Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 27891011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 398
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #221  
    This is all great, but whats the point of the whole genetics discussion, other than to draw people off of the real issue - equal rights for gays? Gay people exist, regardless of how or why. They always have been, and always will be, here. Focus people, focus!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #222  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Possibly the worst sociocultural evolutionary argument ever made.

    GREAT answer to the question.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  3. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #223  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I had to jump in to this. If you think about that actual unit of evolution, it is the gene, not the individual. Thus, it is not important that an individual reproduces, only that the genes do. Now, when you realize that you share 50% of your genes with your siblings/mother/father, imagine this scenario: a gay man does not reproduce, but helps his brother/sister/mother/father successfully have 4 more children rise to breeding age. In this case, an average of 2 of the gay man's genes have now been passed on without him ever having fathered a child. A simple example, true, but just goes to show that it isn't as simple as what you laid out.
    But if the gene in and of itself resides in and causes an individual to be homosexual, that supposed gene would not be in the hetrosexual host, so if there was a gene that causes homosexuality then it could not reproduce itself as homosexuality. I understand what you are trying to say, but it the genes that we can verify (eye color, hair color, blood typing ect) do not follow what you are saying.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  4. #224  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    But if the gene in and of itself resides in and causes an individual to be homosexual, that supposed gene would not be in the hetrosexual host, so if there was a gene that causes homosexuality then it could not reproduce itself as homosexuality. I understand what you are trying to say, but it the genes that we can verify (eye color, hair color, blood typing ect) do not follow what you are saying.
    That analysis would work for single dominant gene determined traits. 99% of traits are not determined that way. BTW, I'm not arguing for genetic determinism when it comes to sexuality -- I don't know enough to comment on that. I'm merely pointing out that the argument of "survival of fittest" implying the "unnaturalness" of homesexuality doesn't fly.
  5. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #225  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    This is all great, but whats the point of the whole genetics discussion, other than to draw people off of the real issue - equal rights for gays? Gay people exist, regardless of how or why. They always have been, and always will be, here. Focus people, focus!
    It began when the argument came up that homosexuals should be treated the same as racism. I pointed out that race was not a choice, and if you stand by that theory you are racist saying I have a choice on my skin color and it is my fault if I am discriminated against because of my skin color. Others then said that they do not feel homosexuality is a choice but they are born with that gene or mutation of a gene. Individuals who have chosen the gay lifestyle have the same rights as those who have chosen the hetrosexual lifestyle, they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex and get the same benefits as anyone else.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  6. #226  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    It began when the argument came up that homosexuals should be treated the same as racism. I pointed out that race was not a choice, and if you stand by that theory you are racist saying I have a choice on my skin color and it is my fault if I am discriminated against because of my skin color. Others then said that they do not feel homosexuality is a choice but they are born with that gene or mutation of a gene. Individuals who have chosen the gay lifestyle have the same rights as those who have chosen the hetrosexual lifestyle, they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex and get the same benefits as anyone else.
    I don't usually point out grammar, but in this case your grammar is actually clouding your point. Or perhaps clouding the fact that you don't have a point.

    When you say "homosexuals should be treated the same as racism". What exactly are you saying? Surely you don't mean that we should treat homosexuals the same as we treat racists?

    I assume you mean that discrimination that is based on race is wrong, while discrimination that is based on sexual preference is somehow fine in your eyes because homosexual feelings are based on the evolution of our civilization, not on the evolution of our genome?
  7. #227  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    That analysis would work for single dominant gene determined traits. 99% of traits are not determined that way. BTW, I'm not arguing for genetic determinism when it comes to sexuality -- I don't know enough to comment on that. I'm merely pointing out that the argument of "survival of fittest" implying the "unnaturalness" of homesexuality doesn't fly.
    Didn't want this post to get burried.

    I wouldn't claim to have the answer with respect to genetic determinism, but when I was in school we definitely went over biological differences in certain areas of of male homosexuals' brain being very similar in shape and structure to the corresponding areas in the brains of women (the hippocampus i think), and how this could be responsible for attraction to men and/or effeminate behavior.

    Either way, I wouldn't call the idea of boiling down human sexual preference and gender identity to an angel sitting on one shoulder, and the devil on the other the latest scientific consensus.
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #228  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I don't usually point out grammar, but in this case your grammar is actually clouding your point. Or perhaps clouding the fact that you don't have a point.

    When you say "homosexuals should be treated the same as racism". What exactly are you saying? Surely you don't mean that we should treat homosexuals the same as we treat racists?

    I assume you mean that discrimination that is based on race is wrong, while discrimination that is based on sexual preference is somehow fine in your eyes because homosexual feelings are based on the evolution of our civilization, not on the evolution of our genome?
    If you read the previous posts on the same subject line you would understand (maybe) that there are individuals who feel that a homosexual is being discriminated against because they can not marry a same sex individual. They go on to say that a polygamist does not have the same right because a homosexual is born that way (even though there is no evidence of that) and a polygamist is just making a choice. They compare the so-called discrimination as being equal to the racial discrimination of the 1800's. I simply pointed out several times now, that you can not choose your skin color, and to say that because someone chooses to engage in same sex relationships they should be protected from so-called discrimination in the same manner as some one with a different skin color is degrading to those who fought and continue to fight for equality among the races. Your view seems clouded by saying a homosexual is being discriminated against because they can not go outside the laws and court rulings to attain the privileges that are provided to hetrosexual married couples.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  9. #229  
    For those of you interested in the whole nature/nuture aspect, the gentlemen over at Freakonomics have spoken of a rather interesting study along these lines.

    http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/index.php?s=homosexual
  10. #230  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    First, let's not forget that he said this.

    Second, White men marrying black women would also be "abberant behavior" according to his definition.
    Apples and oranges. Marrying outside one's "tribe" hasn't always been prohibited. Laws against interracial marriage were fairly recent (in the whole history of matrimony) inclusions.
  11. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #231  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Didn't want this post to get burried.

    I wouldn't claim to have the answer with respect to genetic determinism, but when I was in school we definitely went over biological differences in certain areas of of male homosexuals' brain being very similar in shape and structure to the corresponding areas in the brains of women (the hippocampus i think), and how this could be responsible for attraction to men and/or effeminate behavior.

    Either way, I wouldn't call the idea of boiling down human sexual preference and gender identity to an angel sitting on one shoulder, and the devil on the other the latest scientific consensus.


    I notice you did not add the part where the majority of scientist can not determine whether the shape and structure of the brain is due to the persons choice of lifestyle or if the size of the brain caused the choice of lifestyle. Several of the reported studies have been discredited by both the scientific and medical communities as beign biased or too small to be reliable. The latest studies that I remember seeing (and I believe is still ongoing) are doing serial studies to determine if and when the brain changes on young males as they begin to develop their sexuality. The last update I saw (about 3 years ago) showed that in the early years there does not appear to be any appreciable difference in the brain between those who show homosexual tendencies and those who are not showing any homosexual tendencies. The group was trying to track a larger group of younger children (under 5 years old) through adulthood but were running into some legal and ethical issues.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  12. #232  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    No it hasn't.
    Now this is sill but, oh well... Yes it has.
  13. #233  
    [/QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Welcome back, shopharim.
    Thanx
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael

    A new legal class? I'm not getting you. I'm saying the join the same class as everyone else. Not creating a new one.
    Marriage has historically been defined and practised as the union of a male and female. Creating a legal relationship for male-male unions and/or female-female and/or one-many unions is a new legal class.
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael

    Different debate/thread. This one is about gay marraige, not the one about what goes on behind closed doors, etc.
    Indeed. That is to say, to whatever extent sexual expression is a factor in the pursuit of happiness, there is no law that hinders such
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael

    I submit that the Constitution is enough to address gay marraige, as well. Same argument. They are being classified as 'aberrant' and excluded from, as you put it, the legal class "All men".
    This is the crux of the debate. it goes back to the definition of "marriage." Under curent law and practise "all men" are free to marry. Under current law, not all consentual sexual relationships can be classified as marriages (though none are prohibited).
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael

    Hrm, interesting angle. The relationships are equal, it's the results of the coupling is different. Don't confuse the two.
    No confusion. That is the precise distinction
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael

    I'm talking equality of rights and privs, and you're talking equality of population growth? As far as I know, one is not an argument against the other. They are two different arguments. Please clarify.
    The only significance of the outcomes is that society may seek to incentivize certain behaviors to promote the outcome.
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael

    So you're arguing against doing anything... because there's no precedent?
    Not at all. I'm arguing against doing anything because nothing is necessary to assure the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Consider, I have male friends who are dear friends to me. I may opt to make provision for them in my will. I may even seek to use my resources on their behalf while I continue breathing. What legal status does our relationship require? None. There is nothing that prevents me from tending to them as I see fit.

    Therefore, we neither need to create "Platonic Unions" nor do we need to ban such.

    There is nothing about current law that prevents people from practising homosexuality or from sharing financial resources.
  14. #234  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Was a black man being denied the right to marry a black woman?
    When was this?
  15. #235  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Apples and oranges. Marrying outside one's "tribe" hasn't always been prohibited. Laws against interracial marriage were fairly recent (in the whole history of matrimony) inclusions.
    You were not talking about laws, you were calling homosexuality "abbarent". I pointed out that white men marrying black women would be considered "abbarent" here and now, under your definition.
  16. #236  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    When was this?
    Does the year somehow make it right or wrong?
  17. #237  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Marriage has historically been defined and practised as the union of a male and female.
    No, marriage has historically been defined as between one white man, and AT LEAST one white woman.
  18. #238  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Now this is sill but, oh well... Yes it has.
    Yet not silly enough for you to say it.
  19. #239  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You were not talking about laws, you were calling homosexuality "abbarent". I pointed out that white men marrying black women would be considered "abbarent" here and now, under your definition.
    Not sure what you're talking about but I've always been talking about laws.
  20. #240  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Does the year somehow make it right or wrong?
    I'm just not sure when black men were prohibited from marrying black women.

Posting Permissions