On June 24 2013 23:51 theodorus12 wrote: I'm not talking about banning anything, but there are places where it's ok and such where it's not. This site has always been about esport, esport news etc. Having some admin abusing this site to shove his political views in other peoples faces is just wrong and an insult to anyone who has supported this site in the past.
Stop saying it's a political view when from our end it isn't. We're speaking out about basic human rights.
What about my view? What about the principal falsity of gays? You are not supposed to put your P into a B.
You sir, have revealed yourself as beeing totally dumb. You missed the point. There is no principal falsity of gays. It is quite natural.
It goes against the biological design of human beings...The principal point of sex being reproduction, which cannot occur in a gay relationship - is what he is trying to say.
You clearly don't really understand the principles of evolution if you think that 'producing children' is the only way of keeping a species from extinction. There are multiple ways of contributing to the evolutionary success of your species without ever contributing directly with your genetic material. There's plenty of literature on this.
A famous example are swans - in the swan population, a small percentage of the males is gay. Now, when it is breeding season, the gay swan couple will chase a male/female couple from their nest, and raise the children as their own. Since male swans are larger and stronger then females, a larger % of the eggs will in the end make it till adulthood. Here you have a clear evolutionary advantage that can help a species when pressure from predators is high, and a population is going through a tough phase.
And to re-iterate, homosexual behaviour has been demonstrated in a significant amount of species, I believe ~400, with another 1100 suspected but not definitive proof. Really, read up on how evolution works, it'll be an eye-opener... and it doesn't all boil down to just 'sex'...
On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote: I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find.
...
I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid.
I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice...
Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science.
You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike?
You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here...
And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated.
You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid.
I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him.
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---.
The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here.
You might want to read the bit just after that.
ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it.
I did. It says "errr its complicated and we don't know exactly why some people are gay and some are straight". Not what you seem to be thinking its saying that people have a choice about their sexual orientation.
No, I'm talking about the part that says "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
In several studies, the observation is that the more older brothers a man has, the greater the probability is that he will have a homosexual orientation. It has sometimes been called the older brother effect.
The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known biodemographic predictor of sexual orientation.
[...] the effect is not due to being raised with older brothers, but is hypothesized to have something to do with changes induced in the mother's body when gestating a boy that affects subsequent sons. An in-utero maternal immune response has been hypothesized for this effect.
This evidence lends to the idea that sexual orientation is developed during gestation. I've also heard it theorized that the purpose of homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective is to remove some multiple sibling males from the gene pool because they increase the odds of incestuous relationships forming within a community. That is just speculation of course.
I'm not sure why they say "no findings have emerged." Guess they are just saying the evidence isn't conclusive by itself yet.
Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science.
You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike?
You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here...
And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated.
You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid.
I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him.
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---.
The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here.
You might want to read the bit just after that.
ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it.
I did. It says "errr its complicated and we don't know exactly why some people are gay and some are straight". Not what you seem to be thinking its saying that people have a choice about their sexual orientation.
No, I'm talking about the part that says "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
Which in no way supports your view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However the last line does support the view that people don't have much of a choice in sexual orientation.
Which in no way denies my view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However, the last line states what psychologists think, not what they know to be an absolute truth.
But that begs the question, when did you choose to be straight, and why can't you choose to be gay right now? I believe that if you're smart, you should be able to realize that since you can't make that choice, then it's not a choice.
I'd really like to see you answer that question, was it a choice for you?
On June 25 2013 01:30 shawster wrote: the fact that people are saying that equality is political shows how close minded certain individuals are
keep it up tl!
I think you mean something else, because equality very clearly *is* a political issue; one obvious case is gay marriage. Its just a statement of reality!
I'd argue equality isn't political: if you don't support equality you're a moron, not a political activist.
Achieving equality is however hugely political, obviously.
You can't just blanketly call everyone who disagrees with you a moron, and you can't just spout "equality" when in reality you only mean "equality for the people I think are right." Unless you mean complete equality for every single orientation (including paedophilia and bestiality), religious expression (which can dictate violence against certain peoples) and cultural moral (the clan leader has to have sex with all the women of his tribe).
There's an enormous difference between two consenting adults having a relationship and nonconsensual relationships between adults and children, or animals. Pedofilia isn't an orientation, it's a mental illness. Two adult men or women consenting to sex is NOTHING like raping a child. Your point is disgusting and groundless.
I specifically stated I wasn't comparing the two, glad you decided to edit that out though. Great cherry picking skills. The entire point of what I said is that you can't just throw around the word "equality" without putting necessary limits on it, and that you can't just blanketly call people morons for not having the exact same limits as you.
To suggest that an individual's support for "equality" within the frame of homosexuality necessitates further support of "equality" for pedophiles and practicioners of beastiality amounts to a tacit comparison between homosexuals and the aforementioned groups/conditions, no matter how many times you say otherwise.
On June 25 2013 01:56 Zealously wrote: I think it's interesting that people think that you can choose to become bi/homosexual - I know some people who considered themselves freaks of nature and were terrified of the thought of anyone ever finding out. They were ashamed of themselves because they were different and some went as far as attempting suicide. Now, if being homosexual is a choice, why on earth would they feel like that?
Edit: and also, heterosexuality and any kind of sexuality - it's not all about sex. There's more to sexuality than just sex. Some people seem to not understand this.
uhm, those are different pairs of shoes. One is to make the choice of being attracted to the same sex, the other is social pressure. And they were afraid because of their choice they would face social preassure or felt it already. Because society imposes pressure does not take away from the basic choice. And I would argue that for the vast majority of gay people it is a choice, maybe not as concious as other things, but a choice nevertheless. A choice made out of bad experiences with the opposite gender, good experiences with the same gender, of finding a good match in the same sex or just by not wanting to play by the rules of men having to be strong and women to be soft.
On June 25 2013 02:01 Steel wrote: "As usual, the debate ended with everyone losing. The clash of intractable views produced no harmony, just exhaustion and an ache in the back of the skull"
I can't believe how much people try to argue for or against causes they affect them so little. You're not ignorant and uneducated saying that homosexuality is wrong because nature didn't intend for it, but why do you care so much? Are you nature's white knight, vowed to be opinionated when you spot unnatural behavior? If people like you would go about their business and let others go about their business, then there wouldn't even need to be this gay pride bullshit. Your viewpoint isn't invalid, it's just pointless and idiotic to argue for it. Similar to what religious zealots use in arguments.
Because this is a forums. People debate on a forums. Why do we debate? You tell me. But do not strike down my views if you disagree with them. Simply state that you think otherwise respectably, and I will take up no qualms with you.
But when you post a paragraph saying that everything I write is futile, that it is pointless because it goes against that majority, that I should not debate on a forums or put out a view that goes against the mold, I get more than a little bit irritated.
Your views are a threat to the quality of life of many people. I think it's fair to strike them down.
Oh my god.
Holy shit man. Does no one read what I've said so many fucking times? That these are my opinions, and that no one has to agree with them? There's a difference between disagreeing with people and insulting them. Many people here should cultivate some respect.
Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science.
You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike?
You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here...
And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated.
You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid.
I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him.
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---.
The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here.
You might want to read the bit just after that.
ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it.
I did. It says "errr its complicated and we don't know exactly why some people are gay and some are straight". Not what you seem to be thinking its saying that people have a choice about their sexual orientation.
No, I'm talking about the part that says "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
Which in no way supports your view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However the last line does support the view that people don't have much of a choice in sexual orientation.
Which in no way denies my view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However, the last line states what psychologists think, not what they know to be an absolute truth.
It does exactly that, you can't both have a choice and not have a choice. The last line states the best evidence we have so far. Its not denying the chance that it could be a choice but it suggests it that that isn't the case.
On June 25 2013 01:30 shawster wrote: the fact that people are saying that equality is political shows how close minded certain individuals are
keep it up tl!
I think you mean something else, because equality very clearly *is* a political issue; one obvious case is gay marriage. Its just a statement of reality!
I'd argue equality isn't political: if you don't support equality you're a moron, not a political activist.
Achieving equality is however hugely political, obviously.
You can't just blanketly call everyone who disagrees with you a moron, and you can't just spout "equality" when in reality you only mean "equality for the people I think are right." Unless you mean complete equality for every single orientation (including paedophilia and bestiality), religious expression (which can dictate violence against certain peoples) and cultural moral (the clan leader has to have sex with all the women of his tribe).
There's an enormous difference between two consenting adults having a relationship and nonconsensual relationships between adults and children, or animals. Pedofilia isn't an orientation, it's a mental illness. Two adult men or women consenting to sex is NOTHING like raping a child. Your point is disgusting and groundless.
I specifically stated I wasn't comparing the two, glad you decided to edit that out though. Great cherry picking skills. The entire point of what I said is that you can't just throw around the word "equality" without putting necessary limits on it, and that you can't just blanketly call people morons for not having the exact same limits as you.
You explicitly compare them, then try to say "oh I'm not comparing them". Your entire point is ridiculous.
I put every single trait, sexual preference, religious belief and cultural holdover on one equal footing and showed that it's ridiculous to do so, just to reinforce that the statement of "if you don't support equality you're a moron, not a political activist" is incredibly flawed and offensive. Literally all the offence you have to what you think I said is what I'm railing against.
On June 25 2013 01:30 shawster wrote: the fact that people are saying that equality is political shows how close minded certain individuals are
keep it up tl!
I think you mean something else, because equality very clearly *is* a political issue; one obvious case is gay marriage. Its just a statement of reality!
I'd argue equality isn't political: if you don't support equality you're a moron, not a political activist.
Achieving equality is however hugely political, obviously.
You can't just blanketly call everyone who disagrees with you a moron, and you can't just spout "equality" when in reality you only mean "equality for the people I think are right." Unless you mean complete equality for every single orientation (including paedophilia and bestiality), religious expression (which can dictate violence against certain peoples) and cultural moral (the clan leader has to have sex with all the women of his tribe).
There's an enormous difference between two consenting adults having a relationship and nonconsensual relationships between adults and children, or animals. Pedofilia isn't an orientation, it's a mental illness. Two adult men or women consenting to sex is NOTHING like raping a child. Your point is disgusting and groundless.
I specifically stated I wasn't comparing the two, glad you decided to edit that out though. Great cherry picking skills. The entire point of what I said is that you can't just throw around the word "equality" without putting necessary limits on it, and that you can't just blanketly call people morons for not having the exact same limits as you.
To suggest that an individual's support for "equality" within the frame of homosexuality necessitates further support of "equality" for pedophiles and practicioners of beastiality amounts to a tacit comparison between homosexuals and the aforementioned groups/conditions, no matter how many times you say otherwise.
Reread my post. It plainly states that either he's supporting equality with strings attached, or complete equality regardless of anything, in which case he's the one putting those different things together, or "comparing" them. It was a post about the buzzword that "equality" has become and the intrinsic hypocrisy within.
You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike?
You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here...
And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated.
You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid.
I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him.
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---.
The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here.
You might want to read the bit just after that.
ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it.
I did. It says "errr its complicated and we don't know exactly why some people are gay and some are straight". Not what you seem to be thinking its saying that people have a choice about their sexual orientation.
No, I'm talking about the part that says "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
Which in no way supports your view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However the last line does support the view that people don't have much of a choice in sexual orientation.
Which in no way denies my view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However, the last line states what psychologists think, not what they know to be an absolute truth.
But that begs the question, when did you choose to be straight, and why can't you choose to be gay right now? I believe that if you're smart, you should be able to realize that since you can't make that choice, then it's not a choice.
I'd really like to see you answer that question, was it a choice for you?
Is it impossible that being straight is the default (and thus requires no choice), while homosexuality may be a choice to deviate from the default?
It's a logical fallacy to say that "straight people didn't choose to be straight, therefore neither did gays."
Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science.
You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike?
You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here...
And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated.
You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid.
I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him.
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---.
The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here.
You might want to read the bit just after that.
ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it.
I did. It says "errr its complicated and we don't know exactly why some people are gay and some are straight". Not what you seem to be thinking its saying that people have a choice about their sexual orientation.
No, I'm talking about the part that says "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
Which in no way supports your view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However the last line does support the view that people don't have much of a choice in sexual orientation.
Which in no way denies my view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However, the last line states what psychologists think, not what they know to be an absolute truth.
Which proves that you have no evidence to back up your opinion.
And here is the thing. You can choose to have opinions. So if people find your point of view offensive or believe it insults their lifestyle, they can just tell you in any way they see fit. And if you continue to have that opinion knowing this, you should not be shocked with other people have the same response.
After all it is your choice to disagree with gay people. You don't have to. You could accept them. But you choose not to because you dislike them. And in response, they, and other people who like them, dislike you in return.
The choice, in the end, is really in your hands, not theirs.
On June 25 2013 02:01 Steel wrote: "As usual, the debate ended with everyone losing. The clash of intractable views produced no harmony, just exhaustion and an ache in the back of the skull"
I can't believe how much people try to argue for or against causes they affect them so little. You're not ignorant and uneducated saying that homosexuality is wrong because nature didn't intend for it, but why do you care so much? Are you nature's white knight, vowed to be opinionated when you spot unnatural behavior? If people like you would go about their business and let others go about their business, then there wouldn't even need to be this gay pride bullshit. Your viewpoint isn't invalid, it's just pointless and idiotic to argue for it. Similar to what religious zealots use in arguments.
Because this is a forums. People debate on a forums. Why do we debate? You tell me. But do not strike down my views if you disagree with them. Simply state that you think otherwise respectably, and I will take up no qualms with you.
But when you post a paragraph saying that everything I write is futile, that it is pointless because it goes against that majority, that I should not debate on a forums or put out a view that goes against the mold, I get more than a little bit irritated.
Your views are a threat to the quality of life of many people. I think it's fair to strike them down.
Oh my god.
Holy shit man. Does no one read what I've said so many fucking times? That these are my opinions, and that no one has to agree with them? There's a difference between disagreeing with people and insulting them. Many people here should cultivate some respect.
The point is your opinions are incredibly disrespectful of a whole bunch of people... we're being mildly rude to you, I don't think it's that bad in comparison to what you're doing... Cultivate some respect too, homosexuals are not any less deserving of it than you.
Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science.
You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike?
You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here...
And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated.
You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid.
I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him.
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---.
The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here.
You might want to read the bit just after that.
ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it.
I did. It says "errr its complicated and we don't know exactly why some people are gay and some are straight". Not what you seem to be thinking its saying that people have a choice about their sexual orientation.
No, I'm talking about the part that says "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
Which in no way supports your view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However the last line does support the view that people don't have much of a choice in sexual orientation.
Which in no way denies my view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However, the last line states what psychologists think, not what they know to be an absolute truth.
Every freaking thing we do as human is determined by both nature and nurture. This prove nothing at all.
Why don't you try to find some studies that show that it is a choice ?
On June 25 2013 01:53 A Wet Shamwow wrote: It isn't a choice (as others in this thread are arguing), but let's say that it is a choice, just as choosing not to live only to reproduce is a choice, then why should we prosecute and treat homosexuals as second class citizens while we ourselves are making a choice to "go against" our purpose?
Because we don't want our children to encounter this on everyday basis?
"This"? Two human beings being together? It isn't like there are going to be full blown orgies in the streets. I am pretty sure PDA of any nature is not kosher in most peoples minds, gay or straight.
I guess he think that teaching children to hate people for being who they are is more harmful than them seeing couples of the same genders :/ That's quite sad.
It all boils down to a simple question: "do you want your kid to become a gay or not". Hurr durr I will love my kids whatever they are derp.
Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science.
You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike?
You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here...
And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated.
You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid.
I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him.
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---.
The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here.
You might want to read the bit just after that.
ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it.
I did. It says "errr its complicated and we don't know exactly why some people are gay and some are straight". Not what you seem to be thinking its saying that people have a choice about their sexual orientation.
No, I'm talking about the part that says "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
Which in no way supports your view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However the last line does support the view that people don't have much of a choice in sexual orientation.
Which in no way denies my view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However, the last line states what psychologists think, not what they know to be an absolute truth.
?
There are pretty big differences both in brain structure and in the hormone levels of unborn babies which are huge indicators for sexual orientation. It's pretty hard to hold up that sexuality is a personal choice at this point.
On June 25 2013 02:01 Steel wrote: "As usual, the debate ended with everyone losing. The clash of intractable views produced no harmony, just exhaustion and an ache in the back of the skull"
I can't believe how much people try to argue for or against causes they affect them so little. You're not ignorant and uneducated saying that homosexuality is wrong because nature didn't intend for it, but why do you care so much? Are you nature's white knight, vowed to be opinionated when you spot unnatural behavior? If people like you would go about their business and let others go about their business, then there wouldn't even need to be this gay pride bullshit. Your viewpoint isn't invalid, it's just pointless and idiotic to argue for it. Similar to what religious zealots use in arguments.
Because this is a forums. People debate on a forums. Why do we debate? You tell me. But do not strike down my views if you disagree with them. Simply state that you think otherwise respectably, and I will take up no qualms with you.
But when you post a paragraph saying that everything I write is futile, that it is pointless because it goes against that majority, that I should not debate on a forums or put out a view that goes against the mold, I get more than a little bit irritated.
Your views are a threat to the quality of life of many people. I think it's fair to strike them down.
Oh my god.
Holy shit man. Does no one read what I've said so many fucking times? That these are my opinions, and that no one has to agree with them? There's a difference between disagreeing with people and insulting them. Many people here should cultivate some respect.
"I disagree with your existence." Isn't that at least a little bit insulting?
You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike?
You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here...
And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated.
You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid.
I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him.
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---.
The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here.
You might want to read the bit just after that.
ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it.
I did. It says "errr its complicated and we don't know exactly why some people are gay and some are straight". Not what you seem to be thinking its saying that people have a choice about their sexual orientation.
No, I'm talking about the part that says "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
Which in no way supports your view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However the last line does support the view that people don't have much of a choice in sexual orientation.
Which in no way denies my view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However, the last line states what psychologists think, not what they know to be an absolute truth.
But that begs the question, when did you choose to be straight, and why can't you choose to be gay right now? I believe that if you're smart, you should be able to realize that since you can't make that choice, then it's not a choice.
I'd really like to see you answer that question, was it a choice for you?
People's patterns and tendencies are established early on in life (nurture, if you will). Though I cannot change my sexual preference entirely to become homosexual due to biological wiring and habit, there is nothing that stops me from attempting to have a homosexual relationship with a man (CHOICE outweighs ALL OTHER FACTORS).
And given long enough or numerous enough relationships, yes, I think I'd be inclined towards them.
On June 25 2013 01:53 A Wet Shamwow wrote: It isn't a choice (as others in this thread are arguing), but let's say that it is a choice, just as choosing not to live only to reproduce is a choice, then why should we prosecute and treat homosexuals as second class citizens while we ourselves are making a choice to "go against" our purpose?
Because we don't want our children to encounter this on everyday basis?
"This"? Two human beings being together? It isn't like there are going to be full blown orgies in the streets. I am pretty sure PDA of any nature is not kosher in most peoples minds, gay or straight.
I guess he think that teaching children to hate people for being who they are is more harmful than them seeing couples of the same genders :/ That's quite sad.
It all boils down to a simple question: "do you want your kid to become a gay or not". Hurr durr I will love my kids whatever they are derp.
On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote: I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find.
...
I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid.
I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice...
Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science.
You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike?
You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here...
And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated.
Alright, this is why I try to avoid this shit. Let's not let things get to heated here. You take to your views, and I'll take to mine.
It isn't an opinion, such things are studied, we know allot about sexual behaviors of other animals, and it is ignorant to claim that there is no reason for them other then reproduction, for example it is important for social functioning of bonobos.
Having opinion that goes against what we know from studying is ignorant, and uneducated.
EPT
