are a threat to humanity we destroy them. Just because you aren't lethal doesn't mean you don't fall along the same lines of evolution error.
|
It is unclear to me how 'x is not natural' (which is obviously false, but whatever) entails 'x is not good'. Does the opposite relationship hold? If x is natural, is x necessarily good? Also, your notion is 'natural' is mighty nebulous. It's not just things produced by nature, it's things produced by nature that are, uh, in line with your odd notion of 'proper world order'; you've suggested lots of things that are produced by nature are not necessarily good.
|
If gay people aren't natural then why do they keep being born? And in so many different species? You can't just say that the stuff you like is natural and the stuff you hate is unnatural, that's weak and childish
|
gays arent born gay. but its determined very early in their lives without their knowing and decision
There are no gay genes....
|
On February 16 2012 12:01 isleyofthenorth wrote:
gays arent born gay. but its determined very early in their lives without their knowing and decision
There are no gay genes....
Genes no, but last I heard it was actually an in-uterus hormone release at a very specific stage of fetal development. (Although that was about 2 years ago now, theories may have changed etc.)
Things that are known? It isn't a choice. It isn't genetic. It doesn't, or shouldn't matter.
If you think that sexual preference should affect a persons rights, something is very wrong with you. On a very basic level. This is why homophobia is in the DSM, and homosexuality isn't. I hope for a cure very soon.
|
On February 16 2012 11:52 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:13 arbitrageur wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Prosthetic legs are also not natural. Should we not support the distribution of these to people who have lost their real legs? Do you see the fallacies in your thinking? Man was intended to walk, some people just aren't born or are hurt into not being able to do so. Prosthetic legs are a fine way to assist them. They aren't mentally ill... They just can't walk which is something we can easily fix. Being gay goes against everything that is nature. Sure there has been evidence that gay's have existed for an extended period of time, however it just happens to be the same genetic mistake made countless times. Humans are not meant to fly, that isn't natural yet I support that. It's human invention and evolution that led us to be able fly and create these prosthetic legs. This is science and humanity moving forward, however trying to gain leeway on rights for a genetic deficiency is time consuming and goes against what the majority of the world believes in. If you want to be gay, practice any form of physical / mental relationship with the same sex go ahead. Just don't be a burden on society and don't expect us to cater to it. You want marriage? Do you know what marriage means? marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation. You want something.. that by it's very definition can not involve the same sex. Why not come up for a different name for what you want? Not that I would support that either, I mean... why would I support a genetic deficiency? I'd much rather try to assist you into following the proper world order. I mean... we don't cater to psychopaths on equal rights. If we see that they are a threat to humanity we destroy them. Just because you aren't lethal doesn't mean you don't fall along the same lines of evolution error.
What the fuck is this are you Hitler reincarnate? I just took off my watch to better flame your ass.
Homosexuality has not yet been proven to be a genetic deficiency. Being gay is not against nature since gay animals in wildlife occur all the time. Calling gay people "mentally ill?" who the fuck do you think you are? Maybe you are a Caucasian person (wild guess) and you are sexually attracted to Asian people. Does that make you "unnatural" or "mentally ill"? How about people with ADHD or dyslexia? Are they mentally ill or genetically defective? Should they be ignored?
You know how I can tell you ran out of arguments? You are using dictionary definitions as a rebuttal. This is as low as religious people using what's written in the Bible as justification. Dictionaries are written by humans, they are not set in stone. As human civilizations develop, new things come into existence. A dictionary is just for looking up words you don't understand. We already change the law, why can't we change what a word means. This whole "defiling the word marriage" is so fucking naive and juvenile.
Just outright admit that you are not comfortable with the thought that two men or two women may be having sex. That is the only plausible reason for someone being against gay marriage. At least you would be honest and not giving a bunch of pussy excuses trying to be politically correct.
Seriously how is it a burden on society? Should we also kill people as soon as they stop paying taxes? Define "burden on society" please and why you have the right to say so.
Fucking hell the world would be a much better place without assholes like you. Things like gay marriage and cannabis that should have been solved a long time ago get dragged on and become insurmountable problems.
|
On February 16 2012 11:52 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:13 arbitrageur wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Prosthetic legs are also not natural. Should we not support the distribution of these to people who have lost their real legs? Do you see the fallacies in your thinking? Man was intended to walk, some people just aren't born or are hurt into not being able to do so. Prosthetic legs are a fine way to assist them. They aren't mentally ill... They just can't walk which is something we can easily fix. Being gay goes against everything that is nature. Sure there has been evidence that gay's have existed for an extended period of time, however it just happens to be the same genetic mistake made countless times. Humans are not meant to fly, that isn't natural yet I support that. It's human invention and evolution that led us to be able fly and create these prosthetic legs. This is science and humanity moving forward, however trying to gain leeway on rights for a genetic deficiency is time consuming and goes against what the majority of the world believes in. If you want to be gay, practice any form of physical / mental relationship with the same sex go ahead. Just don't be a burden on society and don't expect us to cater to it. You want marriage? Do you know what marriage means? marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation. You want something.. that by it's very definition can not involve the same sex. Why not come up for a different name for what you want? Not that I would support that either, I mean... why would I support a genetic deficiency? I'd much rather try to assist you into following the proper world order. I mean... we don't cater to psychopaths on equal rights. If we see that they are a threat to humanity we destroy them. Just because you aren't lethal doesn't mean you don't fall along the same lines of evolution error.
You realize that for a very long time marriage was defined as a union between people of the same race? You realize that definitions can be changed, and are in fact changed rather frequently?
We should stop catering to people who need glasses because that's just supporting a genetic deficiency. We should stop catering to people who are born with haemophelia, diabetes, blindess, deafness, or the wrong hair color because that's just supporting a genetic deficiency. If you don't fit my narrow minded world view you're less than human and don't deserve the same rights as us genetically "normal" people.
What a tolerant and open-minded individual you are.
|
About the ethics comment: If a gay dude wants to bang a girl and have a kid and raise it, I have absolutely no objection to that. But toying with genetics to pass on genes that would otherwise die out by using artificial insemination concerns me. I find it unethical. Especially if this is a hereditary thing, as it creates compounding ethcial decisions in the future.
Do you believe that it should be a law that we should make all children unable to rear children (both sexes), if they have Autism, Gardners Syndrome, Huntingtons Disease, or any other genetic disorder, given that those all stem from genes that would "otherwise die out"?
|
Medical advances have allowed a LOT of people who would be unable to survive / reproduce without technology to pass on their genes. I too am bothered by the logical conclusion of "not toying with" genetics in such a way that would alter the course of natural gene selection.
|
On February 16 2012 13:16 Mordoc wrote:Show nested quote +About the ethics comment: If a gay dude wants to bang a girl and have a kid and raise it, I have absolutely no objection to that. But toying with genetics to pass on genes that would otherwise die out by using artificial insemination concerns me. I find it unethical. Especially if this is a hereditary thing, as it creates compounding ethcial decisions in the future. Do you believe that it should be a law that we should make all children unable to rear children (both sexes), if they have Autism, Gardners Syndrome, Huntingtons Disease, or any other genetic disorder, given that those all stem from genes that would "otherwise die out"?
I'm not saying that should be the law, but it would really help the human race advance in terms of economy and technology not worrying about a lot of illness or diseases that cause a large dependency.
As to me previous responder, I have gay friends. They know how I feel. It does not bother me where you put your member. Just don't expect the world to believe what you find is to be ok or normal to actually be so. If you choose to be on the side of a minority expect critique from the majority... just saying. Now put you watch back on and relax. I'm simply stating my opinion I'm not saying shoot you on site or death to all gays. I'll acknowledge you like another human being as you are. Just one that disagrees with me as I do with you. Just so happens that the majority of the people are on my side on gay views. Even if their reasons are religious.
|
The only time people use survival of the fittest analogies is to oppress individuals they view as unnatural. People should never try to justify who lives or who dies based on their genes, nor should any individual remove someones ability to reproduce in order to prevent "negative" traits from being passed on.
People who argue we should let the weak die in the hopes of keeping the strong genes have no idea how massive the scale of evolution really is. Humanity cannot hope to have an impact on genes when so called "strong" traits could take literally a million generations to have a large impact on humanity.
Not to mention the natural advantages provided by a larger gene pool, period. The more people alive, naturally, the greater variety of genes available, greater variety creates greater resiliency, and provides more chances for humanity to survive during crisis.
It is absolutely abhorrent, incredibly arrogant and ultimately ignorant for someone to believe they have the overarching knowledge and ultimate judgement to decide which genetic traits are good, which are bad and, based on these beliefs, decide who should be allowed to breed and who should be denied these rights.
|
On February 09 2012 11:50 Whitewing wrote:
Great news for Washington, I'm so proud.
*high-fives fellow Washingtonian*
Let it be noted that Seattle played a huge part in this
|
its a big step forward yes, however the state still can't force a church to marry them.
|
On February 16 2012 13:53 polysciguy wrote:
its a big step forward yes, however the state still can't force a church to marry them.
Who cares? Why would gay people want to get married by an institution that thinks they are abominations?
On February 16 2012 13:37 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 13:16 Mordoc wrote:About the ethics comment: If a gay dude wants to bang a girl and have a kid and raise it, I have absolutely no objection to that. But toying with genetics to pass on genes that would otherwise die out by using artificial insemination concerns me. I find it unethical. Especially if this is a hereditary thing, as it creates compounding ethcial decisions in the future. Do you believe that it should be a law that we should make all children unable to rear children (both sexes), if they have Autism, Gardners Syndrome, Huntingtons Disease, or any other genetic disorder, given that those all stem from genes that would "otherwise die out"? I'm not saying that should be the law, but it would really help the human race advance in terms of economy and technology not worrying about a lot of illness or diseases that cause a large dependency. As to me previous responder, I have gay friends. They know how I feel. It does not bother me where you put your member. Just don't expect the world to believe what you find is to be ok or normal to actually be so. If you choose to be on the side of a minority expect critique from the majority... just saying. Now put you watch back on and relax. I'm simply stating my opinion I'm not saying shoot you on site or death to all gays. I'll acknowledge you like another human being as you are. Just one that disagrees with me as I do with you. Just so happens that the majority of the people are on my side on gay views. Even if their reasons are religious.
Have you ever heard of Stephen Hawking? You really think we would be better off if he had never been born?
Do you know what would help the human race advance a lot? If we could all work together toward a common goal instead of fighting about whether you like boys or girls.
|
On February 16 2012 12:14 Flanlord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 12:01 isleyofthenorth wrote:
gays arent born gay. but its determined very early in their lives without their knowing and decision
There are no gay genes.... Genes no, but last I heard it was actually an in-uterus hormone release at a very specific stage of fetal development. (Although that was about 2 years ago now, theories may have changed etc.) Things that are known? It isn't a choice. It isn't genetic. It doesn't, or shouldn't matter. If you think that sexual preference should affect a persons rights, something is very wrong with you. On a very basic level. This is why homophobia is in the DSM, and homosexuality isn't. I hope for a cure very soon.
I agree. i am disgusted by homophobes and christian fundamentalists(not so many here in europe as in the us but still)
|
On February 16 2012 13:53 polysciguy wrote:
its a big step forward yes, however the state still can't force a church to marry them.
No shit? But look at all the gay people who want to get married amongst such a hateful flock.
Oh wait, there aren't any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
