My revised opinion on homosexuality

What? Killing someone is usually (except in cases of crazy people) a conscious choice someone makes for a reason. A tangible reason that they are able to think about rationally in order to make the judgment to kill or not to kill. It is sometimes based on human emotion, sure, but usually sane killers have a reason, even if it is something as simple as money.

If it is based on passion in the heat of the moment, then it could be claimed that the killer had no rational choice in the matter. This could also be a true statement.

Shyness, however, is not something people choose to be, although if it was then you're right, probably nobody would be shy because there is rarely anything to gain from it. The same applies to being gay, for the reasons I explained in my post. I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at...
 
I love the bigotry here, it's amazing how people manage to compare homosexuality with every heinous and completely unrelated act of evil they can come up with. Murderers tend to be mentally disturbed... what exactly are you suggesting here, hmm?
 
Exactly. Killing is a choice. I'm also going to assume that you think

murder is not popular in our society. In your post that I originally

quoted, you argued that it society does not tolerate homosexuality. You

argued that since it is not popular to be gay, it must not be a

choice. But murder is also not popular, and it IS a choice. So you can't assume that a choice isn't being made just because something is unpopular.

I was just saying

there's a flaw in the logic in your argument. Didn't mean to make a big

deal out of it. I agree with the rest of your posts, Squeaky.

And by no means am I comparing homosexuality to murder or shyness on an

ethical level, and I'm also not saying that homosexuality is or isn't a choice.

(I'll use smaller words next time JD.)
 
Or, you jumped to a base you wanted to cover. I don't think it means commonly accepted according to what the guy said, as if human acceptance had anything to do with the reality of the natural world; it means the overwhelming majority of cases with only a very small percentile of any alternative. Black people are the norm in Africa, white people are not normal in Africa. Mexicans might soon be the norm in America, or at least whites people won't be the norm any longer. The fact that homosexuality is common throughout history does not mean it is THE normal. You're arguing that it is normal because it occurs, when that is not what is meant.

The difficulty of saying "natural" versus "unnatural" in terms of human behavior is that human behavior is far more complex and depends on so many more factors than simple genetics, as we can assume in nature, if only because of our sentience.

What the guy is saying is that heterosexuality is indeed the normal course of sexuality in the nature which leads to our existence in an evolutionary frame of mind (bacteria are asexual, many amphibians can change gender, so it's not exactly accurate to compare all of humanity to all of nature). In nature, homosexuality invariably leads to the removal of that individual from the gene pool, and is a defect in that regard according to the "laws of nature", whether do to genetics or environment in the whom or whatever. It is not natural or normal for an animal in nature to be homosexual, as their being homosexual removes them from the gene pool.

Natural or normal according to what the guy means doesn't mean that it can simply happen, as if all occurrences in nature, having happened, are somehow part of the norm or natural progression of events; thats not what the dude means, and you seem to conscientiously make that error to prove a point.

The thing is that you argue about "natural" and "normal", yet with a degree of separation of humans from nature, since we talk of morality within a supposed genetic, natural (your first definition) happenstance. Within an evolutionary world view, homosexuality is a defect. That people support it with this view is highly ironic. The hypocrisy of the situation, where people who hold true the notion that all the progress of natural selection has brought us to the point where we are, with the ruthless elimination of all defective genes or defective animals due to environment, thus relegating homosexuals to defects of the course of nature by association, yet state that the moral higher ground belongs to those who accept homosexuals within this world view, is pretty perverse, really.

Either humans are separate from nature, and can thus make moral decisions based on our extremely complicated behavior, far more complex than relying on mere genotype, or an integral part of nature, where morality should favor "eugenics", which is merely the moral progression of the natural progression of events within an evolutionary world view.

Because I've been wondering, if morality is a natural thing that we have tapped into via some miracle in evolutionary development, how is it that it isn't in sync with natural selection?

Or do i mistake myself?
 
Two more things. You're being unfair and borderline manipulative in two of the points here. Not all evidence points towards 100%, unchangeable, complete genetic disposition towards sexuality as in hair color. In fact, the scientific opinion thus far is that both genetics and environment play a role. There may very well exist a genetic disposition towards homosexuality, and likewise there is strong evidence for environmental disposition towards homosexuality. It is extremely difficult to relegate human behavior into any of the two categories without including the other, let alone assert that there is a 100% genetic correlation. Play nice.

Plus, much of the evidence of influence from within the whom has so far been carried out on rats, which beyond being placental mammals have little to do with human reproduction and sexuality. There are two branches in the uterus, and males/females in the female/male branch tend to be more feminine/manly than others because of hormone imbalances for them. That, of course, is proof of a 100% correlation for humans, given that rats are also sentient and make moral decisions.

Laws of nature don't necessarily mean natural laws like gravity and magnetism, because here we are dealing with living, breathing things. "laws of nature" are something that humans have observed and stated as truths for the natural world. One such law is the law of natural selection which causes the removal of genes and individuals that are not able to live in their environment due to being out competed by fitter animals. Thus, homosexuality, in nature (your first definition), is indeed a transgression of a natural law, because even though it occurs naturally (like other mutations and degenerations (by the way, all of these words are what an evolutionist should be saying if they want to be consistent...)), it does not follow the normal progression for the animal to continue it survival and species.

You are the one using natural in nature and humans indistinguishably, while also using typically human and only human moral inference. You can't have it both ways, especially since not all evidence proves a 100% genetic correlation.

Humans are far more than mere animals in their behavior, and you, as a student of philosophy, know that.

I have addressed in threads before what i think of the morality of the issue, and i obviously don't have your level of rhetoric when it comes to it, so I won't address it at all. This is merely about the incoherence of the natural argument when addressing human bahavior. Please, stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.
 
I've always thought it went along these lines:

GUY - "Wow; I'm in love with that girl."

ANOTHER GUY - "Wow; I'm in love with that guy."

I've always thought it was pretty simple.
 
I'm not sure if we're thinking of the same research... but what I learned in my Comparative Animal Reproduction class this quarter went a little differently. Rats do have two branches of the uterus, yes. Pups are developed equally in each branch during a pregnancy, about three or four in a chain in each branch. Its a documented phenomenon that female pups sandwiched on either side by male pups will exhibit more aggressive behavior, and its thought that some of the sex determining steroids from the developing fetuses nearby might leak over and play with the developing females chemistry. Still, theres no evidence to suggest that this promotes homosexuality in rats, and even less evidence to support this in humans. We dont see this in human twins, so its thought that either we have a more solid placental membrane or something along those lines to block cross contamination.
 
Evolution simply tries to explain the origin of species (heh) and as far as I know does not try to otherwise pass any kind of judgment, moral or otherwise, on organisms that fail at spreading their seed.

An interesting example that popped into my head here is the mule. A cross between a horse and a donkey, it is almost always sterile, and yet it combines some of the best features of donkeys and horses into an animal that is excellently suited for many tasks, and would likely be able to engineer its own survival in the wilderness (they are more than capable of defending themselves). The mule's incapability to spread its genes, therefore, does not affect its success as an individual in other areas.

Applying the theory of evolution to the mule, we would conclude that it is unable to reproduce and therefore the "mule" species will not continue. But that's where our analysis ends. We don't describe the mule as "good" or "evil" or anything like that, we simply note that it is unable to reproduce and otherwise enjoy its excellent qualities as a beast of burden, etc.

While the exact biological reasons for homosexuality are unclear (I am not even going to take seriously the suggestion that it is a choice), the theory of evolution could be applied in the exact same way. A gay man is handicapped reproductively, and may not be successful in reproducing and therefore the theory of evolution suggests that he will not be able to perpetuate his genes. But that's where it ends. The theory of evolution does not go beyond a simple description of this process, and can't be applied on a moral level (well, it could, but I do not think those kinds of ideas are very popular these days), therefore an acceptance of evolution is not (or, at least, should not be) connected in any way with our judgment of gay people.
 
almostaskier, thank you. You explained that way better than I could have. That is what I was trying to say in my short little sentence. If something can't reproduce, then it's existence will terminate. That is a fact. Theres not much more to say, I think almostaskier covered it.
 
Then I might just call you a faggot, but I won't because everyone in this thread will jump all over me, and then try to fuck me.
 
exactly! it doesn't hurt us at all if other people are gay, so why make an issue of it. if they want to be gay or are gay when they're born, then that has nothing at all to do with us straight people.
 
So, what about couples that dont chose to reproduce? Or that cant due to infertility? Should couples not be allowed to marry unless they have children?
 
Marriage is a seperate discussion. Yes they should still be able to marry because marriage is defined as a social institution between a man and woman. Please tell me what part of marriage says you have to be fertile.
 
check out http://catholicwriter.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/kids-required-for-marriage/

the state of washington had it right with their approach to gay - marriage

the instiution of marriage is so that the man and the woman can procreate at some point in time. if you don't plan on bearing children, then marriage isn't for you. marriage is not a social insitution, it is a religious institiution. which is the only reason why i don't support gay marriage, gay civil unions on the otherhand are the social instituion that you think marriage is. and since it is not dictated by a book of intollerance a civil union should be between two people that love eachother, which i fully suport.
 
Well, you kinda just said to "not be terminated", thus having a reason for existence , you have to be able to reproduce. I would very much dispute that claim, both on a moral and purely scientific basis.
 
well hopefully nobody ever mistakes me for royale, aka "Matt." but thankfully i have my noticeably rad icon to set us apart.

and my opinion on gays is that, it's just another statistic of your lifestyle. how you were born and raised, something that should never have any effect on anyone other than the actual individual. i dont see why so many people are so uptight about gays and whatnot, unless theyre hitting on you. like as long as they keep their shit to themselves.

as nomenstevens said, "my opinion is let others be what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else...". word.
 
i never really gave that much of a shit and then one of my really good friends told me that he was gay a few years ago, and I was like whatever, that's cool. It didn't really change my opinion of him much at all. We're still real good friends.
 
these threads are always so sad.....

what the fuck does it matter?

Regarding the genetic basis for homosexuality, for my genetics class this year I wrote a 15 page paper this

year on the relationship between genetics and homosexuality. There IS

evidence of a connection. They aren't sure what genes are the ones

involved (they have a ton to look at) but the evidence is there. Is it conclusive? Not yet, but as with most things scientific, you tend to follow where the evidence points you as opposed to listening to the pointless ranting of ignorant bigots.

If you kids want to argue otherwise I can send you PDF's of a bunch of

published articles concluding that there is some relationship between

genetics and homosexuality. You kids would actually have to read them,

now. No looking at them and then telling me I am wrong because you

hate gays. When you can show me a ton of scientific data proving conclusively otherwise, you will have my attention. Until then....Shut the fuck up.
 
or you can just continue being a ignorant bigot who has no idea what he is talking about. works for a lot of people. obviously you too.
 
Dude, this thread was over a while ago. I just needed to confirm that what I was arguing in class was true or not true.

Anyone who thinks it's not related to genetics whatsoever is most likely wrong according to scientific evidence. The best you can come up with to a good response is "uhhh no?"
 
You like the word bigot..

Besides, I don't need to know what I'm talking about, there's no fuckin science here you douche, it's a matter of opinion, if I chose to hate queers, which i very much do, there's nothing you can do to change it, that's my own deal
 
And thats precisely what makes you a bigot. Of course, we could be wrong, and discrimination could be ok, but I'm pretty sure you must be living in wacko land if you truly believe that.
 
i'm not saying discrimination is ok, I have nothign against black people..

I just don't like gays, I don't see why that's so hard to understand. It's like you fuckers are trying to get me to change my my mind because YOU don't agree with it, and that's what's bullshit here
 
we aren't talking about your hatred for people due to their sexual orientation. For that, you are a bigot. I like that word in this case because no other word can describe you better.

What the thread turned into was a discussion on whether or not being gay is natural or a choice. Science suggests there is some relationship between genetics and homosexuality.

I could careless about your opinion, as you do mine. The point of my post was to provide some actual substance to a thread full of people claiming that being gay is a choice because they say so. Doesn't really work that way.

Continue hating gays all you want. It won't affect my life one bit. Just know, although I doubt it will matter to you, that you are hating someone for something that, scientifically, has evidence suggesting it is predetermined at conception and throughout development. No different that skin color, weight, body size, genetic disease, facial structure, etc, etc. again, don't expect anything to come of this. It really is pointless to post. It just always surprises me how easy it is for certain people to hate others they have never met and know nothing about.

 
Cool story Hansel

I've already met gay people, and whether or not they were friendly towards me, doesn't change the fact i think they're fuckin retards..

It's cool and all with your "scientific" evidence, but I, as you said, honeslty don't give a shit

 
Yeah, I pretty much hate you. I have no idea what your name is, what you like to do in your spare time, what kind of personality you have, what other sports you enjoy, what your interests are... but I know I hate you. And for that matter, anyone else who hates on gay people. I guess you could say that I'm being unfair, but nope, you wont change me. Thats just the way I am.
 
Yea, basically..

I don't care if they're a good person, or if they're into skiing, I don't care what THEY do in their spare time, they're fuckin fag-ass bitches

and is that unfair? fuck no it's not, that's just how it is
 
because thats the way they are and/or raised that way, its a personal choice influenced by a ton of different things
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top