|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
posted February 14, 2011 02:29 AM |
|
|
...wooooaw dude oO. "Defect" lol? Why would it be a defect to be attracted to a guy or girl when you are a guy or girl. Sure Darwin would teach us that they would go under but still.
If a guy is handsome and great why not be attraced to him for the person he is rather than because your brain is supposedly wired "wrong". I'm not gay mind you but I don't like the notion of saying "it's not evolution proof thus it must be a defect". You like a person for the human he/she is not because he/she has a dick or boobs.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 02:33 AM |
|
|
Well for political reasons I'm sure most scientists would steer away from using that word, but that's essentially what it is.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 02:33 AM |
|
|
Homosexuality being called a “defect” is akin to calling left-handedness a “defect” – it doesn’t make sense, because being left-handed does not affect health or flourishing. Neither does homosexuality (unless you count being more likely to be beaten up in school)
At least define in what sense do you see homosexuality as a defect - because if it is for cultural reasons then surely it is not comparable to eg. color blindness.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
radar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Castle/Haven player
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 02:36 AM |
|
|
Well certainly it's not what nature intended to invent since there's no logical reason for doing so. Hence I'm with blizz on that.
____________
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 02:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Homosexuality being called a “defect” is akin to calling left-handedness a “defect” – it doesn’t make sense, because being left-handed does not affect health or flourishing. Neither does homosexuality (unless you count being more likely to be beaten up in school)
At least define in what sense do you see homosexuality as a defect - because if it is for cultural reasons then surely it is not comparable to eg. color blindness.
Homosexuality is not akin to left-handedness. Left-handedness is less common but otherwise irrelevant. The core function of a human is to produce offspring, and homosexuality is a very obvious obstacle to this end. In a broader context, homosexuality is an obstacle for finding a mate even if not for reproductive reasons, because you have exceedingly less options than a heterosexual or bisexual individual. If you're a gay man, you can encounter a guy that you're attracted to and there's a ~95% chance that he does not and will never have any interest in you. To even try to express your attraction toward him would be an act of futility, and thus you have no choice but to abandon hope and move on.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Warlord
Famous Hero
Lord of Image Spam
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 02:44 AM |
|
|
Function of human is to produce offspring to produce more offspring to produce more human to produce more offspring... BLARGH!!
Sorry, couldn't help it.
____________
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 02:46 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 02:47, 14 Feb 2011.
|
Sorry dude, nature "intends" nothing.
Edit. @Blizz. And every single one is supposed to procreate? It is actually perhaps preferrable that a family that has many children that the latter are homosexuals so for example they can help raise his/her siblings offspring. So I can't say for a fact that it is every humans "fuction" to procreate.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 02:51 AM |
|
|
With our level of medical technology, it's preferable that people in general have few children. You're missing the point.
It's not like I'm saying we should do away with contraceptives and start impregnating everything that has a pulse. The point is that a human is suppose to come out like X, but occasionally they come out like Y. This is a defect. A Windows error message pops up.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 03:26 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 03:29, 14 Feb 2011.
|
I'll response to this, as I understand it to be the point you are making Quote:
The core function of a human is to produce offspring, and homosexuality is a very obvious obstacle to this end.
You might be wrong. As radar says "it is illogical" but maybe if looking at the matter only from the surface? There are countless possibilities why homosexuality as a trait is existing in _hundreds_ of species. What if it is actually beneficial in a way?
Of course we are yet at a theoretical level but here are a few ideas taken from New Scientist a series of articles about "evolution myths":
1) It has been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have had a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and hence getting access to the opposite sex.
2) Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals.
3) Or perhaps homosexuality is neutral, neither reducing nor boosting overall fitness. Attempts to find an adaptive explanation for homosexual behaviour in macaques (species of monkeys) have failed, leading to suggestions that they do it purely for pleasure.
4) Even if homosexuality does reduce reproductive success, as most people assume, there are plenty of possible reasons why it is so common. For instance, gene variants that cause homosexual behaviour might have other, beneficial effects such as boosting fertility in women, as one recent study suggests, just as the gene variant for sickle-cell anaemia is maintained because it reduces the severity of malaria
Lastly I'd point out to various cultures in human history that had various forms of homosexuality in them with them unlikely to decrease reproductive succsess (the higher in hierarchy, the more lovers etc)
Well there some food for thought.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 03:39 AM |
|
|
It's always a possibility. I've read about those explanations before and it seems like people are just reaching for reasons rather than allowing the reasons to present themselves. I suppose more will be revealed in time.
As for homosexuality existing in various species, that's presumably because all species more or less develop the same way. We have far more in common than not in common. It doesn't in itself suggest homosexuality is a preferable trait. You can have Siamese twins in various species also.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 03:52 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 03:58, 14 Feb 2011.
|
Some actual food for thought.
Edited out the Latin bit since it did sort of sound too theatrical, didn't it. 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 03:58 AM |
|
|
Holy **** that statue is so badass. He looks like a level 20 mage.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 04:01 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 04:01, 14 Feb 2011.
|
But he was a level 20 mage!
Quote:
# Dealing in magics and divination.
Oh I can just wonder what books he had at his basement...
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 04:03 AM |
|
|
*nods satisfied at the discussion's new direction*
My work here is done.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 04:07 AM |
|
|
I bet his father was gay.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 08:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But actually you can basically seeing Jesus as well, saying, like !Ah, Dad, stop griping already. You know how they are - after all you made them. They didn't pick becoming gay when they were born, so let them be. Don't judge them - and if they really love each other and have best intentions, why not allowing them to be happy?"
Nah, gays are not born gay and Jesus said nothing of the sort.
This seems to be a misunderstanding. What I mean is, that gays do not pick for themselves, when they are born, that they will become gay - it's not a deliberate decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, Elodin, you call everyone interpreting the Bible different than you a liar. You call everyone who followed their beliefs when they are not consistent with your interpretation liars as well.
Even if they WERE wrong, if they believed it to be right, it was no lie. And even IF they lied, they just SINNED. Are sinners ceasing to be Christians?
The answer is NO, Elodin, NOT AT ALL. Not to mention that they wouldn't lie out of base motives and without seeking advantage for themselves.
People made laws against homosexuality, because they thought that homosexuality was extremely wrong, since god would want it to be punished with death. They thought, if god didn't want it with the Israelites, he can't be ok with it for everyone else.
So they made laws against it.
This is not so much different from adultery which was a crime in earlier times AND IS STILL ONE in parts of the USA. In the US army it can get you a court martial, in Michigan a life sentence is possible.
These laws are as well based on the Bible. People then had the notion that the laws God made for His people could only be good laws - fulfilling God's will would be a great start. That's why they did it.
It's not that long that people have come to think that these laws may not be so good as the people have thought they were in the past.
Also, stop telling the plethora of Christian denominations what's right and what's wrong. You are not Jesus or God, for their sake, and you are not all-knowing or owner of the absolute truth.
The Bible has been interpreted and is still be interpreted, and with the New Testament one thing clearly is, that it isn't the letter of the law that matters, but the spirit.
And the spirit would say, that it depends on whether people love each other more than everything else whether a marriage is blessed by god or not. Considering, how many marriages are seemingly unhappy and are divorced, it's clear that those do NOT have God's blessing in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't be so unhappy.
You might say instead, however, that those who become unhappy and get divorced eventually, are no true Christians - if they were they would know that you shouldn't divide what god has put together; if they really were good Christians and would believe in the holyness of marriage and in the blessing they get, they would put up a bigger fight to save their marriages or work harder so that it wouldn't come to a situation like that in the first place.
In any case, that is of no matter. IF a church decides, yes, we WILL marry two men or two women - which seems to be the case here - I'm sure they can make a good case of why they would do it, and YOU are certainly not in the position to say they do the work of the devil.
On the other hand it's also clear, that if a church decides, no, we will not marry two men or two women, they can make a good case against it as well.
There are ramifications, though. If a church decides to marry gays, that church automatically declares gaiety as no longer sinful, at least, anyway, if the aim is basically the same as with a straight couple. Love each other until death parts them, maybe "have" children and so on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
About whether homosexuality is a defect or not, I'm with Minion.
The only thing pointing to a defect is, that gaiety wouldn't allow reproduction, which is wrong. It doesn't preclude from it, since - as Minion pointed out - bisexuality is something that can be learned if necessary.
I'm rather sure than homosexual people can reproduce should they really feel the need to. Today this is fairly obvious - an egg can be fertilized without the actual need of having sex with eaxh other.
But even without high-tech, in ancient times, it would have been possible.
However, even if everyone would agree that it wasn't the norm - so what? Handicapped people are not the norm either, but we don't have laws against them. Come to think of it - doesn't have most everyone a "defect" nowadays? How many people are going to a shrink? Autism, bipolar disorder, dyslexy, attention deficit and hyperactivity, kleptomania, paranoia, fits of fear...
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 09:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
With our level of medical technology, it's preferable that people in general have few children. You're missing the point.
It's not like I'm saying we should do away with contraceptives and start impregnating everything that has a pulse. The point is that a human is suppose to come out like X, but occasionally they come out like Y. This is a defect. A Windows error message pops up.
I understand your point, but from a biological point of view, I'm not sure you can relate the different things quite the way that you do - at least, from what I read into it.
Notice that the whole 'survival of the fittest' and 'nature working for a purpose' - which is in fact a very unfortunate way of looking at it, given that evolution is completely random - anyway, those concepts are tied down with evolution, which again is related to genetics. Genetic errors in general are inherited.
As far as I'm informed, homosexuality is not tied down with Genetics. There is no gene that makes you homosexual, and there is no inherited relationship between homosexuality - there has been no indication that homosexuals come down from a line of other homosexuals, or with a higher frequency of homosexuality (at least from what I've ever heard). Also, twin studies show that there seems to be no connection, as couples where both children are gay are no more common than what would be expected from random distribution. Also, if homosexuality was indeed inherited, it seems likely that, even if some individuals married and got children to fit in, over the generations, it would be less frequent due to many individuals simply never getting children. With the current rate of homosexuality (~5-10 %), it seems unlikely that rates have been much higher in the past (unless we all started out as gay  ).
Anyway, my point is that I can see what you mean about homosexuality being a "defect" in that it works against the survival of the species, but I think that it's wrong to use it that way, at least from a scientific point of view. The "having children purpose" only makes sense either in terms of evolutionary theory or if you put some moral purpose into the workings of nature (i.e. the God theory).
Quote:
About whether homosexuality is a defect or not, I'm with Minion.
The only thing pointing to a defect is, that gaiety wouldn't allow reproduction, which is wrong. It doesn't preclude from it, since - as Minion pointed out - bisexuality is something that can be learned if necessary.
I'm rather sure than homosexual people can reproduce should they really feel the need to. Today this is fairly obvious - an egg can be fertilized without the actual need of having sex with eaxh other.
But even without high-tech, in ancient times, it would have been possible.
I think, however, that this argument is also not true. It is true that if homosexuality affected ability to have children, obviously it would be an evolutionary "defect". However, given that it is less likely that homosexuals will have children, if it was a genetic mutation it would die out in a limited number of generations - even if some speciae chose to marry and get children, they would be likely to have less of them (less inclined to sex), these would be less likely to marry or would have less children, etc. Thus, even if homosexuality doesn't affect ability to have childring, it would be likely to succomb to heterosexuality in the long run.
Thus, in order for homosexuality to "survive", it would have to be a constantly re-occuring mutation event, which is not likely in terms of evolution, which is based on random mutations (and given the complexity of the human genome, the likeliness of the same mutation happening frequently is vanishing).
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 11:16 AM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 11:20, 14 Feb 2011.
|
Oh, c'on guys! It's HC!
There are gays on this world you can't get rid on them.
There are christians and muslims - big deal for the gay guys if they don't like them, right? Do they care? No. Do the first care? No.
There are people that beat the crap out of gays on the parades - don't parade.
There are no gay marriages - live together without marriage.
Think "how" not "why".
Also:
Big deal if not having biological children mean you have no family for someone, if YOU feel it as a family, should you care?
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 11:19 AM |
|
|
Well, if you are born that way, it must be genetics. If not, it's environmental. Since most researches lean to the theory that gays are born like that, it must be the genes. But, yeah, most likely not something as simple as eye color. Thing is, if you are born in a certain way, it WAS the genes. There's no third option.
And Elodin's misinterpretations and twists are getting old. You're giving Christianity a really bad names on those boards, Elodin. This is because you seem to be 100% certain that you can't be wrong in your interpretations, means, it's haughtiness. Which a) is annoying b) is a sin.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted February 14, 2011 11:22 AM |
|
|
Same, here DF. Who cares why there are any gays (biologicaly or they become with the time), since there ARE gays anyway, right? Who the snow cares why? Isn't this pointless to know?
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
