kids get it

[flip]

Yeah man, being accepted for the way you're wired is a really awful thing.

Yeah man, but it's all the decisions you make throughout your life that makes the connections . The great thing is man's ability to rewire himself by changing his mind and making different decisions.

[Top Gun]

Maybe in some cases accepting the way you're "wired" isn't such a good idea. However I was referring to action, which you changed into predisposition to accomplish your sarcasm. That kind of a twist is pretty blatant for someone of your intellectual standing, isn't it?

Except that action and predisposition are essentially one and the same in this case, so separating them is meaningless.

I said they want what they DO to be accepted. I have sympathy for people who may have a certain disposition toward homosexuality, and I believe that there is help for it, but anyone should know that its pretty screwed up for a guy to go after another guy. It's something to be ashamed of.

No...it's not. At all. And until you figure that much out, your opinion is frankly worth squat, because you've failed to accomplish even the most basic understanding of what this entails.

Honestly the more times I re-read that statement, the more pissed off I get, because it's that sort of vile doctrine that drives confused teens to suicide. Tell me, dude, if one of your kids turned out to be gay, what would you do?

Yeah man, but it's all the decisions you make throughout your life that makes the connections . The great thing is man's ability to rewire himself by changing his mind and making different decisions.

...is that supposed to mean anything at all? Because it really doesn't.

[Burlyman]

eww.

[Pandora]

Yeah man, but it's all the decisions you make throughout your life that makes the connections .

Yeah, that's one part of it. The other part are of course the connections that are formed on the basis of genetic instructions, or the environment you grew up in.

The great thing is man's ability to rewire himself by changing his mind and making different decisions.

Again, that is only true to some extent. Many connections can be genetically formed or in sensitive faces during development and may be impossible to alter.

[Pandora]

anyone should know that its pretty screwed up for a guy to go after another guy. It's something to be ashamed of. No one likes to live with shame... but when you start saying it's fine then you've got a whole new problem.

I am honestly shocked to read this sentence. Why would this be screwed up? And why should anybody be ashamed of it? I say, stick it wherever you want, as long as it is consensual (and the other person is capable of giving consent). I have no idea why anybody would want to restrict people's freedom in this.

[flip]

I think your right Pandora. Many things can lead to aberrant behaviour, but it's still behaviour. Some people are born with a predisposition towards alcohol. It's still a behavioural problem. I have no problem with them enjoying full and equal status under the law of the land, as it involves 2 consenting adults, but the behaviour is no better or different from any other kind of lawlessness to me.

EDIT: Honestly, I think everyone is subject to some type of dysfunction. It just happens to be whatever was offered at an early age.

[CUDA]

actually I'd like to get back to the OP, that kids get it.

NO they don't.

Kids Parrot. and anyone that thinks that kid wasn't coached to say what he say is fooling themselves. that kid is being used as a tool for an agenda, and I personally find that More offensive then the whole Gay V Straight argument.

IMHO

[Heretic]

Without sound you can never know what that kid actually said. How many think that kid would say husband and wives. Instead of mommies and daddies or actually see over the top of a ping pong table.

[Tunnelcat]

Where's that violin music coming from? Freedom from persecution is well and good, but when you say they know that people will "hate" them, but they want to be free from bigotry, that's a contradiction unless you devise a legal means to suppress the people who "hate" them. And don't **** redefine acceptance in the middle of the argument. They ARE fighting for acceptance.

I don't accept Christianity, but I don't go out and try to ban their right to freedom of worship or be practicing Christians. That right should NOT include the extension of their beliefs to repress non-Christians in a free society however. You don't have to "like" the way someone else lives, but you should have the common decency to allow them the freedom to live it the way they wish and as equal members under the law in a free society.

Most Evangelicals see Mormonism as a cult and not true Christianity and don't really like Mormons. Most are even holding their noses to even cast a vote for Romney. Should we allow Evangelicals to repress or re-outlaw Mormonism just because they think it's a perversion of the faith?

[Sergeant Thorne]

I have no idea why anybody would want to restrict people's freedom in this.

"Restricting people's freedom" has not been part of my argument.

You don't have to "like" the way someone else lives, but you should have the common decency to allow them the freedom to live it the way they wish and as equal members under the law in a free society.

Common decency is EXACTLY what is at stake. As far as I'm concerned these people are equal under the law, and they as anyone else are free to live however they please, but their equal standing and desire to be accepted does not change the fact the homosexuality is immoral, abnormal, and unhealthy.

Mormonism began as a cult. Whatever it is today (some of their rituals higher up in the Mormon "church" are taken from Masonry, which is highly pagan), and despite the media campaign to brighten their image, Mormons believe some pretty far-out stuff, on basis which are historically ridiculous. I could make an arguement that a man who believes that if he is faithful to Mormonism and the Mormon church he will rule his own planet--peopled entirely by him in an Adam and Eve-sounding scenario--is not suited to the office of President of the United States. "As God was, so are we, and as God is so shall we be", is a Mormon saying. Don't look at me cross-eyed because I have some reservations about a Mormon being in the presidency. But my biggest gripe with Romney is my gripe with every other candidate except Ron Paul--they're all ignoring the real problems. Not to digress.

[Pandora]

sorry, Thorne, if I was misinterpreting you. You said "However I was referring to action, which you changed into predisposition to accomplish your sarcasm". I read that as meaning that you would have no problem if somebody would be *feeling* homosexual, but that you have problems with somebody *acting* on this predisposition. Not allowing them certain actions - or at leat stigmatizing these actions as shameful - feels like restricting their freedom to me.

"the fact the homosexuality is immoral, abnormal, and unhealthy."
I do not understand where this *fact* comes from. It is not unhealthy if practised safely. It may be statistically abnormal, but so is being a genius. Whether it is immoral is (it seems to me) only based on religious teachings, and so would follow only for the followers of this religion, but certainly not for anyone.

[snoopy]

actually I'd like to get back to the OP, that kids get it.

NO they don't.

Kids Parrot. and anyone that thinks that kid wasn't coached to say what he say is fooling themselves. that kid is being used as a tool for an agenda, and I personally find that More offensive then the whole Gay V Straight argument.

IMHO

This is why what kids have to say can provide a bit of comedic relief, "kids say the darndest things" style, but shouldn't exactly be followed by adults. I think that sometimes they have a way to coming at issues from an angle that adults are too conditioned to recognize. So, sometimes there's value in what kids say, in that it sometimes yields a new perspective on the issue that can then be explored by adults. A lot of benefit can come from this, but I think that the the rule is generally that kids just don't have the knowledge or development to see the whole picture. (which is why they can come from new angles....)

[Tunnelcat]

As far as I'm concerned these people are equal under the law, and they as anyone else are free to live however they please, but their equal standing and desire to be accepted does not change the fact the homosexuality is immoral, abnormal, and unhealthy.

That's your opinion and not based in fact. They are also not really free or equal under the law either, mostly due to political pressure from people who hold the same opinion as you.

[snoopy]

As far as I'm concerned these people are equal under the law, and they as anyone else are free to live however they please, but their equal standing and desire to be accepted does not change the fact the homosexuality is immoral, abnormal, and unhealthy.

That's your opinion and not based in fact. They are also not really free or equal under the law either, mostly due to political pressure from people who hold the same opinion as you.

How about "unproductive" or maybe "un-re-productive?"

Again, the problem is our lack a ability to divorce people's choices and actions from their being.

[Sergeant Thorne]

That's your opinion and not based in fact.

Not true. That is my perception, and it does have basis in proven fact.

I tried to demonstrate some of the more easily proven points in this topic, and it was simply denied.

They are also not really free or equal under the law either, mostly due to political pressure from people who hold the same opinion as you.

You're deviating from reality here, in attempting to frame the topic according to your goals--a homosexual is every bit as free as I am, and they are equal before any court.

[Top Gun]

I tried to demonstrate some of the more easily proven points in this topic, and it was simply denied.

Journal articles or GTFO.

[Burlyman]

actually I'd like to get back to the OP, that kids get it.

NO they don't.

Kids Parrot. and anyone that thinks that kid wasn't coached to say what he say is fooling themselves. that kid is being used as a tool for an agenda, and I personally find that More offensive then the whole Gay V Straight argument.

IMHO

You pretty much hit the nail on the head here. =P Even if that stupid kid didn't parrot it, he got it from somewhere external. Adults do these things too, like the OP. =P

[Tunnelcat]

How about "unproductive" or maybe "un-re-productive?"

So? What does that matter? Do we really need more people on this already overpopulated planet anyway? The percentage of heteros on this planet far outweighs the number of gays anyway. There's no shortage of reproducers out there to keep the planet hip deep in new humans. However, if some apocalypse where to occur, wiped out most of humanity and there were only a few people left alive, then it might be an issue.

Not true. That is my perception, and it does have basis in proven fact.

Ditto with Top Gun. Perceptions are not facts, so what valid facts do you have to prove your perceptions.

Here's some light reading ST and snoopy, if you haven't perused, or dismissed, this source already.

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

[Sergeant Thorne]

Feel free to quote from it, if it addresses anything I've brought up.

First valid fact is that males and females are designed to be attracted to and intimate with the opposite sex.

[Top Gun]

...except when they're not. Seriously, what about that is hard to understand?

[CUDA]

...except when they're not. Seriously, what about that is hacrd to understand?

Proof
And i mean scientific evidence. Not your opinion

[Spidey]

...except when they're not. Seriously, what about that is hard to understand?

That might be a hard case to make, considering the hardware.

[Top Gun]

...except when they're not. Seriously, what about that is hacrd to understand?

Proof
And i mean scientific evidence. Not your opinion

Funny, I thought those "hundreds of species exhibiting homosexual behavior" and "homosexuality increasing reproductive success of siblings" references constituted scientific evidence.

[Spidey]

I think the point here is the term “by design” homosexuality is more likely a software issue.

[flip]

Again, considering the emotional and psychological differences between humans and animals, I'm not sure that is a valid argument. We could argue all day about our biological beginnings, but those differences should be obvious to everyone. I also think it's dangerous for them to continue to compare them to animalistic behavior. 30 years down the road that could get them killed. I have a Black Lab. I threw an old futon mattress out one time. Left it outside for about 3 days before I went took it to the dump. That lab continuosly molested and humped that mattress for those 3 days, mindlessly. Guy couldn't help it . He'd walk by and his hips would start convulsing. Lol, I really did pick that mattress up with a 10 foot pole . My point. It looked like a total chemical reaction that got triggered in which he had no control over. Same as Pavlov's dogs

[Top Gun]

Well, yes, there's no denying the physical plug-in-socket design, but there's also no denying the evidence that homosexuality has proven an effective trait in the animal kingdom. Otherwise, it wouldn't still be here.

Think about it this way: if homosexuality was a trait that conveyed a genetic disadvantage, it would have been selected away long before now...if being gay doesn't help you pass on your genes, then the genetic factors allow for homosexuality would die off. However, we can see that hasn't been the case, and there's a reasonable explanation for it. Genetically, you wind up being something of a closer match to your siblings than you do your children. As it turns out, the female siblings of homosexual males tend to have more children than females who don't have homosexual brothers; this suggests genetic material on the X-chromosome promoting both increased fertility in females and homosexuality in males. (Homosexuality in females seems to be unrelated to this; I wasn't able to find a lot of good info from a layperson's standpoint in the time I spent digging.)

As to why those two traits should be linked, that's where we get back to genetic similarity with siblings. If a male being homosexual helps his sisters have more children, then "his" genetic material is getting passed on through them, which is a reproductive success. One concept for why this increase occurs in the first place is tied to "kin selection," a term for evolutionary strategies which benefit the offspring of family members, even potentially at the cost of one's own ability to bear offspring. In the case of homosexual siblings, the idea is that, by being free from raising children themselves, they would contribute to the raising of their sibling's children, boosting their own chances for survival. Moving away from the direct sibling angle, there's another line of thought that certain feminine traits in males make them seem more attractive to females, with homosexuality representing the extreme end of that spectrum.

This is still an area where a great deal of research is taking place to gain a better understanding of what's going on, and I don't claim to be an expert in genetic selection. But even a cursory glance at what's out there reveals a very interesting picture as to how homosexuality in individuals is tied to reproductive success in their families...turns out sex is pretty damn complicated. As I said at the beginning, the fact that homosexuality occurs in hundreds of animal species, including humans, and has continued to do so, is a pretty clear indication that it serves a beneficial purpose.

Edit: There's nothing "dangerous" about it, flip. We may be the only species out there that's achieved true consciousness and self-awareness, but from a genetic standpoint, we're still mammals, and we're subject to the same genetic variations as any other mammal out there. Hell, we share about 99% of our entire genetic code with chimpanzees...you want to tell me that doesn't qualify as similar?

[Spidey]

I’m pretty sure if that was the case, we would see a much higher instance of homosexuality.

There is absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is genetic in so far as a “homo” gene…there is no evidence it runs in families, so that kind of disproves the sibling theory, and since gays tend to not reproduce, the “homo” gene has no way to reproduce itself.

And how the hell would this gene know when to express itself (or be expressed)…I’m not buying it.

Homosexuality is more likely a potential that “all” humans have in their genes, and is likely initiated by some trigger event/s

So as I implied before, more like an adaptation or modification, rather than by design.

[flip]

Similar and yet wholly different , in regards to conciousness and awareness. I'm pretty sure if a monkey goes apeshit in the wild, he isn't thinking that far ahead. He is reacting to immediate threats or stimuli. If he kills 3 of his clan, tomorrow the only difference is there is 3 less than the day before. Life goes on for them. With awareness comes responsibility and consequences. I'm just looking down the road at the high-minded evolutionists, who will start separating people by whether they lap directly from the stream or not .

[Top Gun]

I’m pretty sure if that was the case, we would see a much higher instance of homosexuality.

There is absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is genetic in so far as a “homo” gene…there is no evidence it runs in families, so that kind of disproves the sibling theory, and since gays tend to not reproduce, the “homo” gene has no way to reproduce itself.

And how the hell would this gene know when to express itself (or be expressed)…I’m not buying it.

Homosexuality is more likely a potential that “all” humans have in their genes, and is likely initiated by some trigger event/s

So as I implied before, more like an adaptation or modification, rather than by design.

Man I love when people who have no biological background and have plainly done absolutely no reading on the topics involved try to prognosticate on stuff like this. Every statement you've made here is wrong, and the "no reproduction" line proves that you didn't even read my post properly.

Similar and yet wholly different , in regards to conciousness and awareness. I'm pretty sure if a monkey goes apeshit in the wild, he isn't thinking that far ahead. He is reacting to immediate threats or stimuli. If he kills 3 of his clan, tomorrow the only difference is there is 3 less than the day before. Life goes on for them. With awareness comes responsibility and consequences. I'm just looking down the road at the high-minded evolutionists, who will start separating people by whether they lap directly from the stream or not .

And what sort of genetic or neurological knowledge do you have that would allow you to make those determinations?

[Spidey]

Ok, how should I respond….


No, everything YOU said was wrong….nah nah na nah nah.

[Top Gun]

...you know what, ★■◆● it, you're not worth it. Christ, it's like every goddamn person on this board failed out of high school.

[flip]

Man I love when people who have no biological background and have plainly done absolutely no reading on the topics involved try to prognosticate on stuff like this. Every statement you've made here is wrong, and the "no reproduction" line proves that you didn't even read my post properly.

See, that's the problem TG. You think since you are well-studied on a subject it makes you an expert. What you have really done is filled your head and memorized what everyone else's conclusion's on the subject are, and left no room for your own.

[Spidey]

I know…I’m not worth a damn thing.

[Top Gun]

Man I love when people who have no biological background and have plainly done absolutely no reading on the topics involved try to prognosticate on stuff like this. Every statement you've made here is wrong, and the "no reproduction" line proves that you didn't even read my post properly.

See, that's the problem TG. You think since you are well-studied on a subject it makes you an expert. What you have really done is filled your head and memorized what everyone else's conclusion's on the subject are, and left no room for your own.

You know why I studied information about this subject? Because THAT'S WHAT LEARNING IS. It's reading things written by people who know a hell of a lot more than you, realizing why they came to those conclusions, and then building on them. What you do...well honestly, I don't know what the hell goes on in your head, but it's the exact opposite of "learning." Make your own conclusions? How the hell do you expect your conclusions to mean anything when you don't even have a high-school-level understanding of the topics involved?

And for flying ★■◆●, I said in no uncertain terms that I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON GENETICS. However, what I DO know how to do is educate myself on subjects I'm not an expert on. Obviously you don't.

I know…I’m not worth a damn thing.

On this subject? No, you're not. I know more than you about it, I know how to learn more about it much better than you seemingly do, and most importantly, I'm actually WILLING to learn about it in the first place. So yeah, learn your place.

[flip]

Problem is, as soon as you deem yourself ignorant and someone else smarter than you are, you leave yourself open to their misinterpretations and limitations. What I do is take cold hard facts and see what I can build with them, if it starts looking weak, I don't get all pissed and ★■◆●, I move on. You should stay in a science that is safe, where most evrything has already been laid out for you.

[flip]

On top of that, I believe my education was quite adequate at teaching me to teach myself. I basically got your high school education in middle school. We had 6-8. The school was built somewhat like a honeycomb. Each grade had a commons, where they ate together right outside the classrooms. The classrooms were hive shaped and had 3 classes in them but was completely open. We had great food and never went anywhere in lines. Throughout the day we would have a schedule to go to smaller classes where there were maybe 5-6 of us. We would be presented with questions and then have great discussions on them. Or problems and have to come up with several different solutions. It was great fun. I went from kindergarten until 8th grade in that school system and wish like hell i could have finished there. We moved to the bum-fucked kudzu and it was like stepping back in time. Give a man a fish or teach him how to fish, that is the question.

[Top Gun]

On top of that, I believe my education was quite adequate at teaching me to teach myself. I basically got your high school education in middle school. We had 6-8. The school was built somewhat like a honeycomb. Each grade had a commons, where they ate together right outside the classrooms. The classrooms were hive shaped and had 3 classes in them but was completely open. We had great food and never went anywhere in lines. Throughout the day we would have a schedule to go to smaller classes where there were maybe 5-6 of us. We would be presented with questions and then have great discussions on them. Or problems and have to come up with several different solutions. It was great fun. I went from kindergarten until 8th grade in that school system and wish like hell i could have finished there. We moved to the bum-fucked kudzu and it was like stepping back in time. Give a man a fish or teach him how to fish, that is the question.

...I think this is finally the key to figuring out what's going on with you. Learning strictly via rote memorization is a terrible way to produce true critical thinking skills, but taking things to the opposite extreme, attempting to learn using only self-reasoning, is every bit as dangerous. The truly-successful path lies somewhere in the middle, by learning what those who came before you accomplished, then working through how they did it, and moving forward from there. I kept wondering why your usual style of response in technical-minded threads involved starting with a few basic concepts, then mashing them together to come up with completely-erroneous conclusions...but what you describe of your educational experience explains that. If you're going to attempt to go for a self-reasoned route, you'll have to either put yourself in a lab and do a bunch of experiments yourself, or else get the data from someone else who has. Because if you don't have either of those, what you're going to find out is that your own reasoning is often going to lead you down the wrong path, one that simply doesn't mesh with the physical reality of the world. That's exactly what's been going on in many of your posts.

There's no shame in expanding your knowledge by reading what other people have already figured out, and it's not being "brainwashed" to seek out information from expert sources. We've collectively figured out a ton of stuff about how our world works, and not taking advantage of that seems like an awful waste to me. Again, I really think you'd benefit from taking a look at some good general-audience books about some of the subjects that come up in here.

[Tunnelcat]

I think the point here is the term “by design” homosexuality is more likely a software issue.

That actually may be the best statement you've made about the issue Spidey.

Researchers are finding that while homosexuality may, or may not be genetic, the fetal brain can definitely be influenced by what hormones or chemicals it's exposed to in the womb during early development. Even twins can have differing exposures in the same womb, which explains why some twins can have differing sexual preferences. Medicine, with the best of intentions, preventing miscarriages for example, can also create some homosexual children, as was the case when this drug was routinely given to pregnant women during the 1940's thru the 1970's.

Diethylstilbestrol

But, like all studies, no verifiable proof yet exists to tell us what definitively causes homosexuality. We still have more to learn and a stigma to get rid of in the meantime.

Here's a PDF of more recent research if anybody's interested. A bit heady though.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch7.pdf

[snoopy]

Sorry to be a bit snarky last time.

I'm going to try to state my case from a more practical "what does this mean" standpoint.

For the US society as a whole:

The simple answer is that we need to do our best to apply the concept of "peace and liberty for all" as well as we can. In my opinion, that means that we should try to minimize our involvement in the matter. I sort of against both legislated bans on same-sex unions, and approvals of same-sex marriage alike. IMO less government (and personal) involvement is better on the large "society" stage. Let the same-sex unions enjoy the same legal perks as provided to different-sex unions and be done with it. On the same vein, don't make any rules about how accepting and tolerant everyone has to be about homosexuality specifically. Handle bullying on an even scale... whether the subject matter be homosexuality, religious beliefs, race, class, or whatever else. If it's bad enough to be considered "cruel" (yes, I know, that's very subjective) then do something about it...

The complex answer is that we need to learn more. My simple answer is based on the assumption that homosexuality and heterosexuality have an equal effect on the society. Obviously, the effect isn't identical. Most likely, they are fairly equivalent (especially if you consider heterosexual couples that are impotent). Once we learn some more, than maybe we can, as a society, decide to do something about one or the other if it proves to be damaging enough. In reality, I doubt there will ever be anything strong enough out there scientifically to merit anything other than an equal political playing field.


For individuals:

Bullies come in all shapes and sizes. If you're being a bully, you should stop. Hyper-sensitive people also come in all shapes and sizes. My answer to balancing the two lies in individual motives and responsibility, which is often lacking. You, as an individual, should hold yourself accountable to never speak with the intent to hurt. I know that's not really going to happen, but that should always be the goal. On the other hand, I think that you, as an individual, should always strive to give other people the benefit of the doubt that they were not trying to hurt, either. In other words - you're really only able to control yourself - so don't be a bully and don't be hyper-sensitive.


For Christians specifically:

See homosexuality as a sin in the context of the fact that everyone is a sinner. Especially, see it in the context of the fact that you are a sinner. The pride, anger, hate, etc. that you display when you go off on crazy tirades against homosexuality says more about you than it does about the people you're railing against. That doesn't mean that you have to say that you think homosexuality is okay... but it means that you have to admit that you're no better than anyone else.

[callmeslick]

Again, considering the emotional and psychological differences between humans and animals

....which are, what exactly? Please prepare to back up with proven facts, knowledge and references across the entire spectrum of the animal kingdom. Hint: we don't know a small fraction about how emotions nor psychology operate in our own species, let alone, say, dolphins, who might prove illustrative.

We could argue all day about our biological beginnings, but those differences should be obvious to everyone.

no, they are not. However, the bottom line seems to be that most of these arguments involve a group of folks with very limited knowledge debating with a handful that clearly have no clue. With that dynamic, it's no surprise that the body of human understanding doesn't move forward here.....

...(amusing tale snipped).... My point. It looked like a total chemical reaction that got triggered in which he had no control over. Same as Pavlov's dogs

and you don't think humans operate in EXACTLY the same fashion over a different set of chemical, electrical, physical and psychological triggers? Really? Seriously? Please, rush to the local library, or log onto Amazon, and do some reading about
human behavior and things like trained vs.instinctive response.