+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Den of the Philociraptor (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=43)
+--- Thread: This is sooo gay (/showthread.php?tid=473)
This is sooo gay - OB1 - 31st March 2003
Here you go, CartoonDevil. If you want to talk about how evil gay people are, post it here rather than in my Zelda thread.
This is sooo gay - Dark Jaguar - 31st March 2003
Remember all "others", don't read too much into what I have to say to this guy. Aside from direct, and I mean direct and specific statements of my opinions, nothing in here is meant to actually reflect my thoughts on the rightness or wrongness of a certain choice of lifestyle (you sexual beings and your hangups...).
CartoonDevilWithAngerManagementProblems: Well, first Darunia, then nick, now you. Well, there is a slight difference I suppose. It's one thing to have the personal belief that such actions are wrong. I don't have any problem with that, since it's pretty much the same as the Amish thinking using modern technology is wrong if you accept that sexual orientation is a choice. However, the Amish are far more civil about it than you are being. All they call us tech users is "English", and they exist very peacefully and happily with the rest of us, not trying to punish us or insult us for this sinful electricity filled life of ours (for the most part, I'll say I never met a rude amish person anyway). However, you take it too far. When it comes to doin's a transpirin', if you think it's wrong, granted. Go ahead and sit down and have a talk with them about it (if they agree to listen of course, don't force it), but outright hating them for it is no way to get your point across, or should they never decide to change their mind to your point of view (hey I'm working with ya here boy, listen up I'm talkin' to ya (nice kid but he doesn't seem aware of his own ears)). Viewing it as a sin is one thing, but we are all evil in our own ways. Many people are out there doing things that can be considered a sin. For instance, I know many a software pirate as close friends. I'm not going to beat them up or insult them constantly for it though (like I could beat them up anyway...). It's somethinng I leave for them to work out. At a certain point, I made my stance on it, but I don't continue from there. It's just niceness. While I DO believe software pirating is wrong, it's nothing so bad that I need to do something about it like right then. When people are getting murdered in front of me, or classical theft is going on (you know, standard physical stealing), THEN I do more than just mention I think it's wrong. It's one of those things about us humans. We discern levels of it and punish according to the level of the crime. Murder right by you? That's something you better try to stop up to the point of removing the immediate threat (hopefully via simple disarming and restraining until police can arrive). Software piracy? Best just to leave it be rather than risk causing something even worse (two wrongs don't make a right, don't do property damage to stop piracy, or yell or something). In other words, you see it as wrong, fine, but of all the minor stuff to get mad at, why are you SO focused on that? I often wonder why I don't see groups of people stringing up liars by their toes... (um, well actually I do believe that did happen in the old west if someone was ripping someone off with a bad land deed or something, but you get my point), but this seems like such a big deal. Really, you should learn to calm yourself and focus on far more important things. Despite what you may see as one of their problems, if they aren't doing direct damage, try and live with it and see the potential good things they can do. This applies to people you know as liars, TV executives, tax collectors, and so on.
This is sooo gay - Sacred Jellybean - 31st March 2003
Quote:Sex between ANYTHING other than a man and a woman is wrong and evil. I can't understand how people can fuck members of the same gender, or allow members of the same gender to fuck them. Calling someone gay, queer, fagot, or otherwise is what they deserve. Calling them homosexual is only necessary if you're trying to curry favor with them, which I'm not. You'll never convince me that homosexuality is right, or even acceptable. And don't give me that crap about it being inherited, because it's bullshit.
And you say liberals are wacky?
You poor, poor traditional man.
This is sooo gay - Dark Jaguar - 31st March 2003
This coming from a RAVING anti-dentite! Sheesh, it's not like they can choose their proffesional tendancies! I bet you think they should be going to seperate schools too!
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 31st March 2003
Who said that quote in Jellybean's post?
As for this topic, its pointless. It cannot be argued when people deny that the most basic and obvious part of the discussion -- that its biological and not a choice, and deny that any evidence to the contrary is correct when it clearly is as happened last time we "discussed" this.
This is sooo gay - Dark Jaguar - 31st March 2003
ABF, that was a quote from him from the Wind Waker thread where this all started.
I'm not sure what's so "clear" about it. You never did answer that. May I say that you are just copping out and insisting you ar correct? I also don't see why it's SO important that one doesn't have a choice in the matter. One would think that someone really thinking such things should be merely a lifestyle choice would love to think of it as a free will thing. Isn't that a more liberating thought? Again, where's this proof of yours? Quote a scientific article, and please, don't insult both of us by saying "it's so obvious that it is that to deny it shows that you wouldn't accept proof if I did provide it", because that's what's under debate here. I honestly don't care about the right or wrong or just plain "who cares?" area of it all. Be a scientist for a moment. Why is it "obvious" that it HAS to be somethign forced? I heard your logic before, that with all the prejudice against it, why would anyone choose to be that way when they could take the easy path? Listen to that argument and ask yourself, does that honestly make sense to you? Don't you know human nature? Humans LOVE to go against the grain, to be noticed, to stand out in the crowd, and dare I say some love the idea of being a martyr? That aside, another aspect of human nature. Humans LOVE a challenge, to take the path not taken. It's why people become nerdy bookworm types despite all the arse kickings they are likely to recieve because of it. It's why people climb mountains instead of staying at home. It's why people play video games on hard mode. These are enough to get a decent number of people to decide to be homosexual (by the way, that's not ridiculous political correctness Mr meanie up there, that's the scientific way of saying it is all). You will have to do better than saying "why would people choose the hard and chastised path?" if you want to make a case that it's CLEARLY not a choice to me. You will also need to quote a reputable scientific source confirming that there is in fact a "gay gene". Good luck on that by the way. They are still making jokes about what will happen when that gene is finally found (the onion has an article, gay gene isolated, ostrasized from rest of genetic code). A single outdated and disprooved article from the late 80's early 90's isn't enough. However, if you BELIEVE it's genetic, that's another matter. You must admit you are merely having faith that it is so though, unless you really can provide some evidence, from a scientific article to an airtight logical case (whichever, don't care) prooving that it HAS to be genetic. I will say however this is just like trying to proove that there is a gene for murderers or astronauts.
This is sooo gay - OB1 - 31st March 2003
Cartoon Devil posted that, ABF.
This is sooo gay - Sacred Jellybean - 31st March 2003
Dentists... who needs'em.
I recently did a report on whether homosexuality is biological or psychological. My conclusion was that both may play factors in the trait.
A scientist by the name of Simon LeVay examined the brains from 41 corpses, many of which from people who had succumbed to AIDS. Out of these, 19 were from homosexual men, 16 were heterosexual men, and the other six were from heterosexual women. LeVay studied the physiology of these brains, more specifically, a cell group known as the INAH, which is divided into 4 parts (INAH 1, 2, 3, 4). His hypothesis was that he could find a physical trait that showed a person's sexual attraction to men or women. LeVay found that the size of the INAH 3 in heterosexual and homosexual men varied significantly; he found that the INAH 3 in homesexual men was sized more closely to that in heterosexual women.
Although these results evidently point to homosexuality being a biological trait, the experiment has been repeated with differing results. LeVay himself admitted that the size of the INAH 3 could have been affected by the cause of death in his experimental brains.
Here's more food for thought: two men by the name of Bailey and Pillard conducted a statistical study of homosexuality among identical twins. They found cases of identical twins seperated from birth, and noted their sexuality. They found that there was a 50% trend of both twins being homosexual. We all know that identical twins are, well, biologically identical. Therefore, this is a common argument that homosexuality is not purely biological, as this number should be 100%. However, at the same time, 50% is still a pretty good trend... is it so unreasonable to think that homosexuality may not be purely biological, but could hold a biological predisposition?
Now, let's look at the other side: advocates that homosexuality is There's an organization called NARTH, or National Association of Reasearch and Therapy for Homosexuals. A major representative of this organization is Neil Whitehead. He argues that homosexuals hold common personality traits, such as suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This is shown by statistical study not only in America, but other countries that he claims or homosexuality-tolerant, such as the Netherlands. Therefore, these personality traits aren't necessarily caused by being raised in a homophobic community.
He also claims that the NARTH has had patients that have been successfully transmuted from homosexual to heterosexual, through whatever therapy they offer. Most psychologist's results with such a therapy (as changing sexuality) have been extremely unsuccessful, however. Another biologist, a homosexual man by the name of Chandler Burr, argues that a faux homosexuality could be caused by a person's psychological growth. He claims that any homosexuality who's sexual orientation could be transformed had never been truly homosexual to begin with.
Burr also has arguments agains homosexuals having similar personality traits by bringing up an experiment conducted when homosexuality had still been thought of as a disease. This experiment was conducted in 1956 by a psychologist named Evelyn Hooker, and it was set up like this: two groups of thirty people are evaluated, one group composed of homosexual males, the other of heterosexual males. These evaluations were a double blind study, and it included a Rorschach test and another test where the subject makes a picture by using cut-out figures. These tests were then shown to three other psychologists who had no knowledge of the patients or which group member had received what test. These three psychologists, interestingly, could not conclude which tests were given to heterosexuals and which were given to homosexuals.
Our good friend Neil Whitehead rebuts this by arguing that the patients Evelyn Hooker selected weren't gender-atypical or emotionally disturbed. That's a pretty dumb rebuttal, though, because the patients were still homosexual, weren't they? That disproves the notion that all homosexuals are emotionally-disturbed or gender atypical.
There you actually have some facts, and you can decide for yourself where homosexuality is truly caused. In my personal opinion, based on my research, I think biology plays a homosexual predisposition in people, but doesn't necessarily dictate where that person's sexuality may be oriented.
Here are some links to my areas of research:
Simon LeVay's experiment: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nature-nurture/levay.html
Chandler Burr article: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jun/burr2.htm
Neil Whitehead article: http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
E-mails exchanged by Chandler Burr and Darryl Bem (two researchers in the area), compiled by Maggie Hieneman: http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/policy/1st_dialogue/week2_chandlerburr_and_darylbem.htm
This is sooo gay - N_A - 31st March 2003
LOL, I guess theres a little lack of scientific and sociological information in this discussion. So I'll bring in some info. Theres no such thing as a gay gene. Being gay has been determined to be 95% behaviorial and 5% genetic, that 5% being within the range of statistical insignificance - basically indicating such a thing does not exist. Take a class on psychiatry... and you'll see. And if you take population genetics, this so called gay gene obviously is false propaganda of the gay population and their bleeding heart liberal supporters. If a gene is selected against, because gay people don't reproduce.... its obviously that such a gene would have gone extinct long time ago if it even existed. Even if it were recessive, the density of that gene would have been eliminated frlom the population a long time ago as well.
Being gay is a behaviorial disorder thats obviously unnatural and selected against... including that fact that is spreads disease, contributes to the wreckage of the value of the traditional family, and screws with society. Heres a hint, if you don't want your child to be gay, make sure they have plenty of friends of the same sex when they're young and you make sure you have clear gender roles in the family that make a good impression on the child. Boys who hang out with too many girls start to think of themselves as feminine as they grow up and vice versa and thats where much of developing gay behavior is attributed to.
Btw, if going against the grain is human behavior, then everyone would be against the grain, and then what would the grain be ? Hehe, thats a paradoxical statement that can't be resolved.
This is sooo gay - N_A - 31st March 2003
Btw, twin studies... I remember having lengthy discussions about this in class, but those have been discreted because whatever they found, they still ended up being criticized for the fact that they ignored the upbringing of the twins separated at birth.
Hence in the end, it still boils down to the upbringing and self attributation of gender and gender roles.
Simple genetics rules out the gay gene being a reality.
One final comment, damned psychologist and their wannabe psuedoscience. Psychiatry is where the real science is at... ugh...
This is sooo gay - WhiteFleck - 31st March 2003
But what is homosexuality? I asked that last time this came up, and nobody really cared. I say it's basically the act of sex between members of the same gender, because up until that point it's all emotion. So why would it matter if there was some "gay" gene anyways? It all boils down to the sex of it, in which case homosexuality would be wrong, "nature-wise," since it doesn't have the possibility of making babies.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 31st March 2003
I agree with N_A, and I just need to add that it just doesn't make sense for an action that basically prohibits reproduction to be genetic or hereditary. By the very nature of hereditary traits, sexual reproduction has to occur, and that can't happen with homosexuals.
So you want my honest opinion? It's most definitely behaviorial, and those that claim otherwise are basically copping out, and telling us that homosexuals are not in control of their behavior, which is not only insulting to my intelligence but to homosexuals themselves, for you're basically stating that they have a genetic defect that not only makes them homosexual but deprives them of control over themselves. Doesn't fly with me. Sexual urges are completely controllable, unless you really do have some sort of mental disorder. Like I said last time this topic came around: You're born wanting to fuck, but not knowing what to fuck. That's something that you learn later on. Sexual urges are not a small part instinct, and you aren't born with complex instincts. You are born with the ability to feel fear, but you aren't born knowing what to fear. You are born with the ability to taste, but you aren't born knowing what tastes you like. You are born hearing, but you aren't born a fan of music.
It's just common sense, and simple psychology.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 31st March 2003
Responses like N_A's (or Weltall, from his posts in our discussion of this a few months ago) are why this discussion is completely pointless. They are simply not prepared to listen and will ignore any sembelance of truth that is presented... as per usual...
Look. If it was 100% environment and in the mind, then animals wouldn't be homosexual too because many of them are not exactly smart. But, some animals are. How about that?
Also, as was mentioned last time we talked about this, its idiotic to try to say "all homosexuals fit category X" where X is upbringing, etc... because they as a group simply do not fit in that kind of classification... it doesn't work that way. While some are more predisposed to some things, that doesnt mean all are by any stretch of the imagination... its so idiotic to hear people like N_A here say otherwise...
I don't understand why some people hate gay and lesbian people so much... why would they be afraid? Its not like its hurting anyone...
I just can't see how it could possibly be "choice". It makes no sense... while for a few people environment certainly might affect it (environment and you psyciatric state effects all kinds of things) there is no possible way that it is even close to the prime factor, or we'd see a tiny fraction of the number of gay people that we have...
And if "traditional family values" mean what you take them to mean then the world is a lot better off without them. We don't need more hatemongering towards the innocent... and thats exactly what it is...
Remember once apon a time it was normal to hate all kinds of groups of people... Jews, Irish, whatever... and eventually we got past that (or most of us). I think this will eventually go that way too... but no time soon. There are too many hatemongering idiots out there to change anything soon...
And again: If it is so bizarre to nature why do all kinds of species have some recognizably homosexual beings? Or will you say that horses or whatever can conciously think about that stuff?
This is sooo gay - Dark Jaguar - 31st March 2003
N_A should probably stay out of this.
*ABF, please read the whole thing. You won't get the point I'm trying to make unless you do. You assumed I was saying one thing when I wasn't.*
Again ABF, what makes you think there would be such a smaller number? Again, you miss out on the basic human nature to rebel and WANT to be different. There is also the basic human nature to fall in line and want to be accepted. Strange how both exist in the same mind eh? You seem to assume a hatred here (where actually it seems only two here hate them, and that's not totally confirmed), when in fact such a statement says a lot about yourself. Why is it that saying it's choice suddenly means there's hate mongering? When did THAT happen?
Look at all the numbers of people with piercings and tattoos. They outnumber gays (by the way, lesbian is just a gender limited version of the word gay, why is it always tacked on? That's like saying "I like crackers and ritz crackers") by millions likely, in America alone. Now then, why would ANYONE get pierced or tatooed when people have a huge stigma against it and everyone tells them it's bad and such? (Well, not as much lately...) Because, it's FUN to rebel against the norm! Now then, if rebellion alone can account for such a massive number of people with the exact same idea of how to rebel, don't you think a smaller population might also have a similar explanation? I'm not saying that's the ONLY explanation, but really, genetics doesn't make sense.
Also, I must say you really don't seem to know animals very well... They are, after all, animals. Look, survival of the fittest alone prooves that animals can't have a "gay gene" either. Any animal that ONLY tries to copulate with same gender animals will die and not pass on that gene. It's VERY simple really. Any time that gene showed up, it would immediatly go away in ONE generation. There's no social repression to explain away that like you might with humans. There's no "represing true sexual desires" in animals, so they wouldn't just marry an opposing gender animal because it's what animal society wants. How on earth would that gene survive? I tell you it's just not a possibility. Current social climate has no effect on the laws of nature. Your opinion means nothing to this. This is cold hard reality. A gay gene can't physically exist. Asexual beings who might actually be able to pass it down don't have sexual desires at all, so no gay gene could exist in them either.
*ABF, start reading right here. This is probably the point where you stopped reading last time. This is where I acknowledge the act exists. Really, your bias shows through when you equate me saying there can't be a gay animal gene with animals don't ever do homosexual acts.*
Now then, you want to know why some animals get all homosexual on us? They ARE animals you know. They feel an urge and act on it. I used to have a cat who in fact was incredibly.... bothered.... on a daily basis. He would always want to go outside, and it didn't help that cats were always rolling around outside our apartment. Eventually, he gave up trying to escape, and then he started messing with our other male cat. My point is this. At first, he wanted one thing, then eventually he just gave up and said "I gotta satisfy my animalistic urges, well, this cat isn't as strong as me, just wait until it drops the soap and... *insert famous line from TC story time here*". Eventually we had to get rid of that cat (at the time, my mom was against neutering, not any more).
Anyway, to say that animals doing homosexual acts is a sign there must be a gay gene is about as frought with bad logic as saying a dog humping a leg is a sign there must be a.... um, "make love to human legs" gene.
Oh, and by the way, a singular gene is likely just not enough to trigger such a massive wave of things. While it may very well be that attraction to both sexes is programmed into our brains and all it takes is a single variable, stored on one gene likely to switch it from 0 "male" (assuming we are talking of a female here) to 1 "female", I am willing to bet that such a variable is much more easily just read in from the presence of a Y chromosome.
Anyway, it just doesn't make logical sense at ALL for animals to have a gay gene (it just is totally improbable, completely and totally improbable, and if something is improbable enough, you are at the point where impossible is a good word to substitute because it won't happen, ever, like a mini black hole exploding right in your face) since it would just be weeded out. It DOES make sense though for them to just act on their urges and do what they need to do.
I will post one last example here. There are certain species of birds where females are getting increasingly rare during mating season. However, the males, in desperation, often will find dead females and just vent off their hormones in a pretty disturbing act. They spent the whole night searching for a living one, but just gave up. As for ones who don't try, laziness, pure laziness. Some creatures are just too lazy to properly live their lives. An example of this? Cats. Given the oppertunity, they would much rather eat straight from a bowl of dried food than actually do what's instinctual and hunt down the mouse running around over there. In fact, often times my cats will eat and THEN just kill the little creature, and then put it away and eat some more dried food.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 31st March 2003
About the hate thing... I was being general. I know some of you who think its "unnatural" and "choice" say you don't hate homosexuals... but in society its the ones who do who are the most often heard from that side...
Oh, and if it was a choice I very much doubt that most of the people who are homosexual would be... some would be, but a lot of people definitely wish they weren't... but it isn't in their control...
Oh, a classic DJ post: Huge, barely readable paragraph...
Um, if you are trying to say that animals aren't gay that is false... its a scientific fact (not that stops you people, though)...
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 31st March 2003
You keep going on about proof, and the truth, and yet you offer neither in your defense. Besides the point that it's idiotic to argue that an anti-reproductive trait could possibly be hereditary, you use animals as proof. My two male dogs used to hump each other periodically, probably because there wasn't much else to do to entertain them in the backyard. Do you have any proof that any animals practice exclusive homosexual behavior?
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 31st March 2003
But finding proof would take work... and you'd ignore it anyway...
This is sooo gay - Dark Jaguar - 31st March 2003
Perhaps you missed my point. I was saying that yes many animals do exibit those behaviors, but, please just read it. I'll try to seperate things into paragraphs, but that is readable if you take it one idea at a time. Lemme seperate it for you.
Okay, go back up there and read it. Please read all of it. Oh, and you are STILL coping out by saying "oh you won't listen anyway". Just show us this proof. I can promise you can't find it, but if you do, I will read it. Please make sure it's a decent scientific article by the way. (I know you think that that last sentance is me saying whatever article you manage to find I"ll just claim wasn't a good test, but you're wrong. I'm not that shallow and petty. I really will examine it, but there is a difference between good science and bad science. That so called evidence we didn't land on the moon is bad science. The counter evidence by most of the scientific community, is GOOD science. Bad science is prooving something by making up or posting a "fact" that is false. For instance, moon landing fellows claim the radiation is too much for us to withstand. That is nutty because there is barely enough radiation to do any harm to anything in that particular belt.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 31st March 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
But finding proof would take work... and you'd ignore it anyway...
How do you know? When do you ever actually back up what you say with proof?
Proof aside, your stance doesn't make sense. I mean, it's negated by simple highschool science.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 31st March 2003
Did you try to say once that evolution didn't exist? I remember that discussion a few years ago... trying to deny that is called "bad science"...
And Weltall... just saying things like that won't convince anyone... it makes no sense to say that its a choice... I can't see any possible way that that is sane...
This is sooo gay - Sacred Jellybean - 31st March 2003
Since no one answered Flecky, I will: when we say homosexuality, we refer to one's own sexual orientation towards a member of the same gender. Anyone can go out and engage in gay sexual activity, but those who are sexually aroused by it are homosexual.
Weltall: Oi vey, I just don't see how sexuality could be a choice and controlled as easily as you make it out to be... I mean, how many heterosexuals could honestly say to themselves: "You know, homosexuality is all the rage! I think I'll be homosexual!" and could make the transmission successfully? If sexuality can be controlled, why are there cases of gay people commiting suicide, because they can't be accepted by society? Do you believe they're simply giving up and retreating? How about considering how terribly unsuccessful therapy for homosexuals is?
Falcon: Your evidence of homosexuality found in animals is interesting, but do you have any sources? Were experiments with "gay animals" conducted, or is this simply a common observation among animal behavior?
This is sooo gay - Sacred Jellybean - 31st March 2003
Oh, and concerning the genetic debate: admittedly I'm not the most educated person in biology. The extent of my education in the subject is from High School, but since Weltall thinks that's sufficient in this debate, I'll still ask my question. What about mutations? Let's take hemophilia: obviously, one with such a condition is very unfit, just like a homosexual, only it isn't impossible for a hemophiliac to pass on his/her genes. If this is a genetic biological mutation, along with other body defects/mutations as down syndrome, then who's to say that homosexuality as a genetic mutation isn't possible?
This is sooo gay - N_A - 31st March 2003
Hey Dark Jaguar, sorry to bring up my ego again, but have you formally studied evolutionary biology as a college major or perhaps psychiatry, because it sure as hell seems to me like you're an armchair scientist making casual evaluations.
Another few general comments directed towards the conversation as a whole.
- DATA is NOT THE PLURAL of anecdote.
- Psychologists are pseudoscientists
- bleeding heart liberals and gays make up stuff for the own agenda
- I find it very amusing that so many liberals proclaim that being gay is natural while claiming gender roles are artificial to defend gays.... so does that mean everyone is supposed to be gay ?
The the fuck people ? I sense too much irony, naivity and general ignorance among bleeding heart liberals who support gay behavior. And I'm going to emphasize its behavior because its very well shown that its an acquired behavioral defect rather than some kind of biological defect - and a defect it is because it causes you to be evolutionarily UNFIT.
Now let me answer the question as to why I do not like homosexual behavior, just to answer the bleeding heart liberal's inability to understand why people can't tolerate gays. Its kind of like not being able to tolerate wild behavior like binge drinking and doing drugs... its detrimental to society.
You CLAIM that it doesn't hurt society, but if you ever studied sociology carefully, and tie it in with various things I have learned in sociological problems, and medical problems, you'll quickly that western society's lack of emphasis on the clear traditional family and gender roles are tearing apart people. People are becoming destructive and self destructive because they have no good examples set, question their identity, are loss, etc. Gays contribute to the problem of tearing apart the traditional family. They represent no clear gender roles, etc. This cannot be, and should not be tolerated as it is detrimental to our society. If we accept gays and gay marraiges, it means that they have equal merit to traditional marraiges and families, and that does society and diservice.
Comapared to eastern societies where the family is still held in high regard, and gays suppressed either by ostracizing or just simply good upbringing with clear gender roles, the number of destructive societal problems are greatly less than that of westerners. THey maybe poorer, but they don't face the same self destructive and societal degredation problems seen in the west, but thats another issue of politics.
This is sooo gay - N_A - 31st March 2003
Quote:Originally posted by Sacred Jellybean
Oh, and concerning the genetic debate: admittedly I'm not the most educated person in biology. The extent of my education in the subject is from High School, but since Weltall thinks that's sufficient in this debate, I'll still ask my question. What about mutations? Let's take hemophilia: obviously, one with such a condition is very unfit, just like a homosexual, only it isn't impossible for a hemophiliac to pass on his/her genes. If this is a genetic biological mutation, along with other body defects/mutations as down syndrome, then who's to say that homosexuality as a genetic mutation isn't possible?
Actually hemophilia is something that can be passed on because its not necessarily a lethal gene. People can survive to reproductive age and pass it on. But, since it lethal rate is high, it is a rare and diminishing disease. If people stop inbreeding, it will disappear very fast.
I will also add that the somatic mutations in the body have repair mechanisms that drop the rate to 1 in 10^10 cell divisions, and is even lower in non-dividing cells. Also, the immune system tends to wipe these out. You get cancer when these are seriously screwed up, and even though there are genetic dispositions... lifestyle plays the major role in triggering the genetic weaknesses for cancer. But then things like cancer are HERITIABLE traits. Many people who get cancer have already had kids and such. They rate of mutation that is NOT inheritable cannot explain gayness.
So you would narrow it down to mutations that would have to probably occur at earlier levels of development, like the fertilized egg, but these kind of mutations are very sensitive, because they get amplified as cells differentiate due to deteroriorating DNA integretity and such I won't get into explaining. Usually, any mutation at this level is lethal, or causes serious mental retardation and other developmental problems.
And then theres the common sense part of this. When you find someone attractive, isn't because you have judged that person to have features you like ? Either physical or behaviorial ? Isn't that a kind of conscious judgement. Its not like your hormones are telling you you HAVE to go after a certain women. You choose to do it. YOu know some people for example choose NOT to chase after sexual desire and become monks or aesthetics for example. They choose to find that pursueing sexual desires is a waste of time compared to spiritutuality for example. Same thing here, its just in a perverse manner.
Its nothing that has to do with personal survival thats instinctive like renin-angiotensin pathways that DEMAND you drink water to live.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 1st April 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Did you try to say once that evolution didn't exist? I remember that discussion a few years ago... trying to deny that is called "bad science"...
And Weltall... just saying things like that won't convince anyone... it makes no sense to say that its a choice... I can't see any possible way that that is sane...
Well, of course you wouldn't. There are a lot of common sense things you don't find sane. The thing is, I did offer proof. Unless you have some proof to tell me that, in addition to being born gay, you're also born loving pizza, loving Aerosmith, and being afraid of the dark. Saying a person is born gay is also saying all those instances are possible. It's the same principle. Then there's the fact that genetic traits that discourage reproduction cannot be hereditary or genetic unless it's a defect or mutation. Then it would be you calling gay people freaks. I don't, because I don't buy that crap. You can control your sexual urges. A gay person won't drop dead if he doesn't get some male ass. And the point you made that some gay men wish they weren't produces the ridiculous mental image of a man porking another guy's butt and weeping at his own lack of self-control. "I can't help it, bitch!" I hope that put your view in perspective: You lack proof, and you lack common sense. You're just espousing your ridiculous liberal agenda. Again. It's very liberal to believe that a person can't think for or exert control over themselves. It's liberal, and like most liberal beliefs, it's laughably stupid, and completely lacks basis in reality.
To answer your question, I do believe in evolution, but I also believe in Creation. It's not as though the two ideas can't coexist. I don't believe we evolved from goo, but I do think that life has evolved and adapted over time.
This is sooo gay - N_A - 1st April 2003
Thats a way to put it Weltall.
Gay men choose to pursue men because they have been brought up in some kind of way that led them to develop a mental attitude of themselves that they are FEMININE, and hence they SHOULD pursue men, and find handsome men attractive like a woman would, and vice versa for gay women.
On a side note Weltall, I don't believe Creation and evolution can be reconciled.
In context to the debate, if anyone tries to call me a religious bigot, I might note that I claim no personal god/s, creator god, or devine authority. I only believe in cause and effect set into motion by the natural way of the universe.
Again, I'm opposed to homosexuality because it has proven itself scientifically and logically to be behavioral, and like polygamy and casual sex and the whole sex culture, incest, adultery, drugs, crime, whatever, it is detrimental to the role of the traditional family in being the seat of a stable and harmonious society.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 1st April 2003
This topic... not good... its hard to understand why anyone would hate people so much over such a unimportant subject as their sexuality... its not like they're doing anything to hurt anyone else... "hurting the traditional family"? Where in the world do people like you come up with such dumb ideas...
This is sooo gay - N_A - 1st April 2003
We come up with it in careful study of sociology and history, whereas naive and unstudied people like you don't understand and call us scholars idiotic, basking ironically in the glory of your ignorance.
I will quote Dogbert again, " Ignorance is not a valid point of view."
General apathy and naive thinking that individual actions don't have any effect on society is the ruin of western society. InDUHvidualism is being taken too far...
This is sooo gay - N_A - 1st April 2003
Forgot to add that psychiatry and psychosocial medicine is also important. Take what you will from this, but in my state, I'm glad we banned homosexual marraiges, making a strong statement in this direction of protecting the validity of the traditional family.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 1st April 2003
But individual thinking on the whole isn't too important to society on the whole but is important to the person... individuality is a very good thing... a society where everyone thinks the same isn't something I'd say is a good model...
This is sooo gay - N_A - 1st April 2003
And I might add that sexuality is NOT a trifling matter. It deals with the propagation of the species, the maintainence of culture and society and families, and obviously if abused, I'm sure you are aware of problems like HIV pandemic, Heptitis, abortion issues, single parenting and all their attached societal problems.
You probably realize that all of these problems are greatly diminished if we DIDN'T have these odd alternative lifestyles of SEXUALITY.
This is sooo gay - N_A - 1st April 2003
Individualism is important, but societal thinking is just as important. And when it comes to keeping society stable, then we have to find a balance point - and keeping a strong traditional family is one of those balancing points. We don't expect everyone to think the same, but everyone should think of others, and everyone should be working to approach a reasonable, common societal goal, such as societal stability and harmony rather than saying screw society, I'll do what I want and fuck who I want. Thats when problems occur, and homosexuality falls into the category of fuck who I want type induhvidualism.
I tend to think of societal thinking as... taking own approach to acheiving that common societal harmony, and in working to benefit society, you benefit yourself as part of it. Take note that your own approach doesn't mean "screw society, I'll do what I want, fuck who I want."
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 1st April 2003
You act like you're so smart... then say such stupid things... I mean, you HONESTLY think that single parenting, AIDS/HIV, abortion, etc have anything to do with homosexuality? That's so dumb...
I would say that society is now taking up those issues because some people have realized that its not ok to force large groups of people to hide who they are... that is really against what we stand for -- freedom of opinion, etc...
Forcing everyone to beleive the same things just is bad and not conductive to society... its not good to keep it all hidden... all it does is hurts those people even more.
I mean, homosexuality has always existed, but before recently people who were had to hide it or deny it because it "wasnt ok"... and that would not be good for them. While its not all open now (too much persecution), its a lot better... for the betterment of everyone except rightwing extremist zealots...
Like most every other major societal issue like this in time it'll get accepted. The only question is in how long... but we've made a very good start with Vermont's sanctioning of a legal alternative for gays to get all the benefits of being married (without using that actual term for them). I just wish those attempts here in Maine to get sexual orientation added to the list of things you can't harrass or fire people over (gender, age, religion, etc) passed... :(
This is sooo gay - N_A - 1st April 2003
You idiot, can't you read ? I thought I made it clear that those problems had to do with overdone individuality brought to the point of "screw you society, I do what I want, I fuck who I want" attitude. Homosexuality is only ONE OF MANY FORMS of the above attitude.
If you're so smart, how come you don't realize that HIV/AIDS 2nd most prevalent passage is through gays, following closely behind congenital spread.
You damned liberals are all so very ironic. So you're going to FORCE ME to tolerate your decripit behaviors while I can't force you to adopt my disicpline ? What the fuck ? So what you persecute me as a right wing zealot ? Damn liberals... all you can say is all liberties should be allowed except for the freedom to act on areas I disagree with you. Double standards...Hell, at least I'm consistent on my approach.
Society has always been about forcing ideas on others. Anthropologically speaking, you wouldn't need a society if you didn't force things on others because it would be rule of the jungle, you do whatever the hell you want to do like in the feral days of prehistory. I can't stand the ignorance around here... as well as the lack of reading comprehension.
Freedom of opinions ? LOL, like Scott Adams says, "Since when did ignorance become a valid point of view ?" The only opinions that count for anything are ones that are in sync with reality. Too many people have opinions... but they're worthless ramble because they're like what you guys are throwing around... baseless statements that are naive and baseless and lack totality.
To assume that this will only be a matter of time to widespread acceptance is like saying democracy is forever. Its naive. Last time I checked, democracy is risen a died a few times, alot of attributed to the chaos that ensues and followed by a need for reestablishment of control, and modern democracy isn't even as close to age old a stable system like Confucianism which is still practiced in East Asia and holds the society glued together well... by chastising every form of "screw society, I do what I want, I fuck who I want" kind of attitude.
And finally, its not a matter of keeping it hidden. This is what you bleeding heart liberals have a problem grasping... solving problems from their very origin. Has it occured to you that if you raised people in a society that HAD clearly defined gender roles, well knit traditional families that pushed that, and that if gayness was thought of as abnormal defect as it is, that people would be raised as normal heterosexual people who fit their natural gender role and the thought of homosexuality doesn't cross their mind or would be banished and the problem would subside to neglible status ?
Its the same with bleeding heart liberal solution to drugs, you think narcotics should be legalized because some people like to do it and you can't bare to take it away from them. But it never occurs to you that perhaps we should buff up public education and outreach to troubled kids and areas and kill all the drug pushers to solve the problem as it should be....
I can go on and on about your faulty logic to societal solutions, but it would only be flogging a dead horse. Unfortunately, these kind of ideas are attractive because it seems like the easy way to avoid societal conflict. In analogy, you might avoid the grenade blast by jumping out of the way, but you get caught in the crossfire on the way out. It takes effort to solve problems completely. However, catering to the problem itself is NOT one of those ways.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 1st April 2003
![[Image: icon14.gif]](http://tcforums.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif){kind=icon}
This is sooo gay - alien space marine - 1st April 2003
This is just "gay"!!!
This is sooo gay - Darunia - 1st April 2003
In the Goron Empire, homosexuality is discouraged, but not prosecuted criminally. The rest of the world should follow in suit.
This is sooo gay - alien space marine - 1st April 2003
from some reason the wizard of Oz comes to mind.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 1st April 2003
You're free to believe anything you want... but you just shouldn't be allowed to make anyone else who doesn't agree with you believe it too...
Quote:And finally, its not a matter of keeping it hidden. This is what you bleeding heart liberals have a problem grasping... solving problems from their very origin. Has it occured to you that if you raised people in a society that HAD clearly defined gender roles, well knit traditional families that pushed that, and that if gayness was thought of as abnormal defect as it is, that people would be raised as normal heterosexual people who fit their natural gender role and the thought of homosexuality doesn't cross their mind or would be banished and the problem would subside to neglible status ?
Absurd. There would be almost as many gay people ("almost" because the few people who are gay just because of influences wouldn't be), but they would either have to hide it or be in denial... its ridiculous to say that if it was all hidden they would not exist. Um... for most of human history it was that way in most of the world and gay people existed... they just either didn't know it or kept it a secret... and neither of those things are good for them...
Drugs? Actually I'm against legalizing them...
And you mentioning education is ridiculous because its always the conservatives who want to gut public education and liberals who try to keep more money in it...
This is sooo gay - big guy - 1st April 2003
how can anyone say that homosexuality is bad for society? looking back through history, you come upon the roman empire, one of the most successful civilizations of all time, lasting thousands of years and covering almost all of europe, and yet, more often than not the men were having sex with other men. it was socially accepted then as something that was OK to do.
further back, it has been chronicled that the greeks also engaged in homosexual activities in all city states except sparta (not to say that it didn't occur there, there's just no documentation stating that it occured). and some armies were known for their being gay...i don't remember the exact name of one of them it was "...somethings...band of lovers." and look what the ancient greeks contributed to the world. they gave us all kinds of architecture, sculpture, technology. all while maintaining a homosexual friendly civilization.
michelangelo was an extremely pious artist in renaissance florence. he was also gay. he's created some of the finest sculpture and paintings *cough*sistine chapel*cough* all while being gay. it's also said that he was "very close friends" with many a pope. take that as you will, i suppose, but i always looked at it as him being lovers with them. and if homosexuality is evil, then those popes must also be evil, which allows evil into the church, which falsifies christs word when he said "evil shall never enter my church" (or something to that effect), which falsifies christianity as a whole...and we can't have that...
anyway, on a personal note, i worked at a restaurant for 2 years where a majority of the staff was gay. and really, they were some of the funniest, coolest, most fun to be around guys i've ever met. i really think that people who hate gays would change their tune if they'd just meet some of them with an open mind. they're great people. also, through talking with them, and trying to find out how they knew they were gay, they said it was just something you become aware of...it's not like you just wake up one day and say "you know what! i'm gonna be gay!" so that sort of discredits the choice thing, but does not discredit biology or upbringing.
furthermore, HIV would still be an epidemic without homosexuality. i hardly think that the condition in haiti, a place so catholic that they won't use condoms, is the result of male on male sex. it's because they aren't using condoms. and really, i think that's the reason why gays have this whole aids infectected stigma. gay people don't need to worry about pregnancy, so i think they are less likely to use condoms as a result. couple that with the fact that it's easier to transmit HIV throgh anal sex, and from a male (semen has the 2nd highest concentration of the virus in an infected person after the blood).
anyway, i feel that hating gays is just as wrong as hating blacks, or jews, or any other group of people. it's nazi mentality and it's stupid. i'm not saying you have to agree with them, or what their doing, or go out and join in the parades. but i don't think it's ok to judge them.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 1st April 2003
Quote: with an open mind.
That would never happen. Not for people like N_A or Weltall... their minds are very firmly closed shut, unfortunately.
Quote:anyway, i feel that hating gays is just as wrong as hating blacks, or jews, or any other group of people. it's nazi mentality and it's stupid. i'm not saying you have to agree with them, or what their doing, or go out and join in the parades. but i don't think it's ok to judge them.
Yeah... dislike them all you want in your own house, but when you try to make everyone else believe your hate doctrine it becomes wholly innapropriate...
And it is true that the great Greek and Roman civilizations were frequently homosexual, yet lasted well over a thousand years...
This is sooo gay - Fittisize - 1st April 2003
Er, big guy, you really didn't have to go into all that description about the HIV and condoms thing...eck.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 1st April 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
That would never happen. Not for people like N_A or Weltall... their minds are very firmly closed shut, unfortunately.
Yeah... dislike them all you want in your own house, but when you try to make everyone else believe your hate doctrine it becomes wholly innapropriate...
And it is true that the great Greek and Roman civilizations were frequently homosexual, yet lasted well over a thousand years...
...and then collapsed catastrophically, dooming Europe to the many centuries of the Dark Ages.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 1st April 2003
The point is that for 1500 or 2000 years they were very strong... the Roman Empire lasted 1000 years and then the Byzantine Empire lasted another 1000... and before that was the Greek civilization going back another few hundred years...
Our modern civilization hasn't been around that long...
This is sooo gay - big guy - 1st April 2003
and the fall of rome was due to the super hetero sexual germanic tribes, not the homosexual peoples of the civilizations themselves. and the dark ages were a result of catholic influence over the people, coupled with the germanic system of doing things not working well when it came to ruling empires. in fact, the renaissance came about in italy when the papacy moved to france for about 100 years. so i think that christianity had more to do with the dark ages than gays...but that's just me.
sorry about the HIV/condoms thing, i went to an AIDS awareness meeting recently with some friends of mine and they talked about all that stuff. i tried to be as scientific as possible, but i can see how it would paint an ugly picture.
:D
oh and ABF, i know that the open mind thing is impossible, it was just hypothetical.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 1st April 2003
I know the fall of Rome and Greece had nothing to do with homosexuality. I posed the point to counter this notion that homosexuality somehow was a factor in their prosperity. Our modern civilization, if you mean America, no, it hasn't been around long in the big picture, but American civilization is a direct offshoot of the British, which is a nation with over 1,500 years of history, which, discounting the Byzantine empire, is longer than Rome's history. The Catholic church was most definitely a major factor in the length of the Dark Ages however, you are correct on that point.
Boy, when we get off topic, we do it with flair and style :)
This is sooo gay - Dark Jaguar - 1st April 2003
This debate started as merely a curiosity on whether or not homosexuality was choice or forced. It quickly spun into something else, and a lot of emotions were unleashed. To be honest, I'm not surprised. I'll step out of this now. It seems having a genuine debate just isn't TC style. I think I'll save my debating for other places.
This is sooo gay - big guy - 1st April 2003
i never tried to say anything about homosexuals aiding in the prosperity of those cultures, i was just showing that 1)it isn't a new establishment among human beings and 2) those civilizations were extremely successful despite having homosexual activities occur. this was my rebuttal to N_A saying that gays were destroying our society.
on another note, i don't think it's fair to say that we're a direct spin-off of the british since we were founded by puritans, who were oppressed by the british, and much of our culture reflects our puritan roots. we've done a pretty swell job of differentiating ourselves from the brits.
and yes, britain has been around since for about 1500 years, and there were and are gays there, and they haven't collapsed it yet.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 2nd April 2003
Britain in its current form goes back less than 1000 years, to the Norman invasion. Before that, it was a Germanic nation... not English as we know it today. I wouldn't say that today's England is that similar to pre-Norman Britain.
And the US isn't just a offshoot of the English... we took in way too many people from all over the world (unlike most any old nation, most of which try to stay homogenous) from the very beginning to make it that simple...
And I'd say that the level of success those civilizations (greece and rome) would be more than enough to show that homosexuals aren't "destroying society"... no luck, I know, but I can wish...
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 2nd April 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Britain in its current form goes back less than 1000 years, to the Norman invasion. Before that, it was a Germanic nation... not English as we know it today. I wouldn't say that today's England is that similar to pre-Norman Britain.
And the US isn't just a offshoot of the English... we took in way too many people from all over the world (unlike most any old nation, most of which try to stay homogenous) from the very beginning to make it that simple...
And I'd say that the level of success those civilizations (greece and rome) would be more than enough to show that homosexuals aren't "destroying society"... no luck, I know, but I can wish...
Where to start?
Rome and Greece were great civilizations but neither was successful. Both were eventually destroyed by outside invasions, but as any student of history knows, a great empire can only fall from without when it is weakened from within. The societies of those civilizations, when they fell, were in total collapse. Rome and Greece were failures, and massive ones at that. Homosexuality obviously isn't a chief cause of that decayed moral structure but it almost certainly didn't help matters. Let's also remember that Roman culture, in addition to hosting widespread homosexuality, also was a common ground for incest. Incest was as accepted as homosexuality, and rape was rather frequent as well. Am I supposed to accept incest and rape as acceptable just because the Romans did? If one must accept homosexuality as normal and acceptable on those grounds, one must also accept those on the same grounds.
History aside, our culture, and especially our homosexual culture is much different than ancient Rome. In Rome, homosexuality was a common practice. In modern times it is not common, at least on such a level. I'll use America as an example for posterity. Homosexual activity today is less taboo than previously, but it is still an action that most, myself included, do not approve of. It is an action that many find immoral, and the practice of it damages our morals. We are told that we should accept behavior that we find repulsive. That itself damages society, especially when that acceptance is forced on us. Many people would have no problem with it at all if it were kept private, and it should be. Why do we have to know anyone is gay? Your (ABF, I know you didn't say it, big guy) statement about many gays wishing they weren't is shit. Gay people love pushing the issue, they feel it empowers them or whatever kick they get out of it. They love being gay and they love telling everyone about it, and if not verbally telling people, flagrantly acting the part, knowing that most people are repulsed by it. And then they are surprised when there's a backlash. Hello! Why don't I just stroll into Church Hill slums in Richmond and tell all the black people how I'm white and goddamned proud of it? I'd most likely get my ass shot, and I'd deserve to. Not because I'm white, but because I'm making an issue about it to people who most likely do not like white people. There is no reason to tell people about your sex life. Do you ever see a normal person exult in how heterosexual they are? No.
Our society does not accept homosexuality, and hopefully never will, because first it becomes accepted, then it becomes popular in the mainstream, and then it becomes encouraged, and the thought of homosexuality being encouraged in society makes me want to vomit. Now I certainly don't advocate harrassment of gays, because I think whatever a person does in their bedroom is up to them. But when a gay person makes that personal business public, then I don't shed a single tear for whatever happens to them because of it.