Sexuality and Choice...

[madhatter85]

I haven't bothered to read through the thread, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, there is now proof that sexual preference is at least partially biological.

Men with older brothers more likely to be gay - More health news- msnbc.com

The more big brothers you have, the more likely you'll be gay (and they've ruled out nurture).

That's funny because we have established that humans are not defined by the information we receive through our senses, rather it is what we do with that information that counts.
Beau Lotto: Optical illusions show how we see | Video on TED.com

 

[Autodidact]

Individuals do not matter when it comes to biology and physiological structure governed by genetics. Genetics have a complete disregard for one's feelings, emotions, ideals, and thoughts.
the fact remains that if genetics are to blame for homosexual behavior, it is a genetic flaw because based on Darwin's research a species will not evolve the desire to end it's own existence unless through natural selection. And since there has been homosexual activity since near recorded history, It cannot be natural selection, but just a genetic flaw.

And yet homosexuality exists in every human culture and throughout history, as well as most animals that have been studied. So maybe there's something wrong with your logic.

I don't think you understand evolution or genetics.

Assuming you were right, which you're not, why should people with genetic defects not be allowed to marry?

 

[Autodidact]

That's funny because we have established that humans are not defined by the information we receive through our senses, rather it is what we do with that information that counts.
Beau Lotto: Optical illusions show how we see | Video on TED.com

Furthermore, turnips are a root vegetable.

Does anyone besides me see the slightest connection between what madhatter said and what he was responding to? Cuz it was lost on me.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Furthermore, turnips are a root vegetable.

Does anyone besides me see the slightest connection between what madhatter said and what he was responding to? Cuz it was lost on me.

I've stopped worrying about bigots frankly....

life's too short

An online discussion forum, is just not a place where you can "reach" a bigot...

plain and simple...

frankly if you did..I would consider it a miracle.

..........

I find the carrot infinitely more fascinating than the geranium

--Withnail and I

 

[Commoner]

So is that a "yes, we should deny couples that do not wish to have kids the right to get married"?

Can I get an answer, please?

*bump*

 

[Mr Cheese]

*bump*

well they aren't obeying God..right

so I'm thinking yes

marriage is for breeding

homosapiens are here to worship God and breed

anythign else is wrong....

right?

 

[Mr Cheese]

I would say that people would be much more likely to deny and HIDE
their true sexual preferences... even from themselves...
to AVOID all the disaproval and shunning by family and "friends".
This of course can only go on so long.
At some point the pain of personal loss just becomes too much to bear.

Who would choose this?
Just for the heck of it?

well confusion is a real big issue....

the fact that society, religion, norms follow a strictly hetero outlook largely is a problem, I would imagine

This of course breeds liars.

It is perhaps this that is the greatest problem with homosexuality, lies.

Now of course there are two problems I have with homosexuality (am including lesbianism and just using one blanket word) that again is lies and sleeping around.

Lies, well this is essentially denying who you are. This is generally caused by hetero norms, conformity to religion, to a societal group etc. to the point where men marry women and women marry men, knowing full well they are really attracrted to the same gender not the opposite. This is further perpetuated if the said "in the closet personage" goes behind their spouse's back and sleeps with other members of thweir own gender.

Of course really this is as said, mainly due to outside forces (outside the marriage or relationship) but it is also just simply lying and the acts that occur are hte same for any cheater be they hetero or not.

Sleeping around, while may be "fun" I think is not all that great. I'm against libertine free love... especially if you are in a committed relationship. Why am I against it? mainly disease and I think sex is a bit more valuable that it becomes in that situation. But then it is a persons choice. Again this is somethign that effects hetero people and is not really just a homosexual trait. Although men being men, homosexuality does get a bad rep for having such things as orgies and simply being "sluts" of course in reality plenty of none homosexuals also participate in this kind of thing.

So I think the choice largely is not so much one's sexuality, it is more how one conducts and acts....

A girl being gang banged by 10 total strangers because she likes it, is not superior in her sexuality to homosexuals because it is penises being inserted into her, not a lesbian's body,

she is a ****...a **** is a ****.... a liar is a liar.

In bigots minds though, homosexuals tend to fit the guise of:

sluts
non humans
craving certain body parts while hating others
(simply not always true, for example many homosexual men actually like female breasts)

As far as nature vs nurture debate goes, I think it is a miox, I tend to think the idea of total seperation, either/or is wrong.... Its a search for a holy grail, an X marks the spot, and we can close the book on the subject.

I know personally I knew I liked women around the age of 6, I had no real libido, that came later, but I knew I had interest in girls.
I have heard homosexuals often have such early revelations also....

I also understand sexuality is a complex thing and we gain such understadning of ourselves differently.... but to frankly deny homosexuals due to our own predjudice, ignorance or simply following dogma is silly.

I understand fear. I have questioned my sexuality as a teen, I discovered naked men simply did not turn me on.... I tend to think most homophobes are scared of naked men/women and afraid of certian genitals....

The Bottom line is, people are people
I respect commited loving groups, whatever their sexuality

 

[Kerr]

Individuals do not matter when it comes to biology and physiological structure governed by genetics. Genetics have a complete disregard for one's feelings, emotions, ideals, and thoughts.

I don´t. Empathy is there for a reason, to ignore it is foolish.

the fact remains that if genetics are to blame for homosexual behavior, it is a genetic flaw because based on Darwin's research a species will not evolve the desire to end it's own existence unless through natural selection. And since there has been homosexual activity since near recorded history, It cannot be natural selection, but just a genetic flaw.

Which is still irrelevant to what form a families we should have. And I am note sure you are right, because even if it may not benifit the individual it can benifit the specie. Another example of that is altruism, which has been observed among animals. At first it seemed to contradict the theory of evolution, then they realized it helped the relatives of the individual that sacrificed themselves to survive and have kids, thereby actually being an evolutionary advantage (if I recall correctly, that is). It is not far fetched that homosexuality has a similar benifit. At last that is what I recall from somewhere, think it was school...

 

[madhatter85]

I don´t. Empathy is there for a reason, to ignore it is foolish.

Ever heard Justice is blind? Legally, Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse for illegal activities no matter how minor.

Which is still irrelevant to what form a families we should have. And I am note sure you are right, because even if it may not benifit the individual it can benifit the specie. Another example of that is altruism, which has been observed among animals. At first it seemed to contradict the theory of evolution, then they realized it helped the relatives of the individual that sacrificed themselves to survive and have kids, thereby actually being an evolutionary advantage (if I recall correctly, that is). It is not far fetched that homosexuality has a similar benifit. At last that is what I recall from somewhere, think it was school...

It does not benefit the individual nor the society in which they live to engage in homosexual activity. Sure, they are free to act as they chose, But there should still be no provisions or special treatment for people based on how they desire to behave.

 

[Kerr]

Ever heard Justice is blind? Legally, Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse for illegal activities no matter how minor.

True but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Kerr]

IT does not benefit the individual nor the society in which they live to engage in homosexual activity.

Actually it can. If we assume that homosexuals can´t have kids, something we know is false, they still have other instincts. This can lead them to protect and take care of the kids of their family, thereby helping their family to survive and in a way making sure some of their genes survive. This is extremely theoretical, and it has many holes in it, however I do not think we should dismiss something as a genetic flaw because we do not understand why it exist.

Sure, they are free to act as they chose, But there should still be no provisions or special treatment for people based on how they desire to behave.

Which no one has asked for anyway. We have claimed they should have equal treatment. There is a difference.

 

[Autodidact]

Ever heard Justice is blind? Legally, Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse for illegal activities no matter how minor.

Maybe madhatter should change his username to Non Sequitor.

It does not benefit the individual nor the society in which they live to engage in homosexual activity. Sure, they are free to act as they chose, But there should still be no provisions or special treatment for people based on how they desire to behave.

Again, ideas such a love, family, stability, caring for children are lost on people like madhatter.

And again, madhatter seems unaware that marriage is a fundamental right, not special treatment.

 

[Commoner]

Personally, I think it's ridiculous for people to get married with the intent of not having children. As i have stated before, desiring to not have children notes a complete disregard for your own existence.

And before you start hollering and screaming, Intent is different than capacity (such as desiring to have children to find you you are incapable of it)

So is that a "yes, we should deny couples that do not wish to have kids the right to get married"?

Can I get an answer, please?

 

[madhatter85]

True but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Actually it is relevant as it is the same principle of nature and genetics.

 

[madhatter85]

Actually it can. If we assume that homosexuals can´t have kids, something we know is false, they still have other instincts. This can lead them to protect and take care of the kids of their family, thereby helping their family to survive and in a way making sure some of their genes survive. This is extremely theoretical, and it has many holes in it, however I do not think we should dismiss something as a genetic flaw because we do not understand why it exist.

It doesn't matter, the same can be said for anyone else with a behavioral abnormality.

Which no one has asked for anyway. We have claimed they should have equal treatment. There is a difference.

But, they already get equal treatment. You are trying to create "rights" where there are none to give. instead they demand special treatment and exceptions because they wish to behave in a way that is contrary to the fundamental reasons why married people get benefits in the first place.

 

[Perfect Circle]

So is that a "yes, we should deny couples that do not wish to have kids the right to get married"?

Can I get an answer, please?

Of course you can't get an answer... He's trying to argue against gay marriage without including religion. Sadly, the argument just does not hold water. There's absolutely not reason why two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry. No one is getting hurt, society is not suffering, and there is no "special treatment". It's simply equal.

Madhatter, if your argument is that they should not be allowed to marry because they have a genetic abnormality that prevents them from having children, then you simply have to be in favor of denying marriage to couples that don't want children, and couples that can't have children. Otherwise, you are providing special treatment to sterile and non-procreational married couples. One is a genetic example, and one is a behavioral, so where are you gonna go with this one?

The only appeal you have left is your religious convictions.

 

[Kerr]

It doesn't matter, the same can be said for anyone else with a behavioral abnormality.

It matters as much as your arguments does. And I am still confused why it matters if it is an abnormal behaviour (assuming abnormal means unusual and different and so). Care to enlighten me?

But, they already get equal treatment. You are trying to create "rights" where there are none to give. instead they demand special treatment and exceptions because they wish to behave in a way that is contrary to the fundamental reasons why married people get benefits in the first place.

No, I am suggesting a redically different view on the family, and in the view everyone is treated equally. And anyone who claims homosexuals already have equal treatment do not know what they are talking about. Fact is people are still murdered because of their sexuality. We still have a long way to go, and a part of that is for society to acknowledge it as acceptable behaviour.

 

[Kerr]

Actually it is relevant as it is the same principle of nature and genetics.

And as I have said many times before, genetics are irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality, just as it being natural or not is. Laws deals with morality. Therefore justice is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[darkendless]

It idea that marriage is a civil right is a misnomer, It is a civil privilege with prerequisites.

No its not. Its a civil right. People just refuse to change the way they think. Because things have been socially acceptable for so long it does not mean there are prerequisites based on a socially established trend. People need to realise that they can and should change their idiotic ways which are based on outdated and useless traditions.

Genetics will tell us that homosexuality is a biological thing and yet we do nothing to allow them to live as equals. Unless they betray themselves and pretend to be straight. Its pathetic as is the current system where the stupid, arrogant and pathetic are allowed to vote on the rights of a minority who are genetically equal, just different.

Not when the social tradition is based around the fundamental principle of reproduction of a species.

Yeh and we're reproducing faster than we're dying, our populations are exploding and children are dying because they cannot access food. Social tradition is nothing but people who are too stuck up to change their ways even in the face of a crisis. Gluttony is a sin but it seems its the Christian nations who indulge while the rest suffer.

I could argue till i'm blue in the face about sustainability but no one here who needs to be educated about it will understand the problems we face. Sure, you know a researcher, but my entire degree had to be changed 3 years ago to make sure people in my position were aware of the stuff we're getting ourselves into.

 

[rojse]

That's funny because we have established that humans are not defined by the information we receive through our senses, rather it is what we do with that information that counts.
Beau Lotto: Optical illusions show how we see | Video on TED.com

I never knew that optical illusions were linked with sexual orientation.

The things you learn on RF...