Dick Cheney's lesbo daughter becomes Mr Mom

POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 19:46
VIEWED: 12140
PAGE 8 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 6:36 PM

As I mentioned earlier, the Sioux people traditionally celebrate the birth of a gay child as a sign that the tribe has reached a certain level of stability and civilization. This fits a scenario that nature would select for homosexuality once a population had reached some kind of critical mass. Put another way, once quantity of life has reached the saturation point, then quality of life becomes more important.

I've looked for statistics on this, the percentage of gays in populations according to environmental conditions, but I don't think such statistics exist, and I don't know how reliable they would be in any case, given the continuum of tolerance to hatred toward gays across cultures. False reporting would be a big problem in cultures where homosexuality has been criminalized, for instance.

Of course, 6SJ was talking about rats in a cage turning to homosexuality out of scarcity, but what if nature selected for homosexuality as a gesture towards population control?

It's interesting to me that in the great desert religions of the world--cultures born under harsh conditions where survival was a daily struggle--Judaism and Islam, homosexuality would be seen as a great evil. And here in the modern United States, as our very existense seems threatened, we as a people would become more and more intolerant of homosexuality.

Not to get too wonky on ya all--this is all just conjecture we're throwing around here--but if we look at the traditional role gays play in cultures that accept them we may see a pattern. In many cultures gays are seen as having a particular affinity to art and culture, beautifying and embellishing what has been given them. Gay culture tends to make life more livable, more colorful, more comfortable and more fun in general (and please, I'm talking about gay culture, not gay individuals--I'm not saying that all gays are opera queens or conform to any such stereotypes, but I am acknowledging that gay culture exists and that it has certain characteristics we can talk about).

I see no reason not to imagine that homosexuality is part of "nature's plan."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CAUSAL

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 6:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are a lot of deviations in the gene pool that aren't fatal enough to be selected out.

Right, but I would think that a deviation that by definition can't produce offspring would disappear pretty darned quick.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

SEVENPERCENT

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 8:08 PM

I have no dog in this fight, so to speak. But for the record, just so it's out there, I fully support gay rights. I don't care if it's genetic, psychological, choice, whatever - doesn't matter. Treat all people equally and we'd have fewer problems on this rock, IMHO.

But I came in here not to debate this, necessarily (and sorry for the thread hijack), but to ask Captain Paranoia just what the fuck, exactly, he's talking about this time. I swear, Piratenews, I sometimes read these threads just to see how cracked out you are, and today is no exception.

Quote:
In USA today, men, women and children face 50 years in prison for silently holding posters saying that homosex is a violation of God's 600+ commandments

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot, on this one. I'd like to see some documentation that this happened (unless it happened to Fred Phelps, then I'd be happy). Unless you're protesting homosexuality while aremed with a bomb in a restricted area of an airforce base, there's nowhere in the US that this happens. Ever.

You're. A. Nutjob. Period.

Quote:
quoting the Christian Bible that's the foundation of the US legal system

Unless the legal system in the US changed overnight, it wasn't founded in the least on the Christian bible.

Those wacky things with pages? They're called books. You read them. I know, it's hard what with your meds and all the other tinfoil brigadeers sending you internet links, but try to make the time, okay Pumpkin?

Quote:
As Mo's gain power in USA, pedophilia also gains power

You're a fucking retard. The fact that you connect homosexuality with pedophilia shows that you have absolutely zero brains in your head. In fact, I may have just insulted the mentally handicapped by lumping you in with them.

Use 'the google' as GWB calls it, and look it up. This is just one of hundreds of medically researched, peer-reviewed studies on the issue that show no link between the two.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

I've heard that 1 out of every 4 people has some form of mental illness. Not only do I think you're the 1 of 4, I think you picked up the slack for about a half dozen other groups of four ("You guys just stay home; I'll be crazy enough for all of us!")

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 8:10 PM

Quote:
Right, but I would think that a deviation that by definition can't produce offspring would disappear pretty darned quick.

Hmm... well, homosexuals - especially the distaff side- have been producing offspring for millenia. Who you have sex with is not always the individual's choice, and may not be related to attraction.

But setting that aside, there are truly fatal genetic flaws that continue to crop up that don't follow the two-parent laws of genetics, and those are the mitochondrial disorders. To recap briefly- mitochondria are the organelles within your cells that cleave "food molecules" into "energy" (ATP). They have their own independent DNA which is completely separate from nuclear DNA, and because sperm are such little critters with no room for mitochondria, everyone inherits their mitochondrial DNA in an unbroken line from their mothers and ONLY their mothers. (So animals have two genetic lines- the nucleus resulting from sexual reproduction, and the mitochondria resulting from asexual reproduction.)

Anyway, if something is wrong with your mitochondria you may suffer very serious metabolic flaws that result from the inability to break down certain key food components, and you will be poisoned by the incompletely broken down fragments of fats, organic acids, or proteins that cause seizures, retardation, lier and then total organ failure.

The mystery is how THOSE disorders persist long enough to even be recreated. And yet in many cases the mom didn't even know she had a "mito disooder" until her children were affected and in some cases can be traced back several generations. Anyway, the point is that all kinds of flaws can be tolerated as long as they don't exceed reproducion rate.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CAUSAL

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 8:16 PM

Interesting...both very good points (this is why I generally enjoy being a part of any discussion you're part of, Sig).

Of course, the philosopher in me is dying to bring up the is-ought problem and the naturalistic fallacy--we've delved thoroughly into the choice/genes issues, but almost not at all into the ethical one (which seems to be where the real emotion is in the question).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

SIGNYM

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 8:37 PM

Is-ought??

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Right, but I would think that a deviation that by definition can't produce offspring would disappear pretty darned quick.

Did you miss my post?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CAUSAL

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Is-ought??

A fallacy originally described by Hume, a sceptic philosopher. He thought that there was no way that one could reason validly (in the logical sense) from a descriptive statement about the way things in fact are (i.e. from an "is") to a normative statement about the way things ought to be (i.e. to an "ought"). So, for instance, one might run up against the is-ought problem by saying something like, "My family is starving, but I am broke. Therefore, I ought to steal some bread to feed my family." Now I think that most people would find this pretty reasonable, prima facie. But the trouble is that the conclusion about what one ought to do doesn't really follow from a description about the way things are. Contemporary philosophers disagree on how much of a sceptic Hume really was. Some think that he felt that as long as there is some "ought" premise in an argument, then one can validly conclude with an ought (something like, "One ought to provide for one's family by any means necessary"); but others think that he felt that there was no way at all for an "ought" to be validly derived from an "is"--even if there were a "ought" premise in the argument. I'm not sure where I think Hume falls out, but what I find interesting is that the ethical question seems to be where the real bullets are fired over the issue of homosexuality. The genetics vs. free choice question seems to just be peripheral.

It seems like the debate is over whether or not homosexual behavior is morally acceptable (and I want to make sure that everyone notes that I'm not taking a side on this issue). Those who claim that it is not usually appeal to religious traditions for their justification, but this is obviously going to be problematic, because not everyone shares those beliefs. Those who say that it is either morally acceptable tend to argue that "it's the way they are"--but this is equally problematic because they immediately confront the is-ought problem (and almost always because they are committing the naturalistic fallacy). Even more interestingly, on the one hand, it would seem that the ethics of a society change over the course of time such that what was once censured is no longer. But that is also problematic, because to commit to ethical relativism is to risk some serious logical problems. But the commitment to ethical objectivism (of which it should be noted that theistic ethics are but a single example) carries some problems, as it would seem that there in fact are some differences in ethical standards.

Anyway, all this to say that you can see how thinking about this issue seems like a lot of fun to me, as a philosopher.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

CAUSAL

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Did you miss my post?

No, sorry--I just have only had a few windows during which I could respond at leisure. Plus, to be honest, I didn't understand some of the stuff you posted, which made it even harder to get a timely response out. I'm glad that it's up there, though, because upon review (now that I'm finally at home), I find it interesting that it could in fact be the case that one-and-the-same gene that causes a beneficial adaptation in the female of the species could cause a not-so-beneficial one (from a reproductive standpoint) in the male. I think you could be right that if that's the case, it could account for the survival of the gene. Not sure I agree to the aunt/uncle hypothesis though: if that were the case, the gene would still die without being passed (in addition to which it seems that many (most?) human societies have frowned on homosexual behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editted to add:

Also, I guess maybe you meant the choice/genetic post.

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
Not really, the choice is expressing, which no one has denied, not being.

Well, if the pertinent choice vis a vis the issue of homosexuality is the expression of said orientation (and not the orientation itself) then I suppose the question is: ought we to censure homosexual behavior or ought we not? If the former, then it wouldn't matter if they were genetically homosexual, because your post seemed to indicate that you thought that the relevant choice is the choice to express or not to express homosexual behavior (this, of course, goes to some of the philosophical problems I raised in my post to Signym).
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Those who say that it is either morally acceptable tend to argue that "it's the way they are"--but this is equally problematic because they immediately confront the is-ought problem (and almost always because they are committing the naturalistic fallacy).

I think it is perfectly fine whether it is a choice (bisexual chooses homosexual relationship) or not (homosexual can't help but choose homosexual relationship). My objective ethics in this? It's none of my darn business who has sex with whom as long as the relationship is consentual (and consent requires both parties to be old enough to give consent).

I'm prochoice on everything--just about.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE