quote:Personally, I would never pick on anyone due to their sexual orientation, but I am adament against it being taught in schools as equal to heterosexuality.
One, it's frankly difficult to believe you wouldn't pick on someone for their sexuality if you support frank teaching in public schools that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality.
Two, even if I did believe you wouldn't pick on someone for being gay, I have to point out: advocating a public stance that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality is actually, y'know, state-sanctioned picking on.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Okay, Samprimary, here goes:
In the case of males we see that in many societies in ancient history that once the prohibitions against same-sex behavior were taken away the prevelance of the behavior increased. Prisons are also an example where we find same-sex behaviors common.
As Tom mentioned, you are selecting interpreted causes that only reaffirm a presupposition. If you have credible evidence to this fact (and no, your anecdote about asking women if they'd bone Angelina Jolie isn't really what I'm going to base psychosexual theory on) then please, present it.
quote:One cannot prove the Freudian view, any more than any other theory though.
This is, so far, the most outright false thing you have said. Can you guess why?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see homosexuality in the same context that I would someone promoting the idea that people should not have kids. It is ultimately something that goes against both genetic and cultural survival. So in that respect, it is inferior to heterosexuality. Of course, if lesbians want to have families then they are at least following the commandments of the Bible and multiplying -- more so than many heterosexual materialists are doing today.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, you weren't asking me, but I think it's equally valid if by valid you mean 'ought to granted approval or disapproval by the state'.
For what we decide goes into our public school curriculum, that's the only standard that matters.
Hmm, I think that your definition of 'valid' makes sense. I think I agree with a lot of different definitions (which is why I asked, I couldn't narrow it down enough) but I have no qualms with this one.
I disagree with the second part though. That sounds to me like you're saying that if it's legal it ought to be taught as being on the same level with any other legal option. Maybe it's not what you're saying, but then my question would be how you would interpret the difference between "legal" and "promoted".
Moving away from our specific topic to something more illustrative, I don't think most people would approve of a school teaching abortion as equal to or as good as adoption. There's a difference between teaching what's available and declaring two (or more) things to be equal. Probably if I had slept in the last 24 hours I would be able to come up with a better example than abortion (which is hardly less charged than homosexual marriage) but I haven't so hopefully you understand my concern even if I'm not stating it well.
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: ... someone promoting the idea that people should not have kids. It is ultimately something that goes against both genetic and cultural survival.
I find this a little doubtful. What we find as we move from species to species is not in fact that the more offspring a species has, the more successful it is. In fact, there has to be an equilibrium both between the species and environment and the amount of investment that can be allocated to each offspring.
posted
I think once the "God tells us we should have a lot of kids" argument has been presented, it's a pretty strong sign that this argument is largely pointless.
My final point would be that there are 500,000 children in the US foster system (let alone rest of the world) that need homes, and arguing that a particular relationship is less valuable because it can't produce its own children is pointless until that statistic is anywhere approaching zero.
[ March 25, 2010, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: I see homosexuality in the same context that I would someone promoting the idea that people should not have kids.
Interesting idea, Clive/Cindy/Michael. I'll mention it to my daughter.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: I see homosexuality in the same context that I would someone promoting the idea that people should not have kids.
Actually, it would be more like someone promoting the idea that people who do not want to have kids should not have kids.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is ultimately something that goes against both genetic and cultural survival. So in that respect, it is inferior to heterosexuality.
If you really believed in this reasoning, you would be advocating for state-taught inferiority of a whole host of things other than homosexuality. Furthermore, you don't have enough evidence to say that it 'goes against' either cultural or genetic survival, though plenty of people - mostly in your camp - like to make grandiose claims about what tolerating homosexuality will do to the gene pool and the culture, when the truth is they have no better an idea than the rest of us, and worse than many.
quote:Of course, if lesbians want to have families then they are at least following the commandments of the Bible and multiplying -- more so than many heterosexual materialists are doing today.
And...following the commandments of the Christian Bible should play what role, exactly, in what we teach in public schools?
-----
quote:I disagree with the second part though. That sounds to me like you're saying that if it's legal it ought to be taught as being on the same level with any other legal option. Maybe it's not what you're saying, but then my question would be how you would interpret the difference between "legal" and "promoted".
What I really mean is that public schools oughtn't be in the business of promoting any morality that isn't rooted in obvious, easily demonstrated concepts like 'cheating is bad' and 'killing is bad' and 'stealing is bad' sort of thing. Schools should be in the business of advocating that sort of morality, because they're things literally everyone can agree on. What schools shouldn't do, though, is step into backing specific unverified religious precepts such as 'homosexuality is bad'. Take away the Bible, and we just don't know it is.
I (as an American citizen) don't particularly care if you (general you) know it is. If you can't demonstrate it to me without begging the question (looking to the Bible like michael is), then it doesn't belong in our public schools. We've got private schools and churches and homes for that. No one gets to coopt the public schools as their pulpit.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. Of course, pedophiles can't help themselves either....most of them are same sex too.
Apparently not. You can't help but be a needlessly inflammatory poster who only hurts his own side.
Just because what I state is interpreted as offensive doesn't hurt my "own side". Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. If you can support natural selection and homosexuality, we'll have a logical debate.
Pro gay supporters like to point to historical evidence of homosexual relationships in our history dating back to ancient times. There is far more historical evidence supporting married, heterosexual mothers at the age of 14. Like the mother of Christ. Was the mother of Christ the victim of pedophilia? For that matter, was your great-great grandmother molested resulting in your life today? Are you the spawn of a pedophile?
Pedophilia and homosexuality are current legal/social definitions of the day. I'm sorry homosexuality acceptance hasn't kept pace with having sex with 14 year olds. There is more evidence of accepted "pedophilia" than homosexuality in our history.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you can support natural selection and homosexuality, we'll have a logical debate.
There are multiple theories for the selective benefit of homosexuality. That you are unaware of them doesn't make homosexuality an evolutionary dead end.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm sorry homosexuality acceptance hasn't kept pace with having sex with 14 year olds. There is more evidence of accepted "pedophilia" than homosexuality in our history.
That's not pedophilia, Mal. Pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children. Attraction to adolescents is... what's it called... ephebophilia? I think that's it. Regardless, attraction to 14 year olds is not pedophilia.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. Of course, pedophiles can't help themselves either....most of them are same sex too.
Apparently not. You can't help but be a needlessly inflammatory poster who only hurts his own side.
Just because what I state is interpreted as offensive doesn't hurt my "own side". Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. If you can support natural selection and homosexuality, we'll have a logical debate.
Pro gay supporters like to point to historical evidence of homosexual relationships in our history dating back to ancient times. There is far more historical evidence supporting married, heterosexual mothers at the age of 14. Like the mother of Christ. Was the mother of Christ the victim of pedophilia? For that matter, was your great-great grandmother molested resulting in your life today? Are you the spawn of a pedophile?
Pedophilia and homosexuality are current legal/social definitions of the day. I'm sorry homosexuality acceptance hasn't kept pace with having sex with 14 year olds. There is more evidence of accepted "pedophilia" than homosexuality in our history.
I am sort of amazed, like, in more than one way. The first part is the sort of rambling aesthetic here, because I know that all of this makes some kind of sense in your own head and that, more than anything, is what's interesting to think about. Not the argument itself (which is logically incoherent) but what you must think you are accomplishing with it. How it makes sense to you.
The second point of amazement is how utterly irrelevant it is, and how I could be the child of eight consecutive generations of 'pedophiles' and it honestly has nothing to do with what you were challenged on. Some people go for broke in the strangest ways; you go for being as irrelevant as possible and stuffing as many irrelevant tangents into your 'responses' as possible.
i'm sorry you don't understand how acting the way you act does nothing but hurt your own cause. really, I am. if you could have this information imparted to yourself, you would stop your late-night quasi-timecube rants that dig you into a credibility hole that already threatens to poke through to China.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. If you can support natural selection and homosexuality, we'll have a logical debate.
This fallacy of yours was shot down quite some time ago.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If my brother is gay and acts to protect my child as his own and thereby increases the rate of my progeny's survival, roughly 25% of his genes are passed on. Furthermore, there is some evidence indicating that if my brother is gay, I am more likely to have more children (increased fecundity).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Fallacy? How many genes get passed down from homosexual couples?
Depends. In addition to the "gay uncle" theory that gays can provide additional support to their siblings and other kin with children because they do not themselves have to expend resources on reproduction, there's also some evidence that suggests that the female siblings of gay men tend to be more fertile, suggesting that perhaps some genetic elements of female fertility are related to male homosexuality. In this sense, some gay men are not are not an evolutionary dead end, but a byproduct of a genetic makeup that may increase overall fertility.
There are other theories as well that explain homosexuality as an evolutionarily advantageous trait rather than a detrimental one.
A lot of people are overly hung up on the effect of individual reproduction when considering evolutionary fitness, but it's much more complex than that. Evolution acts on genes, and genes are shared across multiple individuals. An individual that improves the survival of his close kin may be more successful in having "his" genes survive (through the survival and reproduction of his kin) than one that acts merely in his own interest. Given this, it's possible to imagine many scenarios in which a certain percentage of infertile or non-reproductive individuals could be beneficial to a population.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Fallacy? How many genes get passed down from homosexual couples?
Simply put, if homosexuality is genetic, you can have the genes for it without it being expressed in you. If it is genetic, it can be passed through straight couples.
ETA: I've mentioned this in another thread, but to believe that natural selection would quickly eliminate homosexual genetics, one must assume that 1) it is caused by a single gene, and not several working in concert, and 2) that any such genes do not also have additional/unrelated beneficial effects.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read any articles on the subject recently, but it's something I've spent some time learning about in the past.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think those assertations that gay men have highly fertile sisters is based on about as much evidence that lesbians have longer ring fingers than index fingers (more than the average in the female population). There could be far more variables involved such as ghomosexuality being something mroe associated with upper classes -- so perhaps diet and nutrition are a factor in their sister's development. And if novelty is a factor in homosexuality perhaps it is associated with intelligence and that could run in families -- I have read that higher intelligence leads to women being more interested in sex. Who knows, but I think basing such a wild assumption on some study in Italy is stretching things a bit. Heck, most gay men I have run into have more boyish looks. If their families have this kind of look maybe that translates out to their sisters looking and activing more feminine and therefore more traditional and family oriented. Attractive women seem to gravitate more to traditional religions and family structures after all.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who knows, but I think basing such a wild assumption on some study in Italy is stretching things a bit.
Is it any worse than filling in hypotheticals via anecdote and personal interpretation? That's the majority of what you have been doing while you're here, so
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question of 'dead ends' is in any case based on a strawman understanding of evolution. Whether homosexuals pass on their genes or not is utterly irrelevant. A rapist passes on his genes while a celibate priest does not; it does not follow that we should applaud the one or suppress the other. What evolution "approves of" and what humans should approve of are completely separate questions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: I think those assertations that gay men have highly fertile sisters is based on about as much evidence that lesbians have longer ring fingers than index fingers (more than the average in the female population).
How did you conclude that? Did you read the paper, and draw your conclusion from the evidence and statistical analyses in it? Or are you just stating that you don't believe things you wish were false?
Becuase people respect the former kind of argument. Not so much the latter, at least not on this topic.
quote:There could be far more variables involved such as ghomosexuality being something mroe associated with upper classes -- so perhaps diet and nutrition are a factor in their sister's development.
Do you have evidence and statisitical analyses that this is the case either? Or are you just stating that you believe what you wish to be true? I think it's clear that richer people have resources, and can afford to do things like move to friendly cities, so therefore, there might be a slight correlation between coming out and money. But not every gay person comes out.
quote:And if novelty is a factor in homosexuality
You keep saying this. You have yet to present the slightest bit of evidence that it is so. People naturally have crushes on ohter people. No one chooses whom they will have a crush on as some kind of adventure.
quote:Who knows, but I think basing such a wild assumption on some study in Italy is stretching things a bit.
Right, because Italians aren't 'real Americans', so we should ignore the results of biological studies about them.
And really, do you know what "assumption" menas? It doesn't mean "a conclusion based on evidence and reason", but you seem to be using it that way here.
quote:Heck, most gay men I have run into have more boyish looks.
Right. Based on your arguments here, I bet that gay men fall all over themselves to make sure you know they are gay. Yeah, no biased data set here.
quote:If their families have this kind of look maybe that translates out to their sisters looking and activing more feminine and therefore more traditional and family oriented. Attractive women seem to gravitate more to traditional religions and family structures after all.
You can't think this is a serious argument. No one with a brain would.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I really mean is that public schools oughtn't be in the business of promoting any morality that isn't rooted in obvious, easily demonstrated concepts like 'cheating is bad' and 'killing is bad' and 'stealing is bad' sort of thing. Schools should be in the business of advocating that sort of morality, because they're things literally everyone can agree on. What schools shouldn't do, though, is step into backing specific unverified religious precepts such as 'homosexuality is bad'. Take away the Bible, and we just don't know it is.
I (as an American citizen) don't particularly care if you (general you) know it is. If you can't demonstrate it to me without begging the question (looking to the Bible like michael is), then it doesn't belong in our public schools. We've got private schools and churches and homes for that. No one gets to coopt the public schools as their pulpit.
I agree with you in general, but I don't see how that can be implemented. If a language textbook always uses examples with gay couples wouldn't you say it's not neutral on the topic? If it never mentions homosexual couples is it neutral? If 90% of the parents in the nation (this is a hypothetical, not a prediction of actual sentiment) don't think homosexuality is a healthy/moral choice for their children is it still right in have it insinuated in the curriculum (ala the above mentioned method)? Is it right to not have it there if 50% of Americans think it's an 'equal' lifestyle choice?
posted
Since you have defined pedophilia as an attraction to "prepubescent" kids. I assume you ascribe to the belief that if "It bleeds, it breeds". Sorry, I can't go there with you. My daughter is 10 years old. She could have her first period and be reproductive this year or six years from now. The law has to draw a line somewhere.
When life expectancy was 35 it made sense to snatch them up when they could reproduce. A fifteen year old girl might have had her period for four years, but you're still a pedophile for going after her. Your "natural" attraction is still wrong. We don't live in an anarchist nation. Naturally, there are thieves, rapists and murderers. I'm sure being a thief, rapist and murderer has benefited the species. Kill the competition, steel his goods and rape his wife...you're genes are passed on.
I think homosexuality might be good for an overpopulated society, if it's natural, ie a genetically inheritable trait. Perhaps we should embrace and accept them. We don't want them to live in denial and pass on their gay genes.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since you have defined pedophilia as an attraction to "prepubescent" kids. I assume you ascribe to the belief that if "It bleeds, it breeds".
It's more likely that he's simply aware of the actual definition of "pedophilia," which involves attraction to pre-pubescent children. A 35-year-old man who is attracted to a 15-year-old girl is not technically a pedophile.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our history is full of 35 year old men breeding with 15 year olds. Human history is full of 35 year old men with multiple wives, ranging in age from 35 to 12. Does human history prove the behavior is "natural" and should be accepted.
Human history has more pedophilia and polygamy than homosexuality. Stating homosexuality deserves equal standing in our society carries less weight than the 13 year old wife of a middle aged man with six other wives.
Which behavior is historically proven to be most natural? The polygamist passed on a lot of genes via his 14 year old wives. Gay genes are a dead end road. Don't get me wrong, I'm a libertarian. I don't care if you are into bestiality...another behavior that has gone on forever....just keep your goat sex in your bedroom and don't demand equal rights. A man having sex with a female sheep has a greater chance of passing on his genes than a man with another man.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The question of 'dead ends' is in any case based on a strawman understanding of evolution. Whether homosexuals pass on their genes or not is utterly irrelevant. A rapist passes on his genes while a celibate priest does not; it does not follow that we should applaud the one or suppress the other. What evolution "approves of" and what humans should approve of are completely separate questions.
posted
Of course I think goat sex is much more depraved than gay sex. I'm opposed to polygamy and women being married off shortly after having their first period.
All these behaviors have gone on since the beginning. Their historical evidence doesn't justify them today. We're all the descendants of the polygamist who had sex with a girl a couple months after her first period. None of us are descendants of homosexual acts. Which behavior deserves more acceptance in our society?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're all the descendants of the polygamist who had sex with a girl a couple months after her first period. None of us are descendants of homosexual acts. Which behavior deserves more acceptance in our society?
The one which is based upon consensual acts between adult people.
And if you can't figure out how that's important and how straw arguments about which acts are 'evolutionarily approved of' are irrelevant to GLBT's stance and would instead like to continue semi-coherently talking about goat-railers like they're relevant to the discussion, then you're an Australopithecus of the digital world and should just shut up forever.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why having bleed between your legs isn't an accepted sign of being ready for sex,....today. It's illegal. Gays should consider themselves lucky for the acceptance they do have. They aren't thrown in jail. Even though sex with a 12 year old was once completely normal. Having 5 wives was once completely normal but will land you in jail today.
The legal reigns have tightened on behavior much more "natural" than homosexuality. The 12 year old wasn't a "victim", that was their society. It was normal to marry once the period came....still the case in many parts of the world. The polygamy didn't victimize anyone. Happy and willing adult polygamists are still charged in America.
Polygamy and defining a woman by having menstruated is far more "natural" than homosexuality but more "illegal". The male driven society has silently accepted gays...they aren't competition. Even in the animal kingdom, alpha males don't drive out the the others until they try to mate. The adult male lion that never tried to mate might not be driven out, but he's still the bottom of the pride.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: Hm, thought better of the post about assassinating the pres, huh? Can't say I blame you.
I pray he isn't assassinated. If he's assassinated, he'll be like JFK, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrisson and Kurt Kobain.
I hope he lives and proves to be an Axle Rose. If Axle Rose OD'd after Appetite for Destruction,....oh what unmet potential. If he is assassinated, he'll end up on a coin. Let him live....he's a one hit wonder.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm lucky to have been born in this country. I was given opportunities not afforded to the vast majority of the rest of the world. I was lucky enough to have parents who instilled in me a work ethic and the value of an education. I was lucky to attend the school I did even though some of my former classmates claim that their education was disadvantaged. I'm lucky to have the job that I have, even though it took years of hard work to qualify for the position. I'm lucky to live in a nation where a hand-me down child eating beans and rice can grow up to be wealthy.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one feels lucky for what they are. They are what they are. I feel lucky not being attracted to young teenagers. It would be unfortunate to have a desire that is against the law. If I were attracted to other men, I wouldn't end up in jail for expressing my desires.
The greatest luck in my life....my children. My life is complete. I would die for them and they will carry me on forever.
If I live long enough, I will probably be impotent. There will come a day that sexual attraction is meaningless. When I am old, that part of me will be dead. I will still have a partner in my wife and the fulfillment my children bring to me.
Sexual attraction is temporary. I'm lucky to to be attracted to women. I'll live a full sexual life and when that part of me is dead, I'll still have a full life, holding my grandchildren. I'll see myself in them as do in my son.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
malanthrop, you're doing that thing again where you fail spectacularly to respond to direct statements pointing out huge flaws in your arguments.
Still a hack. Give him a chance per discussion not to be a hack, guys, and then drop him when he (almost) inevitably fails.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
