Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Widewing on October 14, 2004, 08:56:48 PM
-
This was in my e-mail this evening. It's certainly a different approach to the issue, and it's funny besides.
_____________________________ _______________________
During the Presidential Debate on Wednesday evening, the question was asked of the candidates, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?"
Bush responded with, "I just don't know."
Kerry answered with, 'I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.
And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them."
Bush's answer seemed honest. Maybe Kerry's was honest too. However, if you accept that homosexuality is not a choice, but biological, then you must face the reality of what that implies.
Can anyone say with confidence that homosexuality is natural? I can't imagine that as being normal to nature as the driving instinct of the natural world is to reproduce. Therefore, if homosexuality is not normal within nature, it must be defined as a defect, probably genetic in origin.
Is this not a conclusion based upon solid reasoning?
Now, the medical community has classified many genetic defects as diseases. Could being gay be a disease, and if so, could medicine not develop treatments? Perhaps genetic engineering could someday provide a "cure"?
Does this mean that gay Americans should be classified as being disabled? Maybe, but I'll be damned if we're going give them handicapped parking permits!
Before you dismiss my thoughts due to your own personal prejudices, stop and think about this: If being a homosexual was classified as a disablement, then would gays find any protection under the American's With Disabilities Act? This law makes discrimination based upon a disability a crime.
As rediculous as this may appear on the surface, it may be worth investigating.
_____________________________ _______________________
Widewing
-
Have you been living under a religious rock?
Watch more PBS or Discover Channel.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Have you been living under a religious rock?
Watch more PBS or Discover Channel.
Torque, if you exchanged places with Bill Gates, I'm convinced you still couldn't buy a clue....
Read the lead line again... The one I wrote. :rolleyes:
My regards,
Widewing
-
They say alcoholism is genetic. But you can not drink. Maybe they need something like AA.
BFA??
Either way, do what ya want with yourself, just don't tell me I am obligated to approve of it or "accept" it.
And no, I don't have a fear of homosexuals. It's always bothered me that the homophobic label is applied to anyone that doesn't agree with that particular lifestyle.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
They say alcoholism is genetic. But you can not drink. Maybe they need something like AA.
BFA??
Either way, do what ya want with yourself, just don't tell me I am obligated to approve of it or "accept" it.
And no, I don't have a fear of homosexuals. It's always bothered me that the homophobic label is applied to anyone that doesn't agree with that particular lifestyle.
Ya, don't ya just hate it when some one applies a label to you just because you don't agree with a particular lifestyle ;)
-
I think you're mixing up your standards.
Normal vs. Abnormal
and
Natural vs. Unnatural
I believe homosexuality is natural, but abnormal. Homosexuality has been an observed behavior with animals. Why not people?
Granted... Some "normal" people engage in homosexual behavior. They aren't homosexual. They are deviant. ;)
-
" I can't imagine that as being normal to nature as the driving instinct of the natural world is to reproduce."
BS reasoning, it's for survival of the species, not for procreation of the individual.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
This was in my e-mail this evening. It's certainly a different approach to the issue, and it's funny besides.
_____________________________ _______________________
Kerry answered with, 'I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.
And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them."
I was Cracking my 16 year old son up when Kerry was making these statements about people he "met"
I couldnt resist saynig over and over "Jim McGreevey"
"Mrs Jim McGreevey"
Its just too bad for Bush the scandals involving our NJ governor werent covered more nationally.
that comment would have went down as the most comical of the debate
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
" I can't imagine that as being normal to nature as the driving instinct of the natural world is to reproduce."
BS reasoning, it's for survival of the species, not for procreation of the individual.
Which is exactly the point the writer was making...
What's with you Canuck guys tonight? :)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Sorry dude, jumped the gun. :o
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Can anyone say with confidence that homosexuality is natural? I can't imagine that as being normal to nature as the driving instinct of the natural world is to reproduce. Therefore, if homosexuality is not normal within nature, it must be defined as a defect, probably genetic in origin.
Is this not a conclusion based upon solid reasoning?
It is not.
First, there is no clear evidence that homosexuality is heritable. Even if it were, there is no barrier to homosexuals being able to reproduce. Many homosexuals have children. And many heterosexuals don’t. Don’t confuse sexual activity with reproduction -- most of the time the former has nothing to do with the latter.
Homsexuality is “natural” in that it occurs in nature. Homosexuality is present in many species, including species of apes, such as bonobos, in which homosexuality is an ordinary component of sexual behavior.
As Sandman points out, homosexuality is usually abnormal in that it is not the typical norm. Like being left handed is abnormal.
And one more thing...
BS reasoning, it's for survival of the species, not for procreation of the individual.
Nope, individuals are selected. Organisms do not behave for the good of their species. In fact, an individual organism competes primarily with others of it own species for reproductive success.
-
Originally posted by myelo
Nope, individuals are selected. Organisms do not behave for the good of their species. In fact, an individual organism competes primarily with others of it own species for reproductive success.
Not necessarily. Perhaps not for the good of the species but perhaps for the good of the common genetic heritage.
Homosexuals for example don't compete for reproduction. There's a theory that homosexuals exist to limit competion within a family group. I read somewhere that the chances of a given child being a homosexual increases with the number of children you have. For example with the first two child you have say the chance is 1 in 10, then it increase to 1 in 9, or what have you.
So you have some kids, the more you have the higher the chance of homosexuality. The homosexual child will not be competion for their syblings, but because of instintual desire to protect the family or common genes they are a valuable member of the family group.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Either way, do what ya want with yourself, just don't tell me I am obligated to approve of it or "accept" it.
And no, I don't have a fear of homosexuals. It's always bothered me that the homophobic label is applied to anyone that doesn't agree with that particular lifestyle.
well said...
i am not afraid of them, i dont like them and they go against my religion
Torque, dont throw your aithest evolutionist stuff this way, i wont bother responding.
if it is genetic, how dows it proliferate? how is it "passed on" when true homo's dont reproduce?
like any inherited trait according to you evolutionists it would slowly dissapate, NOT proliferate and expand like is it. there seems to be a vertible boom in gayness, and that goes against every "law" of evolution. any trait that is undesirable, or impeding to the advance of the species should not proliferate.
either way saying you are "born gay" is just another excuse for a deviant lifestyle. you ever want to squash a cricket even though there was no reason to? it was just not right, you were told not to do it, but you wanted to the the "bad" thing?
well now you have an excuse, you were born to do it genetically.
-
All I know is I have seen more than one "queer" bull run thru the sale barn.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Can anyone say with confidence that homosexuality is natural?
It occurs throughout nature, so by definition it is natural.
-
JB73 is a self hating fudge packer.
-SW
-
Originally posted by myelo
Homsexuality is “natural” in that it occurs in nature. Homosexuality is present in many species, including species of apes, such as bonobos, in which homosexuality is an ordinary component of sexual behavior.
Not the greatest of examples, Bonobos are extremely endangered, only 2 or 3,000 left in central Africa.
Although the precipitous population drop is due to human factors, if they were reproducing like rabbits, it might help.
-
Originally posted by JB73
like any inherited trait according to you evolutionists it would slowly dissapate, NOT proliferate and expand like is it. there seems to be a vertible boom in gayness, and that goes against every "law" of evolution. any trait that is undesirable, or impeding to the advance of the species should not proliferate.
How is it that infertility still exists. By you logic it should have been bred out long ago?
well now you have an excuse, you were born to do it genetically.
How do you explain this "deviant" behaviour in other animals?
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
JB73 is a self hating fudge packer.
-SW
thank you for that consice analysis of me. it all makes sence now.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
How is it that infertility still exists. By you logic it should have been bred out long ago?
i only used the evolution against itself. if you think logically about it, none of it makes sense.
heck there are so many fundamental flaws in it i cant see how anyone would believe it.
as for my personal thoughts on infertility, genetic mutations brought on by environment. different chemicals in the world around us are known to cause sterility in both men and women, and it is not possible to track all of these in every thing we eat, breathe, drink, or come in contact with. heck it could be radiation from television that increases the risks of infertility. i dont know.
i do know what i believe, and what i trust in. and that will not be changed.
-
Originally posted by JB73
well said...
i am not afraid of them, i dont like them and they go against my religion
Torque, dont throw your aithest evolutionist stuff this way, i wont bother responding.
if it is genetic, how dows it proliferate? how is it "passed on" when true homo's dont reproduce?
Genes are passed down from generation to generation but the offspring isn't just the combined DNA of its parents, the grandparents, great grandparents etc are also present. The characteristics are determined by which genes are dominant and which are recessive. Check out that Monk guy and his sweet pea plants.
like any inherited trait according to you evolutionists it would slowly dissapate, NOT proliferate and expand like is it. there seems to be a vertible boom in gayness, and that goes against every "law" of evolution. any trait that is undesirable, or impeding to the advance of the species should not proliferate.
Maybe queer bashing is not as popular as before so they feel safer coming out. Perhaps a world population of 6 billion and counting, when there aren't enough resources for those already here, queenliness is our species way of ensuring future survival
either way saying you are "born gay" is just another excuse for a deviant lifestyle. you ever want to squash a cricket even though there was no reason to? it was just not right, you were told not to do it, but you wanted to the the "bad" thing?
well now you have an excuse, you were born to do it genetically.
Thats your opinion and your entitled to it
-
JB, the it's not genetics of the child that determines if they will be a homosexual, it's the genetics of the mother.
The theory is that fetus starts of as gender neutral, during the gestation process the mother releases hormones into the amneotic fluid which affect physical and mental gender aspects. As the mother has more children, the greater the chances that the she will release hormones that will creat a homosexual child.
This is how it can be passed on even if the homosexual doesn't procreate.
-
I think its both. I think theres a genetic predisposition to being 'gay' (by this i mean its not like they are born and immediately are gay from birth, but that genetically they are more likely to become gay ... kinda like people are genetically more prone to being fat while others can stuff their faces all day and do no excercise and still be thin as a chopstick).
And I think that the enviroment is largely responsible. In a nutshell if I raise a kid and tell him or her during all his childhood and puberty that men do it with men then yeah, theres a very good chance he'll be gay. Not a choice thing but a learned thing.
-
I think some of you guys use Lamarkian genetics.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
I think some of you guys use Lamarkian genetics.
You mean Lamarckian.
-
Spelling and grammar are not my strengths.
-
I always found it amusing that people think that just because they have seen certain behavior in animals, it means this behavior is 'normal' or 'natural'. like profound evidence is some sort of absolute proof.
it's as if they believe mental illness, psychological damage from trauma, learned behavior, conditioning, responses to environmental variables, or other issues that can produce deviant behavior afflict humans exclusively.
just because you once saw a messed up animal exhibit a certain behavior, doesn't make that behavior normal or natural.
-
Depends on your definition of "natural" capt. In my opinion humans, and all other life forms can't do anything unnatural, because we are of nature.
There can be atypical behaviour, but not unnatural.
-
So if I dump the oil from my car into my neighbors yard that is natural? Gaping wounds in the Earth from strip mining, animal extinctions, etc? All natural events.
-
Here is a picture of a natural strip mine:
(http://www.stat.ufl.edu/~bklingen/canyonlands/images/Grand%20Canyon.jpg)
as for animal extinctions, about 60 million years ago, at 2:35 GMT on a beautiful Tuesday afternoon, a velociraptor pack crept up on a immature delaptadon....
-
Originally posted by Lizking
So if I dump the oil from my car into my neighbors yard that is natural? Gaping wounds in the Earth from strip mining, animal extinctions, etc? All natural events.
According to what I believe of "natural", yep.
-
Me too, I just wanted to confrim.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Its just too bad for Bush the scandals involving our NJ governor werent covered more nationally.
that comment would have went down as the most comical of the debate
Yes. Cheney's daughter has seemed to get more publicity than the NJ governor. Hmmmm.
[Spock Voice] Fascinating [/Spock Voice]
-
Originally posted by Lizking
So if I dump the oil from my car into my neighbors yard that is natural? Gaping wounds in the Earth from strip mining, animal extinctions, etc? All natural events.
Originally posted by Thrawn
According to what I believe of "natural", yep.
Originally posted by Lizking
Me too, I just wanted to confrim.
(http://www.gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/08252004/beanidiot.jpg)
-
Originally posted by JB73
i only used the evolution against itself. if you think logically about it, none of it makes sense....
ROFL welcome to the 10th century.
One hint, JB: it's not because you have a very limited knowledge about a topic that it is false...
Do you still believe that mice are generated by old sweaty shirts?
I guess that creationism was so much easier to learn and understand...
Thanks for the laugh
:rofl :rofl :aok
-
Wow rpm, I know you have me struggling in the iron grip of reason.
-
Why would a Heterosexual regard Homosexuality in others as anything other than a blessing?
It makes for bettar lesbian porn, cuts down on the odds when it comes to aquiring a mate.
By human nature alone Heteros should be promoting Homosexuality, unless they have another hidden agenda.
-
Close Torque, hetero males should be promoting bisexuality in women, not homosexuality. Female (exclusive) homosexuality reduces the odds of a menage a trois.
Promoting homosexuality in other males to better the odds of getting a bi-sexual pair of babes however would be the correct strategy.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I read somewhere that the chances of a given child being a homosexual increases with the number of children you have
Number of male children actually.
-
Originally posted by JB73
i am not afraid of them, i dont like them and they go against my religion
Homosexuals aren't against your religion, your religion is against homosexuality.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
This was in my e-mail this evening. It's certainly a different approach to the issue, and it's funny besides.
_____________________________ _______________________
During the Presidential Debate on Wednesday evening, the question was asked of the candidates, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?"
Bush responded with, "I just don't know."
Kerry answered with, 'I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.
And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them."
Bush's answer seemed honest. Maybe Kerry's was honest too. However, if you accept that homosexuality is not a choice, but biological, then you must face the reality of what that implies.
Can anyone say with confidence that homosexuality is natural? I can't imagine that as being normal to nature as the driving instinct of the natural world is to reproduce. Therefore, if homosexuality is not normal within nature, it must be defined as a defect, probably genetic in origin.
Is this not a conclusion based upon solid reasoning?
Now, the medical community has classified many genetic defects as diseases. Could being gay be a disease, and if so, could medicine not develop treatments? Perhaps genetic engineering could someday provide a "cure"?
Does this mean that gay Americans should be classified as being disabled? Maybe, but I'll be damned if we're going give them handicapped parking permits!
Before you dismiss my thoughts due to your own personal prejudices, stop and think about this: If being a homosexual was classified as a disablement, then would gays find any protection under the American's With Disabilities Act? This law makes discrimination based upon a disability a crime.
As rediculous as this may appear on the surface, it may be worth investigating.
_____________________________ _______________________
Widewing
You are dead on target. I have had this discussion before with many in the medical and clergy fields, and it always end up here.
IF not a choice, must be birth defict.:aok
Good on you.