Pages: 1 2 3

 

2006-06-11 21:55:40
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6797
Yarr, I'd agree. I've seen two classmates end up making the turn to homosexuality (maybe 3, if not 4?), and it mostly had to do with seclusion from the "general" male/female commonality. They were usually out of touch with masculinity/femininity that is usually seen (within that gender group), either incorporating largely with the opposite sex or acting uncomfortable when with those of similar gender. After some rejections (if not awkward "intimate" relationships--I'm not sure, never really knew these guys/gals well enough to "see how things went" [although I can testify to there being rejection]), they just began disseminating "their being gay". From what I've seen, they had developed an instrinsic tendency (genetics) to stray away from "natural order"  (as this here aipotwckma puts it), and then (as one would perceive, a most definite causal link between such tendencies) became accustomed to their role/position within the social structure.

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-11 22:05:17)

2006-06-11 23:20:40
~Solar~Fire~
Member
+45|6888|Austin, TX
aipotwckma you're just using Islam as your definition of morality. 'Morals' are by their very nature, tied to a person's beliefs; you cannot seperate the two.

Yes there are laws based on various ideas of moralty, but they shouldn't be. Laws are based on the rights of an individual to their life, liberty and property. Theft is wrong because it is stealing what belongs to another without permission. Murder is the taking of ones life. You have the right to do what you want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. You have the right to believe anything that you want, but when you try to force that on me through "laws of (your) morality," you've gone beyond your own rights and have infringed on mine.

I should and do have the right to consume alcohol. But I do not have the right to endanger the lives of others by driving while drunk, that would be taking away their right to safety and life. I have the right to consensual sex with someone who is of the legally-determined age of consent. To force myself sexually upon someone who does not or cannot consent to it is a violation of thier rights.

As for homosexuality, what causes it is completely and totally irrelevent to this discussion. It could be 100% predetermined from conception OR by some feint chance, a total choice. Either way, the obvious fact is that is doesn't affect you. Adam and Steve can bang each other 24/7 in the privacy of their own home and it will NEVER affect you. You have absolutely NO legal reason to stop it.

Your definition on what is 'natural' is flawed as well. It is instinctive to maim or kill those the competition for resources, such as food or shelter, but no sane human being would ever condone that. What is natural however, is many species of animals being observed having sex for pleasure, with multiple partners and/or with those of the same sex.

Your beliefs are flawed, but you have a right to them as long as you don't force them on others. I do not agree with what you say, but I acknowledge you have a right to say them.



Here is the real reason why fundamentalists of any religion hate secularism: it takes away their power and pride. Without the radically strict system of Sharia law in Iran, who is the Ayatollah but just another man? Without a gay man to hate, how else with homophobes feel better about themselves? By putting someone down, they're trying to put themselves up. Secularism is bitter for them because its the truth: following arbitrary rules doesn't make you better than anyone else.

Oh and for the record, I am a Christian, gay and I support a secular world.
2006-06-12 01:39:22
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6915|Canberra, AUS
All correct about the 'sex for pleasure' bit. Only two known animals have sex for pleasure - humans and dolphins.

But your last statement makes little sense. How can you be christian AND secular at the same time? The very basis of secular ABHORS religion.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-06-12 01:54:27
schakl
Member
+21|6929

JaMDuDe wrote:

schakl wrote:

Just one point: When it comes do a discussion about god I tend to say:
God made me an atheist and then he punishes me for that. Thats not nice
You could go to church this sunday, but YOU decide not to. Its your choice.
I agree, but my brain which decided was made by god in your opinion. So why did he make my brain
to come to that conclusion ?
2006-06-12 02:10:06
schakl
Member
+21|6929
My opinion: What two (or more) ADULTS do FREELY in their bedroom must be of NO interest to OTHERS!
(I hope my english is correct)

If gay people love each other, no problem, if they try to love me I will say : 'stop that'.
I also think it's genetic, but on the other hand if it is genetic they must have been died out (??? lol).
I think all people are gay in some way. When you admire a man it's also some kind of homosexuality. All people who try to control others sex are suspect to me.
2006-06-12 02:12:15
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7015|Noizyland

Hey.
Just want to say thanks to everyone on this thread. I'm in the middle of exams at the moment and had my POLS112 exam today. One of the essay questions was on Religious Fundamentalism and I used quite a bit of stuff from this thread.
Cheers everyone!
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2006-06-12 02:22:33
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6797
Cheater! LoL!!! >_<'
2006-06-12 02:24:21
schakl
Member
+21|6929

Spark wrote:

All correct about the 'sex for pleasure' bit. Only two known animals have sex for pleasure - humans and dolphins.
Also some monkeys do that. I like it. It is a present of god, so why don't use it if both partners agree ?

Spark wrote:

But your last statement makes little sense. How can you be christian AND secular at the same time? The very basis of secular ABHORS religion.
I am also a christian atheist. Most of the ideas of the 'human' Jesus Christ are very good and are supported by me (and I think he would also dislike the current catholic church).
What I don't support is the supernatural being called god, primary because I haven't found any glimpse of him in my life yet.

Last edited by schakl (2006-06-12 02:25:54)

2006-06-12 03:00:40
~Solar~Fire~
Member
+45|6888|Austin, TX

Spark wrote:

But your last statement makes little sense. How can you be christian AND secular at the same time? The very basis of secular ABHORS religion.
Secularism is often mistaken with the promotion of atheism. Secularism merely says that church and state should be seperate. I believe in my religion 100% and support the rights of others to practice their religion (within the limits I just discussed of course), but I don't believe government should get involved in it.

I can't say it any better than this though:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
2006-06-12 07:51:05
panic.fo
Member
+-1|6887
Religion should be banned. Period. And it should be kept as far away from the state as possible.

I can't even bother to put down the ignorance of the post's owner.. they just keep coming back..
2006-06-12 09:06:46
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7018

schakl wrote:

JaMDuDe wrote:

schakl wrote:

Just one point: When it comes do a discussion about god I tend to say:
God made me an atheist and then he punishes me for that. Thats not nice
You could go to church this sunday, but YOU decide not to. Its your choice.
I agree, but my brain which decided was made by god in your opinion. So why did he make my brain
to come to that conclusion ?
God also made free will. He made your brain with free will so u could have a fair chance.
2006-06-12 09:08:17
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6956

Tyferra wrote:

Hey.
Just want to say thanks to everyone on this thread. I'm in the middle of exams at the moment and had my POLS112 exam today. One of the essay questions was on Religious Fundamentalism and I used quite a bit of stuff from this thread.
Cheers everyone!
if u dont get at least an 80... im gonna have a talk w/ ur proffesser and my little katana friend is gonna pay him a visit as well
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-06-12 09:24:09
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6872|949

Spark wrote:

All correct about the 'sex for pleasure' bit. Only two known animals have sex for pleasure - humans and dolphins.

But your last statement makes little sense. How can you be christian AND secular at the same time? The very basis of secular ABHORS religion.
Bonobos chimpanzees have sex for pleasure as well, and are the only species besides humans to have sex in different positions.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-06-12 09:24:21)

2006-06-12 12:08:07
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6941

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

There are other mental issues that cannot be easily cured through therapy. Therefor, saying that efforts to cure homosexuality through therapy have a dismal success rate is not tantamount to it being a genetic issue. I never did say that homosexuals couldn't socially "function every bit as well as heterosexuals;" only that the "genetics" of it is still a topic under intensive ongoing research. Despite sensationalist claims tossed about by health journals one way or another, people are fools if they latch onto the gay gene theory with an undying grip merely because it makes them feel more comfortable.

I don't consider homosexuality a disease, either. Not in the same way as something like Parkinson's. But the whole "gay gene" thing is about as humorous as the less well-known "furry gene."
I would counter that some people are fools if they dismiss the theory offhand. Nowhere did I say that I believed it to be entirely inherited, I said that evidence supports a link between genetics and homosexuality. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Here is some reading material for you.

The question remains of whether homosexuality is a choice or is it genetic. Many people argue that it is not a choice. Nobody would choose a life that is difficult and faces ridicule and discrimination. We do not know the cause of homosexuality, but scientists are starting to reveal some very interesting research that may proved that being gay can be genetically determined, or an individual my be genetically predisposed to be gay. It has been shown that among families, family members who are gay is very high. Over 60% of identical twins, if one is homosexual, the other is too. Non-identical twins, 22% are gay.

Several genetic studies have been done that appears to genetically link homosexuality. Pillard and Bailey did a study on twins and homosexuals. They compared the percentage of male siblings who were both gay with the amount of genetic material they shared in order to find evidence for a genetic link of homosexuality. Among twin pairs where one twin was gay, they found that 52% of the identical twins were both gay, 22% of the fraternal twins were both gay, 9% of the non-twin brothers were both gay, and 11% of the adopted, or genetically unrelated brothers were both gay. They concluded that because the identical twins have a higher percentage rate than other siblings, the idea that sexual orientation is genetically influenced is consistent. Some experts questioned Bailey and Pillars findings. They both agreed they had difficulty finding a random and unbiased sample of homosexual population. They also were not able to categorize bisexuality as being either homosexual or heterosexual, and did not allow for it to be its own trait. Because of this, experts felt this study could not determine homosexuality as genetic.

Another study done by Simon LeVay focused on the size of INAH3 nucleus of the hypothalamus. He wanted to test whether the areas INAH-2 and INAH3 in the nucleus were different in size not by sex, but by sexual orientation. By proving a difference in size, he could establish that the brains of gay men were similar to that of women's brains. He only found that INAH-2 exhibited difference in sexual orientation. It was two times larger in heterosexual men as homosexual men, and he concluded it was different because of sexual orientation, not because of a difference in sex.

Dean Hamer, a molecular geneticist also did a study which tried to identify genetic markers which could influence a person's sexual orientation. Hamer recruited male siblings who were both gay and created a family tree chart tracing the incidence of homosexuality among family members. He identified the X chromosome as the site for the genes that code for homosexuality. He analyzed the DNA of each pair of brothers and also analyzed the DNA of mothers, when it was available. Hamer thought that if the mother's DNA showed two sets of markets, one on each chromosome, and each of their homosexual sons shared the same kind of marker, than the sibling pair was deemed concordant-by-descent, which would allow Hamer to declare a genetic link to homosexuality. The biggest critique of this was that Hamer never actually found the homosexual gene.

In conclusion, a large amount of evidence is leading us to the genetic link towards homosexuality, but not entirely a conclusive one.
source: http://www.dowling.edu/faculty/Perring/wheelan.htm

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard