Possible explanations for homosexuality explained.

[madhatter85]

Finally a logical argument I cannot counter. I concede.

I know, right? He used the turmp card of all possible internet rebuttals.

 

[Jeremiah]

Vegetarianism is a choice one makes. are you saying homosexuality is a choice then?

Slow down tiger, you are the one who said "choice" you said, "Therefore, we are not require to provide marital benefits for those who choose to to behave that way."

Really though, I don't know if vegetarianism has a genetic influence, or not, I would imagine that, like most everything else, it is a hybrid behavior.

 

[Jeremiah]

But it is not, According to the study Clown and cheese posted, the homosexual "gene" controls sexuality in general, causing hyper-sexuality and other forms of sexual behavior. Seeing as true hyper-sexuality and homosexuality are rare, it can be deduced that both are a flaw. those with hyper-sexuality (satyriasis and nymphomania) a lot of times require hormone therapy to control. The same can be said for homosexuality. However, since homosexuality causes a desire to behave in a way that is not fundamental to the existence and survival of the species, we are not required give them benefits.

The benefits given were based on marriage being fundamental our existence and survival (supreme court ruling)

Marriage is not a "right" but a privilege. SSM pundits paint a false picture of marriage.

"supreme court ruling"

Supreme courts are not fundamental to our existence. But love, love and the expression of love is. Whether it is between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a man and a woman, the three have been around long before supreme courts, and love in all its godly forms is fundamental to our existence.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

You do realize that misanthropic clown disagrees with you, right?

Whereas I do agree that same-sex marriage should be legalised, I don't know how that post particularly reflects on the marriage debate. I was just clarifying the science. I guess it is up to the person to reason how that impacts on the political/moral issue at hand.

 

[Alceste]

But it is not, According to the study Clown and cheese posted, the homosexual "gene" controls sexuality in general, causing hyper-sexuality and other forms of sexual behavior. Seeing as true hyper-sexuality and homosexuality are rare, it can be deduced that both are a flaw.

Rare=flaw to you? Do you realize that is an insane proposition? What about people with red hair? What about that famous photo of an Afghan girl with the green eyes? Rare genetic traits are in fact the very engine that drives beneficial adaptation - the cornerstone of evolution and the most essential factor in God's great plan for the perpetuation of life in his creation. Without rare genetic traits, nothing would adapt - nothing would evolve. We would still be random chemical components floating around in a primordial stew.

those with hyper-sexuality (satyriasis and nymphomania) a lot of times require hormone therapy to control. The same can be said for homosexuality. However, since homosexuality causes a desire to behave in a way that is not fundamental to the existence and survival of the species, we are not required give them benefits.

As I said before, we are complex organisms. There is no living thing on earth that is so simplistic that it exhibits nothing but reproductive behavior. You shame your creator by dismissing the infinite wonders of the perfectly calibrated, unfathomably complex biosphere of which you are a part as "irrelevant" to your survival.

The benefits given were based on marriage being fundamental our existence and survival (supreme court ruling)

Marriage is not a "right" but a privilege. SSM pundits paint a false picture of marriage.

I live in Canada, and we don't give a fiddler's fart what you think marriage is.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Originally Posted by madhatter85
But it is not, According to the study Clown and cheese posted, the homosexual "gene" controls sexuality in general, causing hyper-sexuality and other forms of sexual behavior. Seeing as true hyper-sexuality and homosexuality are rare, it can be deduced that both are a flaw.

I have experienced a lifetime of enjoyment from Shakespeare, Beethoven, Rembrandt, Tennyson and (of course) Khayyam.

I'm all FOR such rare "flaws."

 

[madhatter85]

Slow down tiger, you are the one who said "choice" you said, "Therefore, we are not require to provide marital benefits for those who choose to to behave that way."

Really though, I don't know if vegetarianism has a genetic influence, or not, I would imagine that, like most everything else, it is a hybrid behavior.[/quote]
Vegetarianism is not something someone is compelled to do by genetics or otherwise. It is completely choice.

So by association of vegetarianism to homosexuality, you are saying homosexuality is a choice.

 

[madhatter85]

"supreme court ruling"

Supreme courts are not fundamental to our existence. But love, love and the expression of love is. Whether it is between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a man and a woman, the three have been around long before supreme courts, and love in all its godly forms is fundamental to our existence.

Yet we currently rely on them to distinguish right from wrong. better suck it up and get with the program.

 

[Alceste]

Yet we currently rely on them to distinguish right from wrong. better suck it up and get with the program.

And of course you'll still feel the same when they decide (as they inevitably will, sooner or later) that gender-based prohibitions on marriage rights are a violation of the 14th Amendment. Right?

 

[madhatter85]

I have experienced a lifetime of enjoyment from Shakespeare, Beethoven, Rembrandt, Tennyson and (of course) Khayyam.

I'm all FOR such rare "flaws."

Are you are implying those figures, (erroneously) to be homosexual?

Besides, Homosexuality has no current link to creativity.

 

[madhatter85]

And of course you'll still feel the same when they decide (as they inevitably will, sooner or later) that gender-based prohibitions on marriage rights are a violation of the 14th Amendment. Right?

Too bad it's not.

All people are protected under the same laws right now. Anyone can marry any member of the opposite sex where the desire to marry is reciprocated, regardless of creed, religion, nationality, or supposed sexual disposition.

 

[madhatter85]

Rare=flaw to you? Do you realize that is an insane proposition? What about people with red hair? What about that famous photo of an Afghan girl with the green eyes? Rare genetic traits are in fact the very engine that drives beneficial adaptation - the cornerstone of evolution and the most essential factor in God's great plan for the perpetuation of life in his creation. Without rare genetic traits, nothing would adapt - nothing would evolve. We would still be random chemical components floating around in a primordial stew.

It's a flaw when it contradicts the fundamental principles of reproduction .

As I said before, we are complex organisms. There is no living thing on earth that is so simplistic that it exhibits nothing but reproductive behavior. You shame your creator by dismissing the infinite wonders of the perfectly calibrated, unfathomably complex biosphere of which you are a part as "irrelevant" to your survival.

Too bad our entire civilization revolves around it. (It really is a shame, no sarcasm). However, in this particular debate where you refuse to acknowledge religious, values, morality, or emotions as grounds for disallowing homosexual unions, all emotion, morality, and values must be stripped from the conversation. Anything less would be hypocritical.

 

[Kerr]

Too bad our entire civilization revolves around it. (It really is a shame, no sarcasm). However, in this particular debate where you refuse to acknowledge religious, values, morality, or emotions as grounds for disallowing homosexual unions, all emotion, morality, and values must be stripped from the conversation. Anything less would be hypocritical.

If you strip values from the debate you cannot speak of disallowing homosexual unions, since that would be based on values.

 

[Alceste]

It's a flaw when it contradicts the fundamental principles of reproduction .

You keep saying that, but it never gets any less stupid. You can't think of ANYTHING you do, awake or asleep, that does not result in reproduction?

Too bad our entire civilization revolves around it. (It really is a shame, no sarcasm). However, in this particular debate where you refuse to acknowledge religious, values, morality, or emotions as grounds for disallowing homosexual unions, all emotion, morality, and values must be stripped from the conversation. Anything less would be hypocritical.

My values, morals and emotions favour justice, equality, compassion, love, fairness, community, liberty, personal responsibility, limited powers of the state and the careful consideration of ethical questions based on empirical evidence.

I'm happy to acknowledge there is a moral and emotional component to both our opinions. Yours, however, is in conflict with all of the principles listed above - you favour irrational, unsupportable, non-empirical arguments to advance an elitist agenda where you and others like you have rights that are denied to your neighbours, and the state enforces these bigoted restrictions on your behalf.

Leaving your wife out of it, I am sincerely interested in your opinion of female orgasms. Are they also a "flaw?"

 

[madhatter85]

If you strip values from the debate you cannot speak of disallowing homosexual unions, since that would be based on values.

this is partly my point. One side tries to discredit the others "values" in an attempt to win the debate but they are merely being hypocrites since both sides sees the other values as false or irrelevant.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Leaving your wife out of it, I am sincerely interested in your opinion of female orgasms. Are they also a "flaw?"

Are you assuming he has seen one?

 

[Kerr]

this is partly my point. One side tries to discredit the others "values" in an attempt to win the debate but they are merely being hypocrites since both sides sees the other values as false or irrelevant.

So, leaving values out of this, the entire debate would soon disappear since without values we will not make up our minds about it. Basically, if we strip values from the debate, the debate becomes irrelevant. There is nothing hypocritical about it really, it is the nature of debates themselves.

 

[madhatter85]

My values, morals and emotions favour justice, equality, compassion, love, fairness, community, liberty, personal responsibility, limited powers of the state and the careful consideration of ethical questions based on empirical evidence.

No, it is based on your interpretation of the evidence. Which i contend to be false.

I'm happy to acknowledge there is a moral and emotional component to both our opinions. Yours, however, is in conflict with all of the principles listed above - you favour irrational, unsupportable, non-empirical arguments to advance an elitist agenda where you and others like you have rights that are denied to your neighbours.

They are not denied rights. Currently, everyone has the same opportunity to marry any member of the opposite sex if they wish to reap the benefits of marriage.

Leaving your wife out of it, I am sincerely interested in your opinion of female orgasms. Are they also a "flaw?"

Irrelevant, but no. Oxytocin, the chemical released into the female brain during climax is the same chemical released when they are hugged.
Oxytocin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hug

 

[Kerr]

They are not denied rights. Currently, everyone has the same opportunity to marry any member of the opposite sex if they wish to reap the benefits of marriage.

Which is cruel and unfair, since it makes so a lot of people cannot marry the one they love.

 

[madhatter85]

Which is cruel and unfair, since it makes so a lot of people cannot marry the one they love.

Since I'm sure you love your father or mother or brother or sister, do you think you should be allowed marriage to them as well?