|
|
|
On November 24 2012 19:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote:
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining.. You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
Let me guess, you live in a country where society opreses you to pay taxes? How about the free tribal people come and tell you crappy is the society that denies you the right to pay no taxes?
Stop acting like morality is universal for all humans.
On November 24 2012 21:56 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 18:11 EtherealBlade wrote:If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder.By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that. Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong. It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men. Honestly, I laugh my ass off at arguments like that. Here's the real irony of it. If there`s a genetic component to being gay (I think there is), you homophobes (note that I used the word) should actually be encouraging gay marriage and gay people to express their orientation. It`ll lead to them not procreating, levels of genes decreasing, lower overall expression over time, etc. Because here`s the irony: When you opress gay people, they have a very, very strong self-interest to mask the fact that they're gay. Including marrying (unhappily) a woman, and fathering children (unhappily) on her, passing on their genes. If you threaten a gay man with death, of course the vast, vast majority of them are going to throw up their hands and say "Hey, uhhhh, I`m not gay, look here, I`ve got me a wife and kids!". Long story short: Forcing gay men to act straight due to negative societal pressure towards being gay ends up passing on their genes. I fucking GUARANTEE that you have had LOTS of homosexual ancestors, but they were forced to pass on their genes due to societal pressure. From a genetics standpoint, when you go back far enough, everyone's pretty much related to everyone else. You've had gay men and women in your family tree, hate to break it to you. And the irony of that is that due to societal pressures, they reproduced, you were created, and now in some small way you probably carry "dem gay genes". But who cares? It's all besides the point anyways. If people are doing stuff that makes them happy and doesn't harm you in any way, how the hell can you be against it..?
Next time, do not skip the biology clases.
The genes can be dominating and not dominating. The fact that there are gay people in no way implies that that a combination of heterosecsual people`s genes doesn`t produce gay people. In fact, most probably, considering the % of gays in the population, it is suposed to be trigered by a combination of 2 or more different cromosome couples, that can independently be carried by anyone, and without full set, the person would be straight.
Sure, some gay people did reproduce. But to imply that gay people can only be born to gays is just plain bigoty and lack of education.
|
On November 24 2012 22:23 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 21:23 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 21:20 shadymmj wrote:On November 24 2012 19:10 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote:
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining.. You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless. It's worthless if most people are against it, that's society for you Democracy means the people decide which government (and by extension, laws) they want. it doesn't automatically grant these laws moral superiority - in fact, it could be flat out detrimental to the health of society as a whole - but the integrity of the system is theoretically preserved. You can't cherry pick controversial laws and say, I refuse to abide by this and my reasoning is sound! That's an opinion. What other people may or may not find offensive does not have to be justified in a rational way. That's also their opinion. Personally I would like to not pay taxes, and I can come up with all sorts of strong arguments why, but at the end of the day I still pay taxes. Morality exists independently of legality. You've confused the two. I'm not denying the existence of a law, I'm saying a law can be immoral. they're obviously connected to some degree, but okay, let's take a purist stance and call them independent my question is, so what? morality is subjective, i.e. an opinion. in itself it is worthless because it means nothing.
Yes they are connected, which is the reason why you are wrong. Morality is not an opinion, otherwise societies would not exist. Unless you are a psychopath, if you say what you said you are contradicting yourself as you very well know what is wrong and what is not and surprise, your core moral values are in pretty much perfect agreement with other people. Is it not kind of strange coincidence if morality is such an subjective opinion ?
|
On November 24 2012 22:23 Hoberator wrote:
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line? Right and wrong is all determined by where we draw the line and no man or woman has the right to tell another person where to draw the line. We live in countries, societies, cultures that each have their own way of determining what is "legal" or "acceptable." There is no "denying basic rights." There is only denying unwanted rights. There is no such thing as natural or ideal rights of a human being. These are all just concepts by a greater majority of people in a given place. The greater portion of society upholds what they want in our legal system and is justified by the basis its design.
Edit: I must add, that I don't think a man's health or life is something that should be determined by anyone and that death should never be a solution.
We draw the line where someone is hurt ? Do you still not get it after countless people in this thread already made it clear. Harmless behaviour should not be punished. Homosexuality is harmless, pedophilia is not, do you grasp the difference ? Victimless crimes are pretty good indicator something is wrong with the law.
|
On November 24 2012 22:26 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 19:10 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote:
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining.. You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless. Let me guess, you live in a country where society opreses you to pay taxes? How about the free tribal people come and tell you crappy is the society that denies you the right to pay no taxes? Stop acting like morality is universal for all humans.
Why should he, when it is. Just so you stop, there are no free tribes that you describe. They have tax, it is just in the form of socially enforced shared "property". In small tribes this can work, in big societies we live in it cannot, thus taxes. And I want to pay taxes, the gays don't want to be persecuted.
|
On November 24 2012 22:37 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 22:23 Hoberator wrote:
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line? Right and wrong is all determined by where we draw the line and no man or woman has the right to tell another person where to draw the line. We live in countries, societies, cultures that each have their own way of determining what is "legal" or "acceptable." There is no "denying basic rights." There is only denying unwanted rights. There is no such thing as natural or ideal rights of a human being. These are all just concepts by a greater majority of people in a given place. The greater portion of society upholds what they want in our legal system and is justified by the basis its design.
Edit: I must add, that I don't think a man's health or life is something that should be determined by anyone and that death should never be a solution. We draw the line where someone is hurt ? Do you still not get it after countless people in this thread already made it clear. Harmless behaviour should not be punished. Homosexuality is harmless, pedophilia is not, do you grasp the difference ? Victimless crimes are pretty good indicator something is wrong with the law.
What exactly is "hurt"? Physical or moral damage?
Why does not abiding the rules earns you a punishment even if nobody was hurt in particular incident?
On November 24 2012 22:40 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 22:26 naastyOne wrote:On November 24 2012 19:10 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote:
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining.. You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless. Let me guess, you live in a country where society opreses you to pay taxes? How about the free tribal people come and tell you crappy is the society that denies you the right to pay no taxes? Stop acting like morality is universal for all humans. Why should he, when it is. Just so you stop, there are no free tribes that you describe. They have tax, it is just in the form of socially enforced shared "property". In small tribes this can work, in big societies we live in it cannot, thus taxes. And I want to pay taxes, the gays don't want to be persecuted.
No it is not. In fact, it is just a Western world cultural superiority BS.
Society can live without taxes and property rights. Think a little outside of your box.
|
On November 24 2012 22:41 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 22:37 mcc wrote:On November 24 2012 22:23 Hoberator wrote:
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line? Right and wrong is all determined by where we draw the line and no man or woman has the right to tell another person where to draw the line. We live in countries, societies, cultures that each have their own way of determining what is "legal" or "acceptable." There is no "denying basic rights." There is only denying unwanted rights. There is no such thing as natural or ideal rights of a human being. These are all just concepts by a greater majority of people in a given place. The greater portion of society upholds what they want in our legal system and is justified by the basis its design.
Edit: I must add, that I don't think a man's health or life is something that should be determined by anyone and that death should never be a solution. We draw the line where someone is hurt ? Do you still not get it after countless people in this thread already made it clear. Harmless behaviour should not be punished. Homosexuality is harmless, pedophilia is not, do you grasp the difference ? Victimless crimes are pretty good indicator something is wrong with the law. What exactly is "hurt"? Physical or moral damage? Why does not abiding the rules earns you a punishment even if nobody was hurt in particular incident?
If you do not know what hurt is, tough luck, I am not going to play semantic nitpicking games with you. As for your second question, what are you referring to, it makes no sense in context of what I wrote.
|
On November 24 2012 22:23 Hoberator wrote:
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line?
How is being gay in any way comparable to child molestation?
We protect animals, children and mentally retarded persons - as you out of all people should know - but we don't need to protect anyone from gays, so there aren't any similarities between the criminal offenses you just mentioned and homosexuality.
|
On November 24 2012 22:41 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 22:40 mcc wrote:On November 24 2012 22:26 naastyOne wrote:On November 24 2012 19:10 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote:
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining.. You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless. Let me guess, you live in a country where society opreses you to pay taxes? How about the free tribal people come and tell you crappy is the society that denies you the right to pay no taxes? Stop acting like morality is universal for all humans. Why should he, when it is. Just so you stop, there are no free tribes that you describe. They have tax, it is just in the form of socially enforced shared "property". In small tribes this can work, in big societies we live in it cannot, thus taxes. And I want to pay taxes, the gays don't want to be persecuted. No it is not. In fact, it is just a Western world cultural superiority BS. Society can live without taxes and property rights. Think a little outside of your box.
No it si not western cultural bullshit, morality I was talking about is shared by every society on Earth. The only thing West differs in is that in the west wealth and education allowed us to extend that morality to wider group of people.
No big enough society can live without taxes and not be a complete failure. If you have example, show it otherwise you are just talking about imaginary societies. Or you can try to argue how such society would work, but that would belong to a different thread.
As for small societies, show me one that has no property rights.
EDIT: And I mean NO property rights, I am not talking about codified ones only.
|
good job uganda get em
User was banned for this post.
|
On November 24 2012 22:26 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 19:10 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote:
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining.. You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless. Let me guess, you live in a country where society opreses you to pay taxes? How about the free tribal people come and tell you crappy is the society that denies you the right to pay no taxes? Stop acting like morality is universal for all humans. Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 21:56 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 24 2012 18:11 EtherealBlade wrote:If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder.By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that. Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong. It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men. Honestly, I laugh my ass off at arguments like that. Here's the real irony of it. If there`s a genetic component to being gay (I think there is), you homophobes (note that I used the word) should actually be encouraging gay marriage and gay people to express their orientation. It`ll lead to them not procreating, levels of genes decreasing, lower overall expression over time, etc. Because here`s the irony: When you opress gay people, they have a very, very strong self-interest to mask the fact that they're gay. Including marrying (unhappily) a woman, and fathering children (unhappily) on her, passing on their genes. If you threaten a gay man with death, of course the vast, vast majority of them are going to throw up their hands and say "Hey, uhhhh, I`m not gay, look here, I`ve got me a wife and kids!". Long story short: Forcing gay men to act straight due to negative societal pressure towards being gay ends up passing on their genes. I fucking GUARANTEE that you have had LOTS of homosexual ancestors, but they were forced to pass on their genes due to societal pressure. From a genetics standpoint, when you go back far enough, everyone's pretty much related to everyone else. You've had gay men and women in your family tree, hate to break it to you. And the irony of that is that due to societal pressures, they reproduced, you were created, and now in some small way you probably carry "dem gay genes". But who cares? It's all besides the point anyways. If people are doing stuff that makes them happy and doesn't harm you in any way, how the hell can you be against it..? Next time, do not skip the biology clases. The genes can be dominating and not dominating. The fact that there are gay people in no way implies that that a combination of heterosecsual people`s genes doesn`t produce gay people. In fact, most probably, considering the % of gays in the population, it is suposed to be trigered by a combination of 2 or more different cromosome couples, that can independently be carried by anyone, and without full set, the person would be straight. Sure, some gay people did reproduce. But to imply that gay people can only be born to gays is just plain bigoty and lack of education.
This is all hypothetical, but I don't agree with your intepretation. If the genes are recessive, you get a situation where functionally the genes are lethal recessive (no offspring reproduction) in a situation where homosexuals are allowed to be gay. In societies where homosexuality is opressed, the genes carry no functional fitness loss (or maybe a marginal one), and become functionally almost neutral. The prevalence of the "genotype" is going to be a helluva lot higher in one of those scenarios than the other.
And it's probably quantitative. Just sayin'.
Try to refrain from insulting me, too. If you want to get into technical specifics about how genes are transmitted, we can discuss that, but for the sake of a random internet post it doesn't make much sense to go on a technical lecture on evolution.
But my point still stands. A societal makeup where homosexual genotypes are masked into being heterosexual (and so are functionally neutral or near-neutral) is a lot more likely to have a higher prevalence of those genotypes than a society in which it's "lethal" in the evolutionary sense (where homosexuals feel no pressure to procreate).
And remember, selection still acts on recessive genes. Heterosexuals carrying a recessive lethal would still have lower overall fitness relative to those not carrying it, so you would expect over time the prevalence of the genotype to decrease.
|
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line? There we go, the classic "But how long until sex with children and animals!".
You realise that two homosexuals being together is a result of their mutual agreement to be together, right? Children do not have the mental capability to consent to such an agreement and animals are unable to consent.
Now stop using that flawed and ridiculous argument.
|
On November 24 2012 22:47 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 22:41 naastyOne wrote:On November 24 2012 22:37 mcc wrote:On November 24 2012 22:23 Hoberator wrote:
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line? Right and wrong is all determined by where we draw the line and no man or woman has the right to tell another person where to draw the line. We live in countries, societies, cultures that each have their own way of determining what is "legal" or "acceptable." There is no "denying basic rights." There is only denying unwanted rights. There is no such thing as natural or ideal rights of a human being. These are all just concepts by a greater majority of people in a given place. The greater portion of society upholds what they want in our legal system and is justified by the basis its design.
Edit: I must add, that I don't think a man's health or life is something that should be determined by anyone and that death should never be a solution. We draw the line where someone is hurt ? Do you still not get it after countless people in this thread already made it clear. Harmless behaviour should not be punished. Homosexuality is harmless, pedophilia is not, do you grasp the difference ? Victimless crimes are pretty good indicator something is wrong with the law. What exactly is "hurt"? Physical or moral damage? Why does not abiding the rules earns you a punishment even if nobody was hurt in particular incident? If you do not know what hurt is, tough luck, I am not going to play semantic nitpicking games with you
The "semantic nitpicking" is often a big legal difference.
Besides, you doged the question.
|
On November 24 2012 22:57 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 22:26 naastyOne wrote:On November 24 2012 19:10 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote:
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining.. You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless. Let me guess, you live in a country where society opreses you to pay taxes? How about the free tribal people come and tell you crappy is the society that denies you the right to pay no taxes? Stop acting like morality is universal for all humans. On November 24 2012 21:56 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 24 2012 18:11 EtherealBlade wrote:If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder.By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that. Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong. It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men. Honestly, I laugh my ass off at arguments like that. Here's the real irony of it. If there`s a genetic component to being gay (I think there is), you homophobes (note that I used the word) should actually be encouraging gay marriage and gay people to express their orientation. It`ll lead to them not procreating, levels of genes decreasing, lower overall expression over time, etc. Because here`s the irony: When you opress gay people, they have a very, very strong self-interest to mask the fact that they're gay. Including marrying (unhappily) a woman, and fathering children (unhappily) on her, passing on their genes. If you threaten a gay man with death, of course the vast, vast majority of them are going to throw up their hands and say "Hey, uhhhh, I`m not gay, look here, I`ve got me a wife and kids!". Long story short: Forcing gay men to act straight due to negative societal pressure towards being gay ends up passing on their genes. I fucking GUARANTEE that you have had LOTS of homosexual ancestors, but they were forced to pass on their genes due to societal pressure. From a genetics standpoint, when you go back far enough, everyone's pretty much related to everyone else. You've had gay men and women in your family tree, hate to break it to you. And the irony of that is that due to societal pressures, they reproduced, you were created, and now in some small way you probably carry "dem gay genes". But who cares? It's all besides the point anyways. If people are doing stuff that makes them happy and doesn't harm you in any way, how the hell can you be against it..? Next time, do not skip the biology clases. The genes can be dominating and not dominating. The fact that there are gay people in no way implies that that a combination of heterosecsual people`s genes doesn`t produce gay people. In fact, most probably, considering the % of gays in the population, it is suposed to be trigered by a combination of 2 or more different cromosome couples, that can independently be carried by anyone, and without full set, the person would be straight. Sure, some gay people did reproduce. But to imply that gay people can only be born to gays is just plain bigoty and lack of education. This is all hypothetical, but I don't agree with your intepretation. If the genes are recessive, you get a situation where functionally the genes are lethal recessive (no offspring reproduction) in a situation where homosexuals are allowed to be gay. In societies where homosexuality is opressed, the genes carry no functional fitness loss (or maybe a marginal one), and become functionally almost neutral. The prevalence of the "genotype" is going to be a helluva lot higher in one of those scenarios than the other. And it's probably quantitative. Just sayin'. Try to refrain from insulting me, too. If you want to get into technical specifics about how genes are transmitted, we can discuss that, but for the sake of a random internet post it doesn't make much sense to go on a technical lecture on evolution. But my point still stands. A societal makeup where homosexual genotypes are masked into being heterosexual (and so are functionally neutral or near-neutral) is a lot more likely to have a higher prevalence of those genotypes than a society in which it's "lethal" in the evolutionary sense (where homosexuals feel no pressure to procreate). And remember, selection still acts on recessive genes. Heterosexuals carrying a recessive lethal would still have lower overall fitness relative to those not carrying it, so you would expect over time the prevalence of the genotype to decrease.
There is evidence that probability of male homosexuality is increased by number of older male siblings. Also how do you know male homosexuality is not "transferred" through mother's genes. That would make your inference pretty weak. Plus there is no evidence that number of homosexuals has any correlation with how oppressive society is against them.
Basically your argument is based on very simplistic view of genetics. Plus not all biological causes are genetical.
|
On November 24 2012 22:57 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 22:26 naastyOne wrote:On November 24 2012 19:10 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote:
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining.. You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless. Let me guess, you live in a country where society opreses you to pay taxes? How about the free tribal people come and tell you crappy is the society that denies you the right to pay no taxes? Stop acting like morality is universal for all humans. On November 24 2012 21:56 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 24 2012 18:11 EtherealBlade wrote:If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder.By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that. Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong. It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men. Honestly, I laugh my ass off at arguments like that. Here's the real irony of it. If there`s a genetic component to being gay (I think there is), you homophobes (note that I used the word) should actually be encouraging gay marriage and gay people to express their orientation. It`ll lead to them not procreating, levels of genes decreasing, lower overall expression over time, etc. Because here`s the irony: When you opress gay people, they have a very, very strong self-interest to mask the fact that they're gay. Including marrying (unhappily) a woman, and fathering children (unhappily) on her, passing on their genes. If you threaten a gay man with death, of course the vast, vast majority of them are going to throw up their hands and say "Hey, uhhhh, I`m not gay, look here, I`ve got me a wife and kids!". Long story short: Forcing gay men to act straight due to negative societal pressure towards being gay ends up passing on their genes. I fucking GUARANTEE that you have had LOTS of homosexual ancestors, but they were forced to pass on their genes due to societal pressure. From a genetics standpoint, when you go back far enough, everyone's pretty much related to everyone else. You've had gay men and women in your family tree, hate to break it to you. And the irony of that is that due to societal pressures, they reproduced, you were created, and now in some small way you probably carry "dem gay genes". But who cares? It's all besides the point anyways. If people are doing stuff that makes them happy and doesn't harm you in any way, how the hell can you be against it..? Next time, do not skip the biology clases. The genes can be dominating and not dominating. The fact that there are gay people in no way implies that that a combination of heterosecsual people`s genes doesn`t produce gay people. In fact, most probably, considering the % of gays in the population, it is suposed to be trigered by a combination of 2 or more different cromosome couples, that can independently be carried by anyone, and without full set, the person would be straight. Sure, some gay people did reproduce. But to imply that gay people can only be born to gays is just plain bigoty and lack of education. This is all hypothetical, but I don't agree with your intepretation. If the genes are recessive, you get a situation where functionally the genes are lethal recessive (no offspring reproduction) in a situation where homosexuals are allowed to be gay. In societies where homosexuality is opressed, the genes carry no functional fitness loss (or maybe a marginal one), and become functionally almost neutral. The prevalence of the "genotype" is going to be a helluva lot higher in one of those scenarios than the other. And it's probably quantitative. Just sayin'. Try to refrain from insulting me, too. If you want to get into technical specifics about how genes are transmitted, we can discuss that, but for the sake of a random internet post it doesn't make much sense to go on a technical lecture on evolution. But my point still stands. A societal makeup where homosexual genotypes are masked into being heterosexual (and so are functionally neutral or near-neutral) is a lot more likely to have a higher prevalence of those genotypes than a society in which it's "lethal" in the evolutionary sense (where homosexuals feel no pressure to procreate). And remember, selection still acts on recessive genes. Heterosexuals carrying a recessive lethal would still have lower overall fitness relative to those not carrying it, so you would expect over time the prevalence of the genotype to decrease.
That "technic specifics" totally invalidate your core argument, allow gays to marry, and they will die out. they will not.
And there is no evidence that lack of oppresion and gay-marriage-lack of children makes a difference in % of gay populance.
But ok, sorry, i went a little too far, in the internets.
|
On November 24 2012 23:08 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 22:47 mcc wrote:On November 24 2012 22:41 naastyOne wrote:On November 24 2012 22:37 mcc wrote:On November 24 2012 22:23 Hoberator wrote:
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line? Right and wrong is all determined by where we draw the line and no man or woman has the right to tell another person where to draw the line. We live in countries, societies, cultures that each have their own way of determining what is "legal" or "acceptable." There is no "denying basic rights." There is only denying unwanted rights. There is no such thing as natural or ideal rights of a human being. These are all just concepts by a greater majority of people in a given place. The greater portion of society upholds what they want in our legal system and is justified by the basis its design.
Edit: I must add, that I don't think a man's health or life is something that should be determined by anyone and that death should never be a solution. We draw the line where someone is hurt ? Do you still not get it after countless people in this thread already made it clear. Harmless behaviour should not be punished. Homosexuality is harmless, pedophilia is not, do you grasp the difference ? Victimless crimes are pretty good indicator something is wrong with the law. What exactly is "hurt"? Physical or moral damage? Why does not abiding the rules earns you a punishment even if nobody was hurt in particular incident? If you do not know what hurt is, tough luck, I am not going to play semantic nitpicking games with you The "semantic nitpicking" is often a big legal difference. Besides, you doged the question.
Legalistic arguments have no impact on ethical ones, which we are talking about. Laws are inspired by ethics, not the other way around. The relationship is one-sided. As for your question, it would be too great of a tangent considering the topic. So just shortly, there is no moral hurt. There is psychological one. And the actual ethical argument is of course about the comparative amount of hurt caused by individual actions. If you do not see that being jailed and persecuted is bigger suffering than being offended, there is no point in any discussion with you.
|
On November 24 2012 15:23 Luppy1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 15:11 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 24 2012 15:07 Luppy1 wrote:On November 24 2012 14:04 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 13:53 Luppy1 wrote:
Just because it's increasingly acceptable in some western nations, it doesn't mean that the entire world needs to accept it. Personally, I'm glad it's still frown upon in most (if not all) asian nations [and considering the state of things in the world, I can safely say that the asian societies do know better in some aspects.] China and Tibet comes to mind. Genocide and ongoing occupation. And what the Chinese social party did to its inhabitants during Mao (and afterwards)... add censorship on the internet... I'm not convinced by your words. I do not feel you have the same respect for individual life. At least China always puts the nation before any single inhabitant. Hence it's specially hard to make a case for gay rights. Don't know too much about other Asian countries. Much of the culture seems very rich, and cool. But, yeah. Not convinced you are better than us at respecting individual life, nor that you are better off not respecting individual life. Anyway. Can I just remind you that you are "frowning" upon actual people with hopes and dreams, who were born different or developed differently than you. Their first wish is like yours: To be allowed to love and be loved. I'm asking why you are glad that these people are frowned upon. Remove the frown from the "equation" and I'd argue you lose nothing. They have not transgressed nor asking for the right to transgress. Only to be free. If it were within your power to grant this, would you deny them freedom to love? Do we even know for sure whether they're born different? There's no complete freedom for everything where I'm at. Having slightly less freedom doesn't suffocate everyone because most people do realise that it's necessary, since some people need to be protected from themselves. The western nations are probably proud about their freedom. But, personally, I don't think they're doing enough to protect their own people. To me, having complete freedom is too chaotic and it's like moving slowly towards self destruction. While being a homosexual is frowned upon in my country, these people are not hunted down and labelled as criminals. But, it's just widely considered as unnatural and those who confess as being a homosexual would probably be considered as freaks (but, they would not be treated any differently). There's a very negative stigma attached to being a gay, enough for people not to be open about it. Still, It's not as bad as the negative stigma of being bad in school/exams. I don't think you really know what it feels like to be discriminated against for not being straight. Things like doing shitty on exams, or getting bad grades in school are fixable. You can study, you can work harder next time.. If you're gay, you're completely screwed. It's inside you literally every single day reminding you that every little attraction you feel towards someone would get you labeled as a freak even though it's harmless. Even if it's not as out in the open, it's insane how horrible it can be. Even little passive remarks are incredibly hurtful. I've been racially discriminated when I had to live abroad for 4 years. So, I do know what it feels like to be discriminated. It doesn't feel good. But, it's really nothing. I think you're too sheltered (You mentioned the attraction being harmless. Getting called a freak/the passive remarks are just as harmless). Nothing? If the discrimination that you felt was nothing why is it even an issue? Or you are assuming that all kinds of discrimination are the same and of the same magnitude under all the circumstances?
|
Funny how people have to make sure they say "I'm not gay myself but..." xD
I'm BI btw and it's awesome. Do I want Pizza or Thai today kind of way....
User was warned for this post
|
On November 24 2012 23:10 mcc wrote:
There is evidence that probability of male homosexuality is increased by number of older male siblings. Also how do you know male homosexuality is not "transferred" through mother's genes. That would make your inference pretty weak. Plus there is no evidence that number of homosexuals has any correlation with how oppressive society is against them.
Basically your argument is based on very simplistic view of genetics. Plus not all biological causes are genetical.
This is definitely true, maternal environment (in the example you cited and that I am familiar with) clearly plays a role. Environment definitely has a role to play in determining homosexuality, and probably a much greater one (otherwise a much higher proportion of monozygotic twins would both be homosexual). Genetic factors are definitely present, though, and I think the vast majority of studies confirm and support this.
And again, it's probably quantitative, where multiple genes interact with each other in very complex ways. The recessive hypothetical was only a response to nastyone's argument about dominance/recessive, which is the most simple way of looking at it.
But I still do think that if there's a genetic component, given enough time and generations, if you allow homosexual individuals to live how they want then the prevalence of the genotypes will most likely decrease.
|
On November 24 2012 23:20 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 23:08 naastyOne wrote:On November 24 2012 22:47 mcc wrote:On November 24 2012 22:41 naastyOne wrote:On November 24 2012 22:37 mcc wrote:On November 24 2012 22:23 Hoberator wrote:
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line? Right and wrong is all determined by where we draw the line and no man or woman has the right to tell another person where to draw the line. We live in countries, societies, cultures that each have their own way of determining what is "legal" or "acceptable." There is no "denying basic rights." There is only denying unwanted rights. There is no such thing as natural or ideal rights of a human being. These are all just concepts by a greater majority of people in a given place. The greater portion of society upholds what they want in our legal system and is justified by the basis its design.
Edit: I must add, that I don't think a man's health or life is something that should be determined by anyone and that death should never be a solution. We draw the line where someone is hurt ? Do you still not get it after countless people in this thread already made it clear. Harmless behaviour should not be punished. Homosexuality is harmless, pedophilia is not, do you grasp the difference ? Victimless crimes are pretty good indicator something is wrong with the law. What exactly is "hurt"? Physical or moral damage? Why does not abiding the rules earns you a punishment even if nobody was hurt in particular incident? If you do not know what hurt is, tough luck, I am not going to play semantic nitpicking games with you The "semantic nitpicking" is often a big legal difference. Besides, you doged the question. Legalistic arguments have no impact on ethical ones, which we are talking about. Laws are inspired by ethics, not the other way around. The relationship is one-sided. As for your question, it would be too great of a tangent considering the topic. So just shortly, there is no moral hurt. There is psychological one. And the actual ethical argument is of course about the comparative amount of hurt caused by individual actions. If you do not see that being jailed and persecuted is bigger suffering than being offended, there is no point in any discussion with you.
No it is not one-sided, the laws do affect ethick.
THen, you spoke about that behaviour should not be punished unless it makes somebody "hurt".
Then you can not define what is "hurt", so that your definition of drawing the line made any sence. Why do you even start going into the relative quantity of hurt without defining it, and go about suffering, not hurt.
Maybe you need to make up your mind?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
