There is no Homo Gene
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 19:28
VIEWED: 11196
PAGE 1 of 2
Anyone who believes so or claims so is foolish... even the science types, who undoubtedly know much more about our own Biology than I would ever claim to.
I won't go so far as to say that genetics itself doesn't play a part though. There are many forces which influence us all on a daily basis, and without proof otherwise, I cannot discount scientific findings anymore than I can discount the existance of God or any other "paranormal" phenomenon.
As human beings, most of us are always looking to find a way to pass the buck for our bad decisions. I do not exclude myself from this category, in fact, I admit that I am one of the offenders. I also know that some of us have the ability to accept their responsibility much of the time while most of us are able to do so only some of the time, if at ever.
Think about any of the extremely important decisions you've ever made in your life.... how many of them would you ever attribute to one experience you've had prior... one mistake or one triumph....? People are wired very differnetly, and everyone would react differently, if even on a microcosmic scale, without the presence of external stimuli. Throw in 20 or 30 or 70 years of life's experiences and we're a complex and beautiful web of mystery as a species.
Sure... psychologists have done a pretty good job categorizing people into very wide general pidgeonholes, but there is always exceptions to the rule in all of us. Our minds and personalities are as different from one another as our very own fingerprints... or the pattern of a snowflake.
We are made up just as much of our own tactile and mental experiences and sensations as we are our biological makeup. We are not of our words, but of our actions.
On that same note, why would somebody blame (or even praise) one single gene, or group of genes for that matter, for being the basis of their decisions?
What is the point of being if all of our decisions are genetically encoded?
I don't believe pre-determined destiny in a religious aspect, and I'll be damned if I believe it in the scientific realm.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, in the case of behavioral genetic predisposition, that's all it is.. a bias in one direction or the other, as is environment, as is experience, each and every piece plays a part in the decision making process, but ultimately the decision is actually made by the person, cognitively.
Now, that predisposition may lead to experiences that further reinforce it, sure, I accept that, but to say it's a predestination, THAT I do not buy, no.. one can indeed make an active choice in spite of what those pre-loaded instincts are telling them, especially when they know that response is wrong for the situation.
To consider otherwise is to reduce us to mere animals - the gift of sentience is being able to make those choices, to tell your body to STFU when you walk by that taco bell in the mall and it's desires start clanging bells in the back of your brain in animal reaction.
Even long-ingrained reflexes, such as the hypervigilance response of PTSD, can eventually be subverted or retrained by a person with a will strong enough to do so, there's a whole branch of study via CITIVAS that has explored that issue pretty thoroughly.
Behavioral indicators may have a slightly higher impact the younger the test subject is, but as actual past experience becomes added to the mix, they become less and less of an influance on the decision making process because of how the human brain retains decision making data, it tends to bias more towards what has previously worked, rather than mere instinct, and it is those experiences and how they came to us, that refine the decision making process beyond instinct.
I'm with Jack on this one... predisposition, maybe, but predestination, never.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, there's probably lots of genes that influence sexual orientation. If it's a choice alone, why do people still choose it where culture actively discourages it? I never chose to be Heterosexual, I am heterosexual, and if tomorrow I chose to become homosexual I still wouldn't find men sexually attractive. Sexual attraction is an automatic response, not a decision, like reaction to pain. When was the last time you decided to find fire painful? You didn't, fire is painful whether you want it to be or not. You can decide to override the natural decision to remove your hand, but the pain reaction stems from the genes.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Anyone who believes so or claims so is foolish... even the science types, who undoubtedly know much more about our own Biology than I would ever claim to.
Who you find attractive is probably encoded in your genes, what you do with that is entirely up to you. Our genes effect a lot about who we are, some people are more likely to put on weight than others, some people have blonde hair, some people have blue eyes, none of these things are decisions consciously made. They can all affect our lives in one way or another, but how we respond to those effects is the choice.
Casting everything as a choice is an illusion, often our situation has nothing or little to do with our choices, the choice is how we react to our situation.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Man... glad I don't live in that world. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:An argument without parrellel I'm sure. So, when did you chose to have White skin, the truth of it is I don't once recall being asked what skin hue I wanted, but since everything is a choice I must have done. Why did you choose to be white jack?
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Man... glad I don't live in that world.
EDIT:
With the inherent cultural issues the colour of your skin has without doubt affected who you are and what choices you have to make. Beyond that it has a bearing on who you choose to mate with, people tend to sleep with people of a similar race.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That last has more to do with how OTHER people react than anything else - believe me, I know all too fekkin well, and how ?
Cause I made the "mistake" of cross-racial dating in school back in the early-mid 80's, when it was pretty damn taboo, I liked the girl, she was a sweetheart, without a lot of the personal issues that make such relationships generally a disaster in progress.
Enter society and it's stupid bullshit.
Enter multiple fights over being a "race-traitor" from one end, and a "damn honkey" from the other, resulting in a level of violence that made the relationship unsustainable.
Enter her parents, who "had issues" with it and harrassed HER, a girl I considered fairly strong, mentally and emotionally, to the point of a bawling fit, then threatened to evict and disown her.
At least the worst I got from my own family was "well, if it makes you happy"... by that time it was pretty obvious to them I didn't give a damn about their prejudices, nor share em.
I just never considered it an issue, no more than that she was Taoist, or liked different music than I did.. people are *different* in so many ways, do we really WANT them to be all the same ?
It's fekking idiotic, and I have always regretted that happy relationship was ended, not by either one of us, but by external forces who had problems with something that was our personal business and not a bit of theirs.
All that bein said, I don't quite think yer gettin where Jack is coming from on this - it's not the pre-loaded biases that determine who we are as much as the decisions we make because of, or in spite of, them.
That's really what being self-aware is all about, innit ?
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, just so I'm getting this right, Jack: Anyone who believes that genetics determine preference is a loon, even if science supports it? And you base this on what exactly? You sole and un-refrenced insistance that sexuality is purely a matter of choice?
Sorry, but if the choice is between believing scientists who have done the research, and some guy waving his arms going "Nuh-uh", it's a pretty clear choice.
I can't believe you had to start a new thread for this, when you'd already said the exact same thing in the other thread.
Wave your arms a bit harder, maybe more folks will listen to ya.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sure, but often people choose not to, internally regardless of outside disagreement. Skin colour is, as they say merely skin deep, and it's an entirely genetic trait, no one chooses their skin colour. It also affects who we are, and who we associate with, some of that’s cultural undoubtedly, some of it's not.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That last has more to do with how OTHER people react than anything else - believe me, I know all too fekkin well, and how ?
Cause I made the "mistake" of cross-racial dating in school back in the early-mid 80's, when it was pretty damn taboo, I liked the girl, she was a sweetheart, without a lot of the personal issues that make such relationships generally a disaster in progress.
Like homosexuality, sure we can decide to ignore our drives, part of being a grown up is not giving in to each and every little urge, but it's genes that describe who we find sexual attractive.
Quote:That's what I said, Frem. Sexual attraction is an automatic response we can not control; we control how we act on it. Jack suggests there's no 'gay gene' in the one breath saying there’s no genetic component, in the next saying there is. The confused wording aside, Jack seems very big on ‘everything is a choice’. It’s plain that who we are physically attracted to, is largely genetic, but how we act on that is up to us.
All that bein said, I don't quite think yer gettin where Jack is coming from on this - it's not the pre-loaded biases that determine who we are as much as the decisions we make because of, or in spite of, them.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think that is exactly what he was tryin to say, Cit, that how we act on it *is* up to us, he just didn't seem to get it across very well is all.
So I really think we're all in agreement here, barring some confusion over terminology.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hunh.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Anyone who believes so or claims so is foolish... even the science types, who undoubtedly know much more about our own Biology than I would ever claim to.
A friend of mine was teaching lit in the Bible belt, and had a guest speaker visit the class. I forget the topic, but it was something marginally not approved of in the good book. After the speaker left, the teacher asked why the students hadn't asked more questions. They replied, "Oh, he's too smart, we can't argue with him. Besides, we know we're right."
My point being: Jack, you have reached Bible belt mentality with this post. Congrats!
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since this thread is more popular then the original I'm reposting this here:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
There is no homo gene. Anyone who believes so or claims so is foolish... even the science types.
Um, how exactly would you know that? Are you saying that you understand the functions of every gene in the human genome? 'Cuase if you do you could make a lot of money by writing up a list and selling it.
Quote:
I won't go so far as to say that genetics itself doesn't play a part though.
Contradicting your previous statement.
Quote:
Think about any of the extremely important decisions you've ever made in your life.... how many of them would you ever attribute to one experience you've had prior... one mistake or one triumph....?
Implying that homosexuality is a decision, while it is true that some make a conscious effort to override their sexuality the vast majority of people are the way they with no conscious choice involved.
Quote:
On that same note, why would somebody blame (or even praise) one single gene which was the basis for any decision?
We blame the breast cancer gene for breast cancer because it causes breast cancer, if the research pans out and it turns out that there is a specific gene which causes homosexuality in humans then what would you suggest we do? Ignore it? Humans are capable of overriding instincts consciously but the instincts are still present. No one that I'm aware of is suggesting praising the gay gene, though there will doubtless be people who will blame it.
Quote:
What is the point of being if all of our decisions are genetically encoded?
They aren't, all that's encoded in our genes is tendencies, your tendency to get a hardon while looking at naked women, a desire to protect people who are close to you. Without genetically encoded instincts to motivate us we wouldn't exist, the creatures with no instinctual drives die out from lack of reproduction, the ones with strong drives are the ones that survive.
Quote:
I don't believe pre-determined destiny in a religious aspect, and I'll be damned if I believe it in the scientific realm.
No one is suggesting that our genes dictate our entire lives, they encode tendencies into us, nothing more. Your genes don't determine whether or not you will be success in life, they don't determine whether or not you will get a great job, and they surely don't determine our choices for us. Our genes are the hand that dealt to us, what we do with it is up to us.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think we're all born gay. Our early childhood friendships form strong social bonds within our own gender group.
I don't know how it works out for females later on, but for guys, if you don't get a boner from hell in school by the 6th grade, you're probably gonna be gay.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not exactly, I think people can decide how to act and behave, but not what sexual orientation they have, any more than one can chose to be male or female (at least without major surgery). Sure you can deny it, but it doesn't change the reality.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I think that is exactly what he was tryin to say, Cit, that how we act on it *is* up to us, he just didn't seem to get it across very well is all.
So I really think we're all in agreement here, barring some confusion over terminology.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So, just so I'm getting this right, Jack: Anyone who believes that genetics determine preference is a loon, even if science supports it? And you base this on what exactly? You sole and un-refrenced insistance that sexuality is purely a matter of choice?
Apparently you didn't get it straight there. Go back and read the part where I don't entirely discount genetics, but I will not believe that we can just blame our quirks and problems and choices on our genes alone.
Who made the "experts" experts anyhow? They're always changing their minds and I have no doubt that in my lifetime I will hear conflicting evidence on this issue many many times, just like I do with everything else in the scientific realm.
Hey Cit... how do you explain genetically a desire some men have for leather and PVC and an inability to react sexually in a "normal" relationship. I'm sure 200,000 years ago women weren't walking around with fishnet stockings and crotchless leather getups.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm not the black and white extremist here Jack. Homosexuality is nothing like a predilection for leather, and it rather sounds like a bias of your own that you wish to make it seem as so. The two situations are entirely dissimilar; one is "who are you attracted to" (an automatic reaction, that no one 'decides') the other is a concious decision of how you choose to express that attraction. So at the very base issue, if you really think sexual orientation is a choice, at some point you must have made a concious choice for your own. When was that, jack? And if not, what does that say for your theory?
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Hey Cit... how do you explain genetically a desire some men have for leather and PVC and an inability to react sexually in a "normal" relationship. I'm sure 200,000 years ago women weren't walking around with fishnet stockings and crotchless leather getups.
I'm not suggesting nothing is a choice, or that everything is genetic, I'm suggesting that sexual orientation is genetic. The same way that being born male or female isn't a choice, unless you think your sex was a choice as well?
EDITED for clarity.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't see any difference between sexual orientation and sexual fetishes. Seem exactly the same to me.
meh... whatever gets you off. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't think *anyone*, not even the most outspoken gay activist, feels like a gene for X means we are predestined to X behavior. At least I've never heard it.
I think that is exactly what he was tryin to say, Cit, that how we act on it *is* up to us, he just didn't seem to get it across very well is all.
Here is the debate on homosexuality:
1. Is the sexual preference learned or biologically determined, or a little of both?
2. Is the sexual preference, be it from nature or nurture, pathological? Should it be treated or changed?
3. If it exists and cannot be changed, should it be acted upon? It is morally or otherwise offensive to act upon these sexual preferences?
Gay activists argue that sexual preference is biologically determined (genetic). And even if it isn't genetic, who cares? They advocate that there is nothing wrong with it, so it should not be treated or inhibited.
Homosexuality opponents argue that it is learned in whole or in part. They view homosexuality as a pathological act that should not be induldged, akin to pedophilia.
Then there are people in between. I know a saint of a woman who believed it was a biological birth defect that shouldn't be acted on.
But if it is indeed biologically determined, it is a hell of a thing to ask someone to be celibate forever and not know the joys and fulfillment of sexual intimacy, just because it offends some people otherwise. Is it the place of anyone else to make such an enormous request?
If it is not biologically determined, it is assumed that people who can learn the preference can unlearn it. But if it isn't hurting anyone, why put these folks through the ordeal?
How would we feel if someone determined that Firefly was offensive and wanted to put us through reeducation camps to unlearn our love of Firefly?
My position is: why is it their business? Does it matter if my love for vanilla ice cream is learned or biological? What's it to them?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Whether you use leather or not doesn't have to leave the bedroom. Who you choose to mate with does.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I don't see any difference between sexual orientation and sexual fetishes. Seem exactly the same to me.
Marriage is a social institution as well as a private contract. Who you take to all the company picnics, Thanksgiving dinners, and PTA meetings for a child matters. It is nice to be able to do all those things without people looking askance at you.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I swear people are born with "personalities". You can have identical twins raised in the same environment and they'll behave very differently. So of course it's not genetics.... it's all about prenatal development!
www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_peop
le_gay/
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thanks for the article. How interesting!
Originally posted by SignyM:
www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_peop
le_gay/
And it brings up a good point I failed to mention. Gay activist seek to determine the innateness of homosexuality to seek civil rights protections under the law. If it isn't a choice, then they can't be discriminated against. This is a huge part of the debate, actually.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You can't see the difference between an attraction and an expression of attraction?
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I don't see any difference between sexual orientation and sexual fetishes. Seem exactly the same to me.
meh... whatever gets you off.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not by your apparent definitons and differentiations of the two.
I suppose a guy who likes hitting sheep from behind is just expressing his attraction then? "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
In my opinion, Roleplaying games (like Cyberpunk or D&D) have always been a good analogy to genetic predisposition versus choice/life experience.
Let’s say you have a character with an Intelligence of 10 and a Strength of 18. He is predispositioned to be a good Fighter. However, you can choose to make him a Mage, in which case his spellcasting potential is truncated and his strength goes largely untapped. It would be an easier life for this character to be a fighter, but you can choose to go against the grain and make him a Mage if you want.
Similarly, a Neutral Evil character is Narcissistic and self-centered, with perhaps some sadistic overtones. Yet despite these inherent character traits, he may risk his life to save someone he loves. This goes against his predisposition, but is a choice he could choose to make.
Further, a Neutral Evil character who continues to perform good acts risks a change in alignment. This change is difficult, and involves making many good choices over a period of time. Eventually, however, he can change his demeanor and outlook based on active attempts to change the choices he makes.
I equate stat-blocks and alignment to ‘genetics’ while leaving the option open for life choices and experience to take the individual in an unexpected direction (becoming a mage, changing alignment.)
The reason I think people tend to follow their genetic profile more often than not is because it is the path of least resistance.
Incidentally, I think the movie Gattaca deals with this issue rather well.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
As an aside, if Homosexuality turns out to be a genetic predisposition, then the near-eradication of Homosexuality might be achieved by religious extremists if they simply do the following:
Embrace the idea of homosexuality, treat homosexuals as valued equals, and promote gay marriage.
By not encouraging homosexuals to enter sham relationships and marraiges, you promote the elimination of the ‘gay gene.’ Essentially, the gene would be largely bred out of existence.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good movie, rather chilling, but good.
As for the rest, that's why I always got a bang out of Chaotic Neutral - you can do anything, anytime, anywhere, and never have to answer to your divinities over it.
-F
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
As for the rest, that's why I always got a bang out of Chaotic Neutral - you can do anything, anytime, anywhere, and never have to answer to your divinities over it.
Like hitting a sheep from behind... just for the feck of it.
Giggity, Giggity... Giggity, Goo
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/13/japan.mouse.ap/index.html
Using genetic engineering, scientists at Tokyo University say they have successfully switched off the rodents' instinct to cower at the smell or presence of cats -- showing that fear is genetically hardwired and not learned through experience, as commonly believed.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Usually they're expressing desperation. I also think you're going down a bad road trying to draw parallels between a natural sexual attraction between consenting adults, and a perversion like beastiality. There are reasons nature would find it advantages to code for varying sexual orientations, there are not for things like beastiality.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I suppose a guy who likes hitting sheep from behind is just expressing his attraction then?
You don't choose who you're attracted to, you either are or you aren't; that's true no matter what sex you go for. How you choose to express that attraction is a choice consciously made. Attraction is based on various physical factors, the mechanisms based on providing the best possible genetic match for viable off-spring. Different species can't be coded for in that way, but same sex relationships can be.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not really, it's a different functioning of how a series of genes we all have operate, not a 'gay gene'. Homosexuals are most often born to Heterosexual couples, and I doubt that is because on or both of the partners are in 'sham' relationships.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
By not encouraging homosexuals to enter sham relationships and marraiges, you promote the elimination of the ‘gay gene.’ Essentially, the gene would be largely bred out of existence.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Usually they're expressing desperation. I also think you're going down a bad road trying to draw parallels between a natural sexual attraction between consenting adults, and a perversion like beastiality. There are reasons nature would find it advantages to code for varying sexual orientations, there are not for things like beastiality.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I suppose a guy who likes hitting sheep from behind is just expressing his attraction then?
So says you. I don't think you're in any position to say if a sheep-banger is doing so out of attraction or out of desperation, unless you yourself were a sheep-banger. I'm not convinced that they are the akin to each other, but I'm also not convinced that beastiality or pedophilism is any different than homosexuality, as far as perversions go.
I'm not judging... Personally, I don't care what gets your rocks off... and I'm certainly not going to string anybody up by their gonads for their choices. I'm just saying that it's funny that we can somehow justify homosexuality today with genetic code but we can't justify the others with it. Seems more like political correctness run amok to me...
Just you watch... I bet it won't be long before we're justifying pedophilism and beastiality by blaming them on genetics too, just like homosexuality and obesity. We just haven't gotten to that point yet. Still a lot of envelope to push before we get there. Still a lot of less extreme quirks, problems and eccentricities that we need to get the general public to believe isn't the consequences of their own choices before we start tackling the REAL controversial topics.
I suppose there needs to be just a bit more church bashing taking place before the proles get to that point too. Don't fret.... It won't be long now kiddies.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Or maybe people don't see sexual predators praying on Children as equivalent to an equal relationship between consenting adults, even if those adults do happen to share the same sex. It's not funny at all, research shows that one is genetic, and the other is not; you're putting the cart before the Horse and then saying "it's funny how everyone thinks horse have something to do with carts". What really is funny (funny bizarre) is that you say in the one breath you've got nothing against homosexuality, and in the other are trying to pass it off as simply a choice that is akin to the choice of paedophilia.
I'm just saying that it's funny that we can somehow justify homosexuality today with genetic code but we can't justify the others with it. Seems more like political correctness run amok to me...
Quote:Not really. We 'blame' hair colour, eye colour and most other physical traits on genetics too, oh no we've opened the door to saying serial killers are genetic! Slippery slope fallacies are fun and all, but not only have you failed to disprove the real science here, you've failed to show any compelling link between it and paedophilia or bestiality, or any evidence that the scientific evidence is merely made up in the name of 'political correctness'.
Just you watch... I bet it won't be long before we're justifying pedophilism and beastiality by blaming them on genetics too, just like homosexuality and obesity.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cits's post..... (above)
.... Meanwhile....
We're gladly giving all of our personal liberties to our Masters because we are incapable of making decisions for ourselves about our weight, the way we pass time when we're not at work and basically anything else that the religious world would call a sin. We are allowing our governments to legally say that what used to be called a sin (a byproduct of personal choice) is punishable by law.
This situation hasn't improved with our scientific "awakenings". Look around you Cit. You live in the UK so you know at least as well as I do that your life is being much more micromanaged than peoples lives could ever possibly be 200 years ago. Sure, we're not burning witches anymore, but what's to say that the powers that be won't start again one day, based on any demographical whim (with no way to stop them, due to technology and centralized power)? Enjoy the party while it lasts.
You're intentionally misreading what I'm saying Cit because you see me in a particular light already and wrap my words around the mold you have of me in your mind.I'm not arguing anything with you here and I'm not attacking homosexuality. You misread my intentions here.
But you hit the nail on the head... it is a slippery slope indeed.
I am neither a slave to my genes or religion, at least I choose to believe so. But I did speak to a pastor once who said that people always need something to follow. If it is not God, than it will be something else.
There just aren't many born leaders, and I seriously doubt if you or I are one.
Trust me... I'm in by no means calling myself a saint. If there is an afterlife, and we are judged soley on our actions, I have little doubt that I wouldn't be passing that exam right now. Some of my extracurricular activities in my short life make homosexuality look like Candyland. Of course it's all among consentual adults, mind you, but homosexuality is simply the surface of the rabbit hole that is visible to the majority of the proles. It gets a lot deeper, and you never read about it in Encyclopedia Britannica....
There are dark things down here that a lot of people don't want to see, and probably shouldn't. Unfortunately for most, there are also wonderful pleasurable addictive things that are helping a movement slowly creep forward and gain momentum.
Once they've broken the surface, ain't no way you or I are going to be able to put that shit back in the horse, assuming at that point that we even wanted to.
Maybe we should discuss the worship gene, if there is one. You know, the one that makes us believe so strongly in whatever material or ethereal entity which tells us what to believe, think and follow.
EDITED TO ADD: Do whatever you want to do people, just don't let somebody tell you that you're doing it because you have been pre-programmed to do it. Sure, it may be convenient to say that you are fat because you're predisposed or you are an alcaholic because you're predisposed, but to just give up and go with that flow is to say that your mind doesn't matter and your desires don't matter.
I have plenty of things that I'm not proud of, but I will not allow myself ever to say that they were done because I didn't have a choice. That's something that the Son of Sam would say....
You don't have any imaginary dogs telling you what to do, do you? "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've seen too many examples of people reacting to changes in their brain chemistry and not even knowing it - to say that your brain doesn't determine who you are.
Maybe some of it is genetic, some environmental and some self-induced. But your brain is who you are.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm reading what you're writing here, not what you wrote before. I'm laying out what I'm saying more than telling you what you are saying. I've actually asked you a few questions throughout the thread that would have helped understanding immensely, but you ignored them. If I've misunderstood your intent, it's not through lack of trying on my part.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You're intentionally misreading what I'm saying Cit because you see me in a particular light already and wrap my words around the mold you have of me in your mind.I'm not arguing anything with you here and I'm not attacking homosexuality. You misread my intentions here.
Quote:The slippery slope is a fallacy. You seem to have hand waved some link between homosexuality and the fall of freedom in there somewhere, but saying "X leads to B" doesn't make it so.
But you hit the nail on the head... it is a slippery slope indeed.
Quote:I take it I'm missing some deep hidden truism that you have gleaned though your education in the 'University of life', that I could never hope to understand as I learnt everything I know from the 'encyclopaedia Britannica'...
There are dark things down here that a lot of people don't want to see, and probably shouldn't. Unfortunately for most, there are also wonderful pleasurable addictive things that are helping a movement slowly creep forward and gain momentum.
Quote:There's a 'God Spot' in the brain that is active in religious belief, if that's what you mean. Beyond that I haven't a clue what you’re trying to say, or think that this proves.
Maybe we should discuss the worship gene, if there is one. You know, the one that makes us believe so strongly in whatever material or ethereal entity which tells us what to believe, think and follow.
Quote:So to suggest that Women are Women and Men are Men because of genetics is to suggest our minds don't matter? Or are something’s being genetic ok, and only the things you've arbitrarily decided are a choice not to be questioned? If the latter I must ask, what does God need with an internet forum
Do whatever you want to do people, just don't let somebody tell you that you're doing it because you have been pre-programmed to do it. Sure, it may be convenient to say that you are fat because you're predisposed or you are an alcaholic because you're predisposed, but to just give up and go with that flow is to say that your mind doesn't matter and your desires don't matter.
.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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Without even reading the rest of your post (which I will do after posting this), please lay out your questions to me which I ignored. I have no clue what you're talking about.
EDITED TO ADD: As for the rest of it, you should try stand up. In fact, I got Russel Simmons on the phone and wants to know if you want to be a part of the Def Comedy Jam revival. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I asked why people still 'chose' to be Homosexual even where culture actively discourages it. That is, if it's only a choice, and theres no specific reason for someone to be Homosexual over Heterosexual, why would people choose to put themselves in to a position to be persecuted. I can see it if it's not a choice, but if it is why purposefully choose to be persecuted?
I also asked whether you ever had to conciously decide to be Heterosexual, and if not what the implications of that were.
And:
So to suggest that Women are Women and Men are Men because of genetics is to suggest our minds don't matter?
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I believe I put myself in a position where I'm at the very least judged severely, if not persecuted myself on a regular basis here. I fail to see where you're getting at here.
I didn't consiencly decide if I was hetrosexual. Hetrosexuality has always been natural... although, I myself have been a victim to 28 years of advertizing and media, so who knows how much of that was my choice and how much of it was implanted over the years. I did however spend years, and continue to spend years, doing things that society would never consider the "norm", and would even consider to be less "normal" than homosexuality if it were ever put to a Gallop poll.
I do not blame predestination for that in a religious or genetic sense. My decisions have been my own and I just don't take too kindly to somebody telling me that I am a slave to my genetics.
Quote:
And:
So to suggest that Women are Women and Men are Men because of genetics is to suggest our minds don't matter?
Any transexuals on this board? You don't have to out yourself for this question, and I would never suggest you do, but I would think very carefully about this question....
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You've hardly been murdered, strung up or hounded. Calling the odd cross word on this forum 'persecution' is hardly a realistic statement.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I believe I put myself in a position where I'm at the very least judged severely, if not persecuted myself on a regular basis here. I fail to see where you're getting at here.
Quote:And what makes something natural? You're say so? Pronouncement from a divine being? Our genes? What? What basis do you have for saying Heterosexuality is natural, and Homosexuality isn't?
I didn't consiencly decide if I was hetrosexual. Hetrosexuality has always been natural...
Quote:I was born Male, and white, this was not my choice, but that says nothing beyond that; just as your paragraph neatly says nothing about Homosexuality. So you don't 'blame' your choices on your genes, wonderful give yourself a gold star, that doesn't mean Homosexuality isn't genetic, or for that matter natural.
I do not blame predestination for that in a religious or genetic sense. My decisions have been my own and I just don't take too kindly to somebody telling me that I am a slave to my genetics.
Quote:Not really. A transsexual operation isn't simply a 'choice' as you blithely suggest Homosexuality is. One can't wake up in the morning and say "you know what, I choose to be a Woman today" and bam, there goes your external genitals. It's a lengthy and harrowing operation, not just simply a choice.
Any transexuals on this board? You don't have to out yourself for this question, and I would never suggest you do, but I would think very carefully about this question....
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Not really, it's a different functioning of how a series of genes we all have operate, not a 'gay gene'. Homosexuals are most often born to Heterosexual couples, and I doubt that is because on or both of the partners are in 'sham' relationships.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
By not encouraging homosexuals to enter sham relationships and marraiges, you promote the elimination of the ‘gay gene.’ Essentially, the gene would be largely bred out of existence.
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.
Hello,
Are you suggesting it is a genetic trait that is not hereditary, even in a recessive capacity? A random genetic mutation of some kind?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Perhaps it's a mechanism similar to sex determination? I don't know, but parents don't have to be Homosexual to have Homosexual children, and Homosexual parents (assuming a lesbian had a child with a gay man) won't necessarilly have Homosexual offspring.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Are you suggesting it is a genetic trait that is not hereditary, even in a recessive capacity? A random genetic mutation of some kind?
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Perhaps it's a mechanism similar to sex determination? I don't know, but parents don't have to be Homosexual to have Homosexual children, and Homosexual parents (assuming a lesbian had a child with a gay man) won't necessarilly have Homosexual offspring.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Are you suggesting it is a genetic trait that is not hereditary, even in a recessive capacity? A random genetic mutation of some kind?
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.
Hello,
There are many genetic traits that are 'not necessarily' prominent in the parents that are nontheless passed on as part of the genetic code.
There are numerous genetic traits that, even if present in both parents, will only be prominent in a percentage of the offspring.
They are no less hereditary.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you want to be that inclusive, then all genetic traits are hereditary. Suppressed or Active genes notwithstanding.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
There are many genetic traits that are 'not necessarily' prominent in the parents that are nontheless passed on as part of the genetic code.
There are numerous genetic traits that, even if present in both parents, will only be prominent in a percentage of the offspring.
They are no less hereditary.
What I meant is that nature through some bizarre balancing act manage to even out the number of Women to Men, it's possible that Homosexuals have a natural niche in Human society that means nature throws up a certain percentage to that end. So not necessarily hereditary more than the sex of the child is hereditary.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
So you believe that homosexuals may possess some species-needed talent or trait, and that is why they keep surfacing in nature?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No homo gene?
well what do you call this?
http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/1481857021078586425TAJqkm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Going against the norm.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I believe I put myself in a position where I'm at the very least judged severely, if not persecuted myself on a regular basis here.
Quote:Going with the norm.
I didn't consiencly decide if I was hetrosexual. Hetrosexuality has always been natural...
So, why do you go against the herd sometimes and not others? What makes you feel strongly enough to choose your own way in certain things, while accepting others without question?
Look, I'm not saying genetics pre-determines you. I don't think anyone but you is making that leap - the equivalence of genetics and pre-destination (as in, lack of choice and responsibility) seems to be your own assumption.
OK, moving on. Imagine this: two children are sexually abused in the same household. One responds by becoming hypersexual, the other becomes completely non-sexual. Why the difference? Clearly both behaviors are a product of their environment, but the behaviors are very different, so there must be something else at work. Could it be... hard-wired personality?
One more thing for Jack - I find it disturbing that you suggest that homosexuality is a condition requiring blame or very least a statement of responsility. There is no victim. Pedophilia has a victim. Beastiality has a victim. (I can't imagine that the sheep likes it...) The latter do not in any way compare to homosexuality.
[edited for clarity]
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There's numerous examples in nature of how non-breeding couples are useful for child rearing. Today we have childminders and Nurseries, but Homosexual non-breeding couples could be the natural equivelent. There's evidence of homosexuals in many social species.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
So you believe that homosexuals may possess some species-needed talent or trait, and that is why they keep surfacing in nature?
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Using genetic engineering, scientists at Tokyo University say they have successfully switched off the rodents' instinct to cower at the smell or presence of cats -- showing that fear is genetically hardwired and not learned through experience, as commonly believed."
Hey Rue ?
Can you find me any more information (preferably in english) on this study ?
Might come in handy for some rather passionate discussion about why my sisters kids act and react how they do, which imop, has not a thing to do with mental illness... grrr.
About 60% or so of the family is "fearless", which has lead to a great deal of hassle in a few situations where it is a natural defense/warning mechanism that goes unheard and unheeded.
It'd be nice to hand them some *other* explaination other than "because they're crazy and need to be medicated into submission" for once, even if I don't exactly fully buy it myself.
So if you can find me a link to the study concept and results I can print out and slap on the desk of these berks, that would be nice...
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
That's interesting, actually. Kind of a caste system. But if that's the function, it would hardly seem to be needed in the human animal, and I'm not clear on when it would have ever been needed.
Or the fruit fly, for that matter.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Looking after children before we invented Nurseries and Childminders? Homosexuality could be benign population control in Fruit Flies, though I'm not sure if it happens naturally, all I know is that scientists can switch the behaviour on and off, not whether it occurs in nature.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
That's interesting, actually. Kind of a caste system. But if that's the function, it would hardly seem to be needed in the human animal, and I'm not clear on when it would have ever been needed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Take a look at Toxoplasmosis, a parasite found in Cats that infects just about anything including Humans. In Rats they've been shown to remove the fear response, at least in refrence to Cats; making them run toward, rather than away from, areas marked with Cat scent.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"Using genetic engineering, scientists at Tokyo University say they have successfully switched off the rodents' instinct to cower at the smell or presence of cats -- showing that fear is genetically hardwired and not learned through experience, as commonly believed."
Hey Rue ?
Can you find me any more information (preferably in english) on this study ?
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Looking after children before we invented Nurseries and Childminders? Homosexuality could be benign population control in Fruit Flies, though I'm not sure if it happens naturally, all I know is that scientists can switch the behaviour on and off, not whether it occurs in nature.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
That's interesting, actually. Kind of a caste system. But if that's the function, it would hardly seem to be needed in the human animal, and I'm not clear on when it would have ever been needed.
Well, I was thinking back to 'primitive' cultures, but I suppose the 'nursery gene' could predate such cultures, perhaps down to our apelike ancestors? I have no idea how apes function.
The problem I was seeing was this... in the animal world, I don't recall ever hearing of homosexual child-minding groups. One of the parents usually watches the kids. And in human cultures... the old-time Native Americans are a good example - I don't remember hearing about homosexual child-minding groups either.
Perhaps the nursery-marm angle is a dead end.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All kinds of "things" occur in nature w/o a "reason". As long as it doesn't occur so often that it's fatal to the species it will continue to occur.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
On that same note, why would somebody blame (or even praise) one single gene, or group of genes for that matter, for being the basis of their decisions?
You are claiming attraction is a decision, then? You pick and chose who you are and are not attracted to, do you? Never made a foolish relationship decision, then? You can just stop being attracted and walk away. You're very fortunate, then.
I am selfish, impatient, and a little insecure. I make mistakes. I am out of control. And sometimes I'm a little hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not an expert on homosexuality (and certainly not as much of an expert as 6ix apparently is) but I remember hearing about a study a while back which showed that women who have multiple male children are more likely to have gay sons. This isn't a linear increase (2 sons = twice as likely) but something a bit higher (2 sons = 2.5 times as likely for instance). I can't remember where I heard it but if it's true then the continued existence of the "gay gene" may be result of genetic tendencies of the mother more than the sons.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Frem
The study was quite limited. They removed the gene that allowed the rodents to smell "cat smell". When they removed the gene they eliminated the fear. So they concluded that "cat smell" is a genetic hard-wired trigger for fear. And that the fear has nothing to do with learning or experience.
But in broader terms, they've shown that a "psychological response" is completely genetic.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There have been some excellent books about the pervasiveness of homosexuality in the animal kingdom (though I'd have to look up the titles).
The people homosexuals I know didn't just one day 'choose' which sex they were attracted to. And I don't think the animals got up one day and said 'you know, I have a choice and today I'll be homosexual'. If there was ever a reason to consider that homosexuality might be biologically driven, homosexuality in the animal world would be it. (The other animals besides us that is, as we are also animals.)
I think of it as being like handedness. Most people are strongly right handed, some are strongly left-handed, and a few are amidexterous. You may learn to use the non-preferred hand, but it doesn't change the preference which seems to develop early in life.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/13/japan.mouse.ap/index.html
Using genetic engineering, scientists at Tokyo University say they have successfully switched off the rodents' instinct to cower at the smell or presence of cats -- showing that fear is genetically hardwired and not learned through experience, as commonly believed.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
Bull shit. Mammals and most fish fear the unknown...mostly due to smell and size.
example: If you were to ever take your head out of your ass and smell a rose...you would probably spend the next 17 minutes cowering in the nearest corner, twitching like a broken vibrator, all while defecating all over your penny-loafers......
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Any reason to assume the correlation is due to genetics? I mean, it could be a result of two boys growing up in the same household. "You show me yours," etc.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I'm not an expert on homosexuality (and certainly not as much of an expert as 6ix apparently is) but I remember hearing about a study a while back which showed that women who have multiple male children are more likely to have gay sons. This isn't a linear increase (2 sons = twice as likely) but something a bit higher (2 sons = 2.5 times as likely for instance). I can't remember where I heard it but if it's true then the continued existence of the "gay gene" may be result of genetic tendencies of the mother more than the sons.
I'm just saying...
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I don't see any difference between sexual orientation and sexual fetishes. Seem exactly the same to me.
meh... whatever gets you off.
Okay, so by your reckoning, your fetishes ARE your orientation, correct? So, say, if you have a fetish for stiletto heels (I've never really gotten how that particular fetish works, but apparently it's a very popular one, so who am I to argue?), then it doesn't matter to you whether it's a man or a woman in those stilettoes?
Your ORIENTATION is about WHO you are attracted to - man, woman, or both (bisexual). Your FETISHES are more about WHAT about that person turns you on the most. I say I like women, but that's not the end of the story. It doesn't mean I'll have sex with just ANY woman - I have my particular *types* of women that turn me on more - and within that group, there will be some who are more right for me than others.
If you're so sure that being gay is a choice, allow me to ask: When and how did you choose your sexual orientation? Saying that being gay is a choice is, ipso facto, also saying that being straight is a choice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Given it's prevelance, I'd have thought it could go back further than that.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Well, I was thinking back to 'primitive' cultures, but I suppose the 'nursery gene' could predate such cultures, perhaps down to our apelike ancestors? I have no idea how apes function.
Quote:Yeah, I doubt it's some ingrained rigid thing like that in Human society, it would have to be cultural to get that. I'm not suggesting that it's WHY homosexuality developed, theres no ryhme nor reason to Evolution, just that it could offer advantages to the species that would mean it would continue to be prevailent.
The problem I was seeing was this... in the animal world, I don't recall ever hearing of homosexual child-minding groups. One of the parents usually watches the kids. And in human cultures... the old-time Native Americans are a good example - I don't remember hearing about homosexual child-minding groups either.
Gay Animals are Common
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=3555
Quote:
One puzzling question is why homosexuality arises in certain members of a species. It can't be strictly genetic or it would die out, since homosexuals don't reproduce often enough for the gene to be passed on. Once society gets over the idea that homosexuality is unnatural, the next question is: What role does it play? It could be a response to overpopulation. Biologist Marlene Zuk thinks that by not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young and, "That is a contribution to the gene pool." They could also be agents for carrying on the culture, while heterosexuals are busy reproducing and raising the young—a role they play in human society.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Straight; not just a choice, but an option.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Any reason to assume the correlation is due to genetics? I mean, it could be a result of two boys growing up in the same household. "You show me yours," etc.
IIRC the authors of the study didn't make any guesses as to the why of the results, though if it's genetic that certainly fits the data.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, and since this thread has taken over for the old one, anyone jumping in and wondering what kicked this off, here's the link.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/071209-fly-genes.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My usual response when people claim that sexual preference is a choice is to ask them when they realized they were attracted to their own gender.
Generally, they protest that they are not, that they are only attracted to the opposite sex.
I then point out that, if the reason they choose not to have gay relationships is is that they are not attracted to those of their own gender, that they haven't actually made a choice.
They generally get very testy at this point, and either change the subject, or accuse me of being a closet gay. Which my wife and daughter find very amusing.
Bravely choosing not to do something you're not tempted to do anyway isn't exactly a sign of high virtue.
"Some people juggle geese." -- Hoban Washburn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If it's boys "turning gay" because they grew up staring at their brother's ding-a-lings, that fits the data just fine too.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:IIRC the authors of the study didn't make any guesses as to the why of the results, though if it's genetic that certainly fits the data.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Any reason to assume the correlation is due to genetics? I mean, it could be a result of two boys growing up in the same household. "You show me yours," etc.
Really, I'd have to read the article, but I'm not at all seeing how this could tie to the mother's DNA.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How about "people don't turn gay by looking at penises"?
Originally posted by mal4prez:
If it's boys "turning gay" because they grew up staring at their brother's ding-a-lings, that fits the data just fine too.
Really, I'd have to read the article, but I'm not at all seeing how this could tie to the mother's DNA.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cit, do you have data to support this? Have you spend a lot of time staring at penises? Maybe that's why you're not gay...
Hey, kids experiment, sometimes on whatever's handy. (I so didn't mean that literally...) My point is, without having read the article, I'm not sure why this statistic is being attributed to genetics. I've actually known plenty of people who experimented with siblings and cousins, and I think my theory is as likely, or more likely, than the genetic thing.
Oh hey - and it's the man who gives up the Y chromosome, so if it was genetic, it's be his DNA carrying the hypothetical gay gene...
Whatever, I still think it's a silly conclusion, and not nearly as simple as that.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I've spent a great deal of time playing with one...
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Cit, do you have data to support this? Have you spend a lot of time staring at penises? Maybe that's why you're not gay...
Quote:Unless it's on the X...
Oh hey - and it's the man who gives up the Y chromosome, so if it was genetic, it's be his DNA carrying the hypothetical gay gene...
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
My point is, without having read the article, I'm not sure why this statistic is being attributed to genetics.
The article about the number of gay children being related to the number of male children did not IIRC attribute it to genetics, rather it said (again, IIRC) that the cause was not known.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Unless it's on the X... " OOOhh --- just like hemophilia and a few other conditions.
***************************************************************
Oh yeah, and though it looks similar, hemophilia is a word NOT related to homo- anything.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All this is just asking for someone to call "naturalistic fallacy."
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:OK, you win. I'm not touching that one! LOL!
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:I've spent a great deal of time playing with one...
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Cit, do you have data to support this? Have you spend a lot of time staring at penises? Maybe that's why you're not gay...
Quote:If it correlates to having male children, and male children are decided by the Y spermies getting to the egg first... you do the math.
Unless it's on the X...
Which reminds me, I once heard it hypothesized (by a man) that baby gender really can be blamed on the female, (ie in cultures when girl children are not wanted and mothers are blamed for not having boys) since that big, bad, thick-walled egg is the one deciding which sperm gets through...
That's right. Everything's our fault.
Shamed, submissive, and off topic once again,
- mal4prez
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:People want to dismiss homosexuality as wrong because it's unnatural, so whether it's natural or not is a central theme.
Originally posted by Causal:
All this is just asking for someone to call "naturalistic fallacy."
Quote:Women can be homosexual too, though Queen Victoria found the prospect quite 'unamusing'.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
If it correlates to having male children, and male children are decided by the Y spermies getting to the egg first... you do the math.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I was taking the original post to refer to gay men, since there was the whole son issue... my mistake if it was two-gender-inclusive.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Women can be homosexual too, though Queen Victoria found the prospect quite 'unamusing'.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
If it correlates to having male children, and male children are decided by the Y spermies getting to the egg first... you do the math.
Because, as we all know, gay women aren't near as disturbing to society as gay men. Two chicks is "hot" and two men is "unnatural."
(I'm totally being snarky, please don't take this as an invitation for serious debate...)
Oh - and Queen Victoria? Good lord, what a great line!
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
One more thing for Jack - I find it disturbing that you suggest that homosexuality is a condition requiring blame or very least a statement of responsility. There is no victim. Pedophilia has a victim. Beastiality has a victim. (I can't imagine that the sheep likes it...) The latter do not in any way compare to homosexuality.
I'm not the one saying that. The gays are jumping all over that one and saying that it is their genetics that makes them that way.
As for beastiality, to listen to the sheep-bangers talk the animals love it too. And 18 years as the age of conscent is a recent phenomena as far as pedophilia goes. These are today's societial norms, which some states in America today don't even go by. Look at the age of conscent in Japan. I'm not saying it's right, but before Lifetime movies and the women's lib movement, I'm pretty sure that this was a common occurance as well and that those who partook would argue that there was no victim in those cases either. (of course I mean where there was no physical abuse involved, because bruises speak very loudly for themselves).
Nope... not seeing much of a difference here, except for how society judges the three differently today.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:There's numerous examples in nature of how non-breeding couples are useful for child rearing. Today we have childminders and Nurseries, but Homosexual non-breeding couples could be the natural equivelent. There's evidence of homosexuals in many social species.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
So you believe that homosexuals may possess some species-needed talent or trait, and that is why they keep surfacing in nature?
Well they ain't going near my children. And that especially goes for Michael Jackson...
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But in broader terms, they've shown that a "psychological response" is completely genetic.
Don't tell that to L. Ron Hubbard, Tom Cruise or John Travolta.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There have been some excellent books about the pervasiveness of homosexuality in the animal kingdom (though I'd have to look up the titles).
The people homosexuals I know didn't just one day 'choose' which sex they were attracted to. And I don't think the animals got up one day and said 'you know, I have a choice and today I'll be homosexual'. If there was ever a reason to consider that homosexuality might be biologically driven, homosexuality in the animal world would be it. (The other animals besides us that is, as we are also animals.)
I think of it as being like handedness. Most people are strongly right handed, some are strongly left-handed, and a few are amidexterous. You may learn to use the non-preferred hand, but it doesn't change the preference which seems to develop early in life.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
I find it amusing that since I dont' agree with people on this issue, they keep going back to the "woke up one day and decided I'd be gay" theory. I never said that. I belive there is a lot of factors at play and to blame a gene alone is rediculous and a cop out.
Stop being obtuse.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Really? All I see is scientists with one vague study, and you jumping to all kinds of conclusions...
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm not the one saying that. The gays are jumping all over that one and saying that it is their genetics that makes them that way.
Perhaps all those "evil gays" in your life are saying that they are what they are and are gonna be what they are with or without your consent. Does that make you feel powerless or something? I mean, really, what is your damage with it?
Quote:We both know that's a big whatever. Ditto with age of consent. But that's not the argument here.
As for beastiality, to listen to the sheep-bangers talk the animals love it too.
Homosexuality==no victim
Do you dispute this?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Really? All I see is scientists with one vague study, and you jumping to all kinds of conclusions...
Perhaps all those "evil gays" in your life are saying that they are what they are and are gonna be what they are with or without your consent. Does that make you feel powerless or something? I mean, really, what is your damage with it?
Obtuse obtuse obtuse......
Never said anything about anyone being evil. I don't want people judging my smoking and just leave me the fuck alone about it, so I give them the same respect. I just don't want anybody blaming their actions on predetermination, whether it's religious or scientific. Are you deliberatly being obtuse, or is that hereditary in your family?
Quote:
6SJ - As for beastiality, to listen to the sheep-bangers talk the animals love it too.
Quote:
Mal4prez - We both know that's a big whatever. Ditto with age of consent. But that's not the argument here.
Homosexuality==no victim
Do you dispute this?
I disagree with your dismissal. My point is a valid one. This is about societal perceptions of these things, today. Just like people argue in favor of homosexuality, today, they argue against beastiality, today. But it wasn't 30 or 40 years ago where nobody stood up for homosexuality and it was treated exactly as beastiality today is concerned.
(EDITED TO ADD: And given proper testing methods to make certain that the animals were not suffering from physical ailments, as gross as it sounds, I really don't think you would have any argument against the practice.)
So.... don't dismiss my statement because it is a very valid one.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Careful with the claws darlin', I'm tender...
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:Obtuse obtuse obtuse......
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Really? All I see is scientists with one vague study, and you jumping to all kinds of conclusions...
Perhaps all those "evil gays" in your life are saying that they are what they are and are gonna be what they are with or without your consent. Does that make you feel powerless or something? I mean, really, what is your damage with it?
Never said anything about anyone being evil. I don't want people judging my smoking and just leave me the fuck alone about it, so I give them the same respect. I just don't want anybody blaming their actions on predetermination, whether it's religious or scientific. Are you deliberatly being obtuse, or is that hereditary in your family?
You've got strong feelings, huh? Take it easy. Have a smoke. Smoke something stronger if it helps.
Again, I think you're the one stuck with the whole pre-determined thing. Gay folks simply are what they are, same as you. They're not trying to escape blame or shoulder off responsibility, because that just isn't an issue. There is no blame. There is no responsibility. What they do hurts no one. It doesn't even give them cancer, as your smoking may do to you.
Honestly, I'm having a really hard time understanding why this bothers you so much that you'll call me names over it. Do you really need to villify me, rather than talk sensibly?
Quote:And yet, you don't answer the question. Hmm. Have you been taking Rap's debating techniques to heart? Cause what I'm getting out your posts is a big bunch of emotion, and not a lot of logic.Quote:I disagree with your dismissal.
We both know that's a big whatever. Ditto with age of consent. But that's not the argument here.
Homosexuality==no victim
Do you dispute this?
Let me stress: there is no victim. It harms no one. Maybe if you're equating homosexuality and pedophilia - as in all homos prey on children, the popular right wing myth - you see things differently. Myself, I've known a helluva lot of gay folks in my life, and not a one has been into children. They like consenting partners, grown-ups who are self-aware and love them in return, same as how I like my men and, I'm guessing, same as how you like your women. Where's the problem?
Maybe your experience with gay folks has been different. If so, I'm sorry for that. But don't blame some poor schmoe who just wants to live in peace with his boyfriend. And don't waste your time thinking that he's asking your permission or forgiveness or trying to justify himself to you. What he does with his partner has nothing to do with you or anyone else.
[EDITED TO REPLY: Honestly, I find bestiality just gross and don't want to think about it, but if you force the issue... Given the fact that we can't ever know what these poor animals think and don't know how to judge consent from them, I class them the same as children. Their orifices should be left alone. Grown-up gay folks, however, can give consent. Are you seeing the difference here?]
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry mal4prez.... You just happened to be the one I replied to. Reading people's responses in here is like listeing to a broken record. You just happened to be the 5th person to say what I replied to, so you got the spite that came with it. (Usually reserved for Citizen)
My bad....
If homosexuals can be satisfied with being given the right they deserve to have a legal union recognized by the state and NOT attack the church or demand that the government force the church to change its stance on marriage, then no, homosexuals aren't hurting anybody. Also, they need to stop attacking the Boy Scouts for their beliefs as well and just make their own camping organization which can be exclusive to gays or be for everyone in general. I don't believe they should be allowed to raise children either. That isn't fair to a child to decide for them that they are going to have two mothers or two fathers.
You say you can't judge how an animal reacts to beastiality? I would assume it were no different than an animal reacts to any other human/animal interaction. If you abuse a cat physically, for instance, it isn't going to like being around humans, particularly you... while at the same time if you are loving and nurturing to your cat, it will walk up to your legs and rub up against them looking for attention. Here's a lab test for you. Put the sheep-banger in a 10'x10' room with his "partner" and see if it goes apeshit and tries to tear down the wall...
Homosexuality is gross to a lot of folk. Just because you think beastility is gross and wrong doesn't make it so. All I'm doing is taking this point of view to its next logical step. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:People were arguing for slavery less than two hundred years ago. It was banned, but that's all. Rich land owners were still allowed to employ people, just not own slaves.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
So.... don't dismiss my statement because it is a very valid one.
A Slippery Slope fallacy backed by an appeal to tradition isn't a valid argument.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I fail to see how that has anything to do with anything Cit. Nice attempt at misdirection again. You're so mysterious. Kudos to you.
Besides, that comment wasn't even directed at you. Have you run out of things to argue with me about, that this is all you have left? "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not really, it's an analogy, perhaps you've heard of them? Your point isn't valid, it's a logical fallacy. I fail to see what this entire post of yours has to do with anything, save perpetuating the animosity you seem to enjoy so much.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I fail to see how that has anything to do with anything Cit. Nice attempt at misdirection again. You're so mysterious. Kudos to you.
Quote:You say that like it matters.
Besides, that comment wasn't even directed at you.
Quote:You're the one that scurried away to have the same conversation with someone else when I started to ask some difficult questions Jack, not I.
Have you run out of things to argue with me about, that this is all you have left?
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
None of your questions are difficult Cit, they're just off topic and a waste of my time, and just a way for you to get your rocks off. I'm seriously convinced that you're masturbating while you write to me. And trust me, I'm very flattered 
Here. I have a few questions for you beat off to....
Assuming that the animal doesn't mind, or even enjoys it, is beastiality any worse than homosexuality? I'm not asking by today's political and social envoirnment, but as purely a pleasure with no victim based equation, leaving out any worries of how gross some or most others may find it. Those donkey show donkey's sure seem to enjoy it...
(Again, just another example of how these things seem to be not so bad if a woman is involved...)
Why do you science types, who have so successfully distanced yourself from the pre-determined destiny of God and religion, flock so quickly to another set of ever-changing rules about nature and let them convince you that you have no control and you are who you are because you were born that way?
(Just a glowing example of what I said the preist said years ago that when people don't follow God, they will undoubtedly find something/someone else to follow)
Why do people automatically resort to calling somebody a homophobe when they question the validity of genetics determining sexual preference? It surely seems to me an argument that in today's social climate can never be won. I dub it the "homophobe card"....
(I'm not an evil hater. To each their own. Again.... just saying that people need to own up to their actions and quit trying to pass the buck.)
Hope it was as good for you as it was for me Cit. Can't wait till next time big boy. 
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Your fantasies are your own, and say nothing about me. My questions were perfectly on topic, but you skip round them because you obviously don't have an answer. Becoming argumentative and insulting is an indication of desperation, and basically proves me right. Thanks
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
None of your questions are difficult Cit, they're just off topic and a waste of my time, and just a way for you to get your rocks off. I'm seriously convinced that you're masturbating while you write to me. And trust me, I'm very flattered
Quote:Because an animal can't give it's consent. As someone who professes to believe so much about choice, why do you continue to be so obtuse as to deny there’s a difference between having a choice and not? You’re rabid insistence that beastiality and paedophilia are the same as homosexuality; betray homophobia, not any argument about its genetic roots. I’m sorry Jack, I know you like to portray yourself as the lone ranger who sees through society’s façade to the truth, but your not. Being a free thinker doesn’t mean thinking the exact opposite to everyone else and then portraying yourself as a martyr.
Assuming that the animal doesn't mind, or even enjoys it, is beastiality any worse than homosexuality?
Quote:That's certainly a marvellous strawman, but exists no where but inside your own head. Why do you insist on holding no adherence to a religion, while speaking like a Christian Fundamentalist?
Why do you science types, who have so successfully distanced yourself from the pre-determined destiny of God and religion, flock so quickly to another set of ever-changing rules about nature and let them convince you that you have no control and you are who you are because you were born that way?
Quote:What some priest said is proof against scientists? Well least you're not biased or anything. The priest was wrong, trying to dismiss science as another religion, even though it isn't. He was wrong, and you're wrong to take his say so without question. It's a glowing example of nothing more than you'll take the word of a priest while dismissing the evidence of science.
(Just a glowing example of what I said the preist said years ago that when people don't follow God, they will undoubtedly find something/someone else to follow)
Quote:The reasons you may have been called a homophobe isn't because of the genetic question, it's because you imply homosexuality is bad and needs to be blamed on something. Thats a pretty obvious homophobic attitude, it's nothing to do with your stance on its genetic roots. Your words betray a somewhat homophobic mindset, and the fact you want to fantasise about me masturbating betrays some repression there fella.
Why do people automatically resort to calling somebody a homophobe when they question the validity of genetics determining sexual preference?
Quote:Homosexuality being genetic and personal responsibility are two separate issues; your rabid insistence to the contrary has managed to prove nothing, save that you don’t consider anyone else’s opinion worth even listening to, let alone considering.
(I'm not an evil hater. To each their own. Again.... just saying that people need to own up to their actions and quit trying to pass the buck.)
Quote:I'm not involved in your fantasies about me, I just don't think of you that way, sorry.
Hope it was as good for you as it was for me Cit. Can't wait till next time big boy.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
blah blah blah....
That isn't different than any other post you've had on this thread or any other thread you and I get into. Aren't you so bored playing this game Cit?
Why don't you stop talking and just get over here and and give me a kiss big boy. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know I have my own patterns that I'm sure you could point out... but I've noticed that the only time you ever say anything to me is either to a) attack God, or b) defend homosexuality.
It's true. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Takes two to play a game Jack, though I'm sure as hell not surprised that you won't accept blame your self. Personal responcibility is more than just a mantra to throw at people you disagree with, it's something you actually have to do...
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That isn't different than any other post you've had on this thread or any other thread you and I get into. Aren't you so bored playing this game Cit?
Quote:I've never attacked god, and if I have to defend homosexuality when I talk to you, it rather proves my point regarding the homophobia. I'm sure you think you're being terribly clever, but you're actually just proving me right.
I know I have my own patterns that I'm sure you could point out... but I've noticed that the only time you ever say anything to me is either to a) attack God, or b) defend homosexuality.
It's true.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Because an animal can't give it's consent. As someone who professes to believe so much about choice, why do you continue to be so obtuse as to deny there’s a difference between having a choice and not?
How do you know that that sheep-banger isn't the greatest thing to have ever happened to that lonely little sheep? Who are you to deny the sheep that pleasure. You're willing to believe 100% in the power of genetics in same-sex attraction, but you can't even give it 50/50 that the animal just might like it?
And are you telling me that you science folk can split atoms and map our entire genetic structure, but you are unable to tell if an animal or human being is finding a situation pleasurable or not? Talk about obtuse... It's called body language, my man. It's a great tool to help you empathize with other human beings and I feel sorry for you that you don't know how to read it. No wonder you science types have the stereotype of never getting laid....
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I've never attacked god, and if I have to defend homosexuality when I talk to you, it rather proves my point regarding the homophobia. I'm sure you think you're being terribly clever, but you're actually just proving me right.
Welcome to Cits fantasy world everyone, where he can manipulate your words into always proving his point. Citizen... a man who is never wrong about anything and can always fall back on the ever-changing net of science to prove or disprove whatever he wants to at any time. A master of misdirection that even Houdini would have been in awe of. I applaud your ability and the insane amount of love you must have for yourself to know that you are always right about everything.
I believe we have a spot for you here on W. Bush's panel. He needs all the help he can get right now.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:When a Sheep says yes and consents to sexual activity, you've got something, until then you need to read a dictionary to find out what the word Obtuse actually means
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
How do you know that that sheep-banger isn't the greatest thing to have ever happened to that lonely little sheep? Who are you to deny the sheep that pleasure. You're willing to believe 100% in the power of genetics in same-sex attraction, but you can't even give it 50/50 that the animal just might like it?
.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I've engaged in debate with people; I've listened to what others say. You, on the other hand, have made wild accusations and insulted anyone you disagree with. The very opening line of this thread eloquently demonstrates that the only person here who constantly believes himself right, is you. You lack even the basic respect to listen to another person’s point of view, let alone consider it; your posts amount to nothing more than sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "Shut up! You’re stupid I'm not listening".
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Welcome to Cits fantasy world everyone, where he can manipulate your words into always proving his point. Citizen... a man who is never wrong about anything and can always fall back on the ever-changing net of science to prove or disprove whatever he wants to at any time. A master of misdirection that even Houdini would have been in awe of. I applaud your ability and the insane amount of love you must have for yourself to know that you are always right about everything.
Perhaps one day you'll grow as a Human being to the point of respecting other people and their rights, rather than bitching constantly about your own, but not today. It’s a sad fact that the people who protest most about their rights care the least for others, something you unfortunately embody. Well I'm done with you, your flaky argument has fallen apart and you're now concentrating on trying to spark a flame war in order to cover your withdrawal, unfortunately for you I am in no mood to enable you immature behaviour, troll away Jack, troll away.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, just chill out OK? You have to seen enough of Rap and Hero to know that cutting loose like you did just makes you sound like an ass. It doesn't win anyone to your side, and doesn't make for a fun debate.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Sorry mal4prez.... You just happened to be the one I replied to. Reading people's responses in here is like listeing to a broken record. You just happened to be the 5th person to say what I replied to, so you got the spite that came with it. (Usually reserved for Citizen)
My bad....
Maybe people keep repeating themselves to you because you're not listening and responding to what they say, hmm?
Quote:Shame on you - again going into the Rap style of debate.
If homosexuals can be satisfied with being given the right they deserve to have a legal union recognized by the state and NOT attack the church or demand that the government force the church to change its stance on marriage, then no, homosexuals aren't hurting anybody.
Seriously, when did marriage and religion came into this? OK, since you bring it up, let's clarify... My personal belief is that no one should have a legal right to marry. Everyone (of age) should have the legal right to a civil union with whoever they choose (of age), and all financial and legal benefits go with that. Marriage - the act of joining before the god of your choice - should be a completely separate thing which each couple and each church works out on their own, seperate from the law and all legal benefits.
So, we don't disagree. Let's lay down the rule that by saying gays having a right to live as gays, we're not talking about religion. OK?
Quote:Somehow, I knew you're were going to respond this way, and that you'd jump on my "gross" statement... Can you not just answer the basic question of consent?
You say you can't judge how an animal reacts to beastiality?
It's not purely about physical harm. A child molester can get a child to physically enjoy the act, to see it as love, and the victimized child shut in a 10x10 room with the molester may very well cuddle up, even initiate as they've been trained to do. They don't know better. But once they're grown up they begin understand what happened them, and see the harm. Hypersexuality, avoidance of sex, emotional problems, etc...
Read carefully here: a child, like an animal, is not mentally capable of giving consent. If a woman hits on me tonight and I like her, I can choose to give consent.
Which ties into someting I feel you'd agree with: the ultimate law of my life, the way I think the world should be, is that everyone is free to do as they will as long as it doesn't impede anyone else's rights. Let's break that down...
Homosexuality -> consent is given -> everyone involved has freedom of choice -> A-OK!
Pedophila -> no consent is possible -> child has no freedom of choice -> Bad!
Beastiality -> no consent is possible -> animal has no freedom of choice -> Bad!
Do you disagree with this? If so, can you explain without changing the subject?
As to gays raising children... I get that you would not choose to have gay parents, that you are squicked by that. Now, I was raised by a very straight M/F couple - a drunk and a borderline personality. I'd have done much better with a gay couple who were sane. Do I get to choose that?
You seem to continue to see this cloud of damage to all that follows gays everywhere, even after you admit that they harm no one. Where is the damage in gay parenting? Do you think they can't help but molest? Do you think that children will grow extra legs or something? What's up?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
....until then you need to read a dictionary to find out what the word Obtuse actually means
Obtuse
1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
LOL... I don't have any problem with labeling you obtuse Cit.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Beastiality -> no consent is possible -> animal has no freedom of choice -> Bad!
Do sheep kick?
Justaquestionisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Are we honestly debating the merits and flaws of bestiality?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wouldn't know. Haven't been in that situation myself.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Beastiality -> no consent is possible -> animal has no freedom of choice -> Bad!
Do sheep kick?
To take this comment entirely too seriously: a sheep not kicking does not constitute consent. It's equivalent to a child not fighting.
EDIT to Anthony: Jack keeps insisting that homosexuality and beastiality are equivalent. Yes, ridiculous, but I disagree strongly enough that I have to stick with the topic.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I hope he was saying that they may both have genetic causal factors, and not that they are equally desirable or repugnant.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME