Gay StarCraft Players - Page 117

On September 14 2011 12:36 drshdwpuppet wrote:


If you take a child, lock them in a closet and beat them daily, screaming at them "YOU ARE NOT A BOY, I DO NOT LOVE YOU" this will make them wish they wern't a girl. This does not mean it is better to be a boy. That behaviour is what gays have to deal with daily. I am constantly reminded that what I am is not considered normal. For someone without the support network I have, I can definitely see how that would make them feel awful and want to be a different person. It isnt their defect, it is the perverse, cruel way others judge and view the world. Everybody's journey is individual. If you fall in love with a boy, you fall in love with a boy. The fact that many people consider it a disease, consider it something to hate and fear, says more about them than it does about homosexuality.

On September 14 2011 12:32 drshdwpuppet wrote:




yaaaayyyy~~~~!!!!! HERE WE GO AGAIN (I never get tired of this ride)

basically, what we have here is a classic argument ad ignorantiam. You hide it well, and seem really thoughtful, so no insult is intended, but basically, you say that "because I cannot fathom a reason how homosexuality can be benificial to reproduction, it isnt and therefore must be a defect". This is also a major unstated false premise in that the assumption is that anything that doesn't directly contribute to penis inserted into vagina and semen being injected into uterus to provide seed for life is not evolutionarily advantageous. The second unstated false premise is that something that anything that negatively affects reproduction is a defect. We will explore both realms shortly.

First, it has been posted many, many, many times (more latin: ad nauseum, or literally, so much so that I am sick of typing it) that it is not excluded from the realm of scientific probability and EXISTING EVOLUTIONARY THEORY that homosexuality can benifit the species or "herd" if you will. Basically, read back and try and find it, sift through the rainbows, glitter and tight leather pants. Its in there, I assure you. The tl;dr version is that, grandmother theory (excess men incapable of reproduction increases the number of people capable of taking care of young and thereby increases their chance of survival) and "gay boyfriend" theory (excess men allow for the strongest men to have multiple children in multiple women, increasing their virulence and giving the women the ability to still raise young with a partner). There are lots more theories, some better than others. Basically, none of them are able to be proven, but there are plenty of ways in which we can imagine homosexuality being a positive force in a society, if not in an individual's chance of reproduction.

Part two. Is homosexuality a defect. I think I answered that pretty well. No. Homosexuality is a part of the normal spectrum of human sexuality. I think modern medicinal science is too quick to label defects and at any rate, there are no signs of defective genetic markers or anything related in homosexuality.

As for your anditode questions. For the reasons mentioned above, no. Besides, who would make your clothes?

It is a great question and brings up the ethics of this sort of questioning. If we can cure congenital defects, should we? Cerebral Palsy? Sure. Down's or other related syndroms? Why not end suffering? What if it isnt afforable and easly accessable to anyone other than the rich? What if we select against things that make us unique, like homosexuality, like variations in natural intelligence, like variations in skin, eye, hair colors? This is all heresay but are questions that need to be answered.

I don't want a "cure" because I am not sick. I am individual, I am brownish hair, hazel eyes, need glasses because of nearsightedness, I like men. This is what makes me different from you, or the person who posts below me. These things are important and I would never want to give them up, merely because I don't fit someone else's idea of perfect. I am perfect the way I am, the way I was born and anyone who doesn't agree with that honestly needs to reasses what they value and find beautiful about life.

On September 14 2011 21:02 ayaz2810 wrote:



This was the kind of reaction I was trying to avoid. I never claimed to be a geneticist, physician, or biology guru. I was only stating how it looked to me (and probably a whole lot of other people). To be clear, I don't regard the homosexuality "defect" (still not a huge fan of that terminology) as anything that needs to be "cured" or wiped out. You are somewhat correct when you state that because I cannot fathom how homosexuality is beneficial to reproduction, that my assumption was that is was an abnormality. On the other hand, your assertion that I was trying to engage in some kind of argument.... not so much. I was just stating how it looked to me. On a more positive note, I appreciate the education you provided in more of your post.

And to others that have replied, thanks for the information. Some of these posts are very thoughtful and an interesting read.

On September 15 2011 07:06 drshdwpuppet wrote:
can I have your babies? I cook and clean and give good cuddles ^^

On September 14 2011 21:02 ayaz2810 wrote:



This was the kind of reaction I was trying to avoid. I never claimed to be a geneticist, physician, or biology guru. I was only stating how it looked to me (and probably a whole lot of other people). To be clear, I don't regard the homosexuality "defect" (still not a huge fan of that terminology) as anything that needs to be "cured" or wiped out. You are somewhat correct when you state that because I cannot fathom how homosexuality is beneficial to reproduction, that my assumption was that is was an abnormality. On the other hand, your assertion that I was trying to engage in some kind of argument.... not so much. I was just stating how it looked to me. On a more positive note, I appreciate the education you provided in more of your post.

And to others that have replied, thanks for the information. Some of these posts are very thoughtful and an interesting read.

On September 15 2011 06:16 diverzee wrote:


Myself, as someone who actually finished med school and doesn't just brag about being interested in science despite being a dropout, I would think twice before calling homosexuality a defect (education makes you doubtful, while bigotry makes you certain). We don't know what causes homosexuality, and it presents with no physical defects - it is thus much more complex than easily genetically identifiable birth defects. Just as we don't know the cause, we don't know the purpose - and in today's civilized society possible purposes might be impossible to identify. The only thing a physician or scientist could say with certainty is that homosexuality isn't considered an illness, and doesn't meet the criteria of being pathological.

On September 15 2011 06:16 diverzee wrote:


Myself, as someone who actually finished med school and doesn't just brag about being interested in science despite being a dropout, I would think twice before calling homosexuality a defect (education makes you doubtful, while bigotry makes you certain). We don't know what causes homosexuality, and it presents with no physical defects - it is thus much more complex than easily genetically identifiable birth defects. Just as we don't know the cause, we don't know the purpose - and in today's civilized society possible purposes might be impossible to identify. The only thing a physician or scientist could say with certainty is that homosexuality isn't considered an illness, and doesn't meet the criteria of being pathological.

On September 15 2011 01:59 matjlav wrote:


I agree with everything you just said. But if an adult homosexual person were to opt into a proven effective treatment to be changed from homosexual into heterosexual, then do we have the right to keep them from doing so because we think that they shouldn't want to be heterosexual? Would it even be wrong of them to want to be heterosexual?

On September 15 2011 06:16 diverzee wrote:


Myself, as someone who actually finished med school and doesn't just brag about being interested in science despite being a dropout, I would think twice before calling homosexuality a defect (education makes you doubtful, while bigotry makes you certain). We don't know what causes homosexuality, and it presents with no physical defects - it is thus much more complex than easily genetically identifiable birth defects. Just as we don't know the cause, we don't know the purpose - and in today's civilized society possible purposes might be impossible to identify. The only thing a physician or scientist could say with certainty is that homosexuality isn't considered an illness, and doesn't meet the criteria of being pathological.

On September 15 2011 06:16 diverzee wrote:


Myself, as someone who actually finished med school and doesn't just brag about being interested in science despite being a dropout, I would think twice before calling homosexuality a defect (education makes you doubtful, while bigotry makes you certain). We don't know what causes homosexuality, and it presents with no physical defects - it is thus much more complex than easily genetically identifiable birth defects. Just as we don't know the cause, we don't know the purpose - and in today's civilized society possible purposes might be impossible to identify. The only thing a physician or scientist could say with certainty is that homosexuality isn't considered an illness, and doesn't meet the criteria of being pathological.

On September 15 2011 06:16 diverzee wrote:


Myself, as someone who actually finished med school and doesn't just brag about being interested in science despite being a dropout, I would think twice before calling homosexuality a defect (education makes you doubtful, while bigotry makes you certain). We don't know what causes homosexuality, and it presents with no physical defects - it is thus much more complex than easily genetically identifiable birth defects. Just as we don't know the cause, we don't know the purpose - and in today's civilized society possible purposes might be impossible to identify. The only thing a physician or scientist could say with certainty is that homosexuality isn't considered an illness, and doesn't meet the criteria of being pathological.