| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/05/2007 08:59:21 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by muckpond:
there are a number of genetic abnormalities that are fatal to children before they reach the age of reproduction. going with your line of thinking, shouldn't those have been wiped out long ago because the victims never reproduced? |
Which abnormalities? |
Tay-sachs, Meckel-Gruber, Canavan Disease to name a few. there are also a myriad of disorders that shorten lifespans and impact fertility.
i'm not arguing that homosexuality is due to a genetic disorder. i'm merely pointing out that it's possible to carry (and pass on) genes that accentuate traits without actually exhibiting them yourselves. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 09:00:18 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by muckpond:
there are a number of genetic abnormalities that are fatal to children before they reach the age of reproduction. going with your line of thinking, shouldn't those have been wiped out long ago because the victims never reproduced? |
Which abnormalities? |
There are literally thousands. Some rare, some not so rare. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 09:02:17 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by muckpond:
there are a number of genetic abnormalities that are fatal to children before they reach the age of reproduction. going with your line of thinking, shouldn't those have been wiped out long ago because the victims never reproduced? |
Which abnormalities? |
Tay-sachs, Meckel-Gruber, Canavan Disease to name a few. there are also a myriad of disorders that shorten lifespans and impact fertility.
i'm not arguing that homosexuality is due to a genetic disorder. i'm merely pointing out that it's possible to carry (and pass on) genes that accentuate traits without actually exhibiting them yourselves. |
I understand what you are saying. It just seems pretty unlikely given natural selection that a genetic disposition to -not- continuing the species would continue to exist over the long term. I mean this isn't a disease, this is a reversal of one of the tenents of how we define "life" - it reproduces itself. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 09:03:14 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
spaz - i have hidden your last post.
please do not drag this argument into a religous debate or it will be locked like the other thread.
thanks. |
Well, OK. It would seem that since religious beliefs are most commonly at the root of people's homophobia and the most common grounds for damning homosexuals and homosexuality that religion is central to the thread topic. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 09:06:48 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Which abnormalities? |
Tay-Sachs disease (commonly kills prior to age 5)
Cystic Fibrosis (commonly kills during childhood, though not always)
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 09:08:03 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
spaz - i have hidden your last post.
please do not drag this argument into a religous debate or it will be locked like the other thread.
thanks. |
As the OP, I have to say I wouldn't mind if religion were discussed in relation to homophobia, because as Spaz says, 'tis a big branch of the root. But when the prosyletizing begins, run for the hills. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 09:11:41 AM · #57 |
ok, then. i will take a hands-off approach. spaz, if you want to post your comment again please do.
i'll continue to watch the thread, though. i hope it doesn't get all wacky as this is a very interesting discussion. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 09:36:34 AM · #58 |
I am amazed at the schizophrenia of Conservatives over Darwin. They want to stop teaching his ideas in schools and yet they love the idea of Survival of the Fittest. It underlies their economic agenda and is the pseudo-scientific basis of arguments against homosexuality.
Here's a notion: the survival we are talking about is survival of the *species*. Do you really think that what our species needs right now is to make lots and lots of babies? Are you aware of the environmental problems we're having right now? The human species would have a much better chance of survival if a high percentage of us were born homosexual. Then once our population numbers were manageable, the percentage could drift down to a more equitable level.
So to legislate against gay marriage because they won't make babies has no pragmatic, species-helping justification. The definition of marriage is different from culture to culture, from time period to time period. So "a man and a woman" is a great song (you should hear Ella Fitzgerald sing it), but is not a historical reason to legislate against gay marriage. The only historical reasons against gay marriage are the same historical reasons for supporting slavery: "it was like this in the past, so it should be like this now." The trouble with history is that it keeps changing. You can pick and choose whatever you like from it.
So when you peel away the false arguments, you get to the real one, the moral argument. This is based on homosexuality being against the norm. If you are religious, then you point to your religious text (most of which contain a list of norms to follow). No matter how liberal we think we are, we all have norms that we want others to adhere to. Except maybe the anarchists. But we find ourselves in a world where different people have different norms, and we must find compromises. There are certain things that I find harmful and hurtful. I am aware that this might be just a cultural bias, and I'm willing to listen to arguments against why they should be legalized. This willingness to listen has caused me to have a relatively small list of norms that I feel must be adhered to.
Anyone against gay marriage thinks that homosexuality is immoral (or is trying to get elected). You know it's true. You can drop your talking points engineered to make you sound more reasonable or enlightened. Everyone has moral boundaries. I completely understand yours. They're based on a lack of experience (or a rigid determination to ignore experience). I have known gay couples who are utterly devoted to each other. I knew a gay man who was almost as annoyed at Gay Pride marches as you are, because he didn't like being defined as a muscleman strutting around in bikini briefs and a pink boa. These are people who, ironically, want to be normal, functioning members of society. Restrictive laws force them to be radicals, to be progressives, to vote against Republicans. Thus, there are homosexuals who are also against gay marriage. They argue that homosexuals should reject the society that is putting them down. Personally, I don't want to force homosexuals to choose between activism and feigned heterosexuality.
It is true that they have not found a gene for homosexuality, nor have they found a gene for heterosexuality. To say that one is a choice but the other is not is presumptuous. I'm careful about my presumptions, and even after I make them I continue to examine them. I wish everyone made that effort. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 09:38:56 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I understand what you are saying. It just seems pretty unlikely given natural selection that a genetic disposition to -not- continuing the species would continue to exist over the long term. |
Rats (and other species) have been shown to exhibit homosexual behavior during times of over-population/food shortages, so perhaps it's actually a survival mechanism for the species as a whole -- while certain individuals may not reproduce, the species as a whole can survive in the face of Malthusian pressures. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 09:39:19 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
ok, then. i will take a hands-off approach. spaz, if you want to post your comment again please do.
i'll continue to watch the thread, though. i hope it doesn't get all wacky as this is a very interesting discussion. |
Yes, it is, and I'd like to state for the record that I am *NOT* trying to change anyone's mind, I *am* interested in offering up my views to provoke thought, and perhaps research, as I also welcome all of your positions as respectable as belonging to you no matter how I feel about them.
I'd like to qualify that by saying that I respect your right to have the opinions, though I may not personally believe them to be respectable.
I've already researched some of the whole genetic yeah/nay tenets since we've started, and much like evolution/creation, there's a lot of bebate and not a lot of proof.
I do beg indulgence if I seem taken aback as I do yours if I say something that offends your sensibilities as well.
I do readily admit that there are extremist levels of homophobia that should no more be considered the norm as that I shouldn't assume that all Muslims are like the people that took out the WTC.
I apologise for my earlier inflammatory remark alluding to the Matthew Shepard incident. That was out of line.
ETA: Clarification
Message edited by author 2007-11-05 09:43:45.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 09:53:14 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I knew a gay man who was almost as annoyed at Gay Pride marches as you are, because he didn't like being defined as a muscleman strutting around in bikini briefs and a pink boa. These are people who, ironically, want to be normal, functioning members of society. Restrictive laws force them to be radicals, to be progressives, to vote against Republicans. Thus, there are homosexuals who are also against gay marriage. They argue that homosexuals should reject the society that is putting them down. Personally, I don't want to force homosexuals to choose between activism and feigned heterosexuality. |
In my case, it's not so much that some of my friends want to be normal, functioning members of society.....they ARE normal, functioning members of society.
A couple of them I was not even aware of their sexual preference for as much as six months before I found out, and truth be told, not only didn't it make any difference, but it doesn't bother me or concern me, so I didn't have any reason to wonder. It certainly didn't change the way I felt about them, or my judgement of their character as honest, decent, loving, caring individuals and couples. And in most cases of friends of mine where it was the case that I found out, it was due to some level of insensitivity or discrimination issue that caused them to state their orientation for the record......which in some cases was not necessarily a good thing for them to have to do.
Because in the big picture, it just doesn't matter.
Certainly my sexual orientation doesn't make any difference whatsoever to my participation here at DP Challenge. Nor does it at the grocery store, at cheerleading practice, at the bank, at the gas station.....so what difference would it make if my neighbor is gay and my daughter spends time chatting with him/her because they have common interests?
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 10:00:42 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
In my case, it's not so much that some of my friends want to be normal, functioning members of society.....they ARE normal, functioning members of society. |
allow me to rephrase: they want to be *unhassled* normal, functioning members of society with all the rights that other normal, function members of society have. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 10:04:08 AM · #63 |
btw, I'm all for being abnormal, dressing funny, strutting around in parades, etc.
My point is that homosexuality does not have to involve any of those things. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 10:14:33 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
btw, I'm all for being abnormal, dressing funny, strutting around in parades, etc. |
I want pictures. Please make sure skewsme has the camera at those times. :-) |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 10:19:59 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
btw, I'm all for being abnormal, dressing funny, strutting around in parades, etc. |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I want pictures. Please make sure skewsme has the camera at those times. :-) |
I *am* abnormal and dress funny.
I take picture at parades, though.....
[thumb]566923[/thumb]
About half of my gay friends went to this gay pride celebration, the other half didn't....and for the reasons that Don mentioned.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 10:23:11 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
btw, I'm all for being abnormal, dressing funny, strutting around in parades, etc. |
Not me. :P The parade really bugs me, especially the Toronto one, one of the biggest in the world with about 2,000,000 people participating. I hate it. It probably has more to do with big, loud crowds and obnoxious party-goers than anything else, and the infernal association of glittery drag queens with all things homosexual. Nuts to that. :P |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 10:27:41 AM · #67 |
whether i like the parades or not is really irrelevant. as long as they're just having fun and no one else's life is being trampled on, why not let them have it?
i understand why people (gay or straight) might not care for them. but if we're trying to get people to "live and let live," who are we to dictate how those people live?
for the record, i think pride parades are fun...and funny. there are very few events in my area where you can see such a wide variety of people. sure, there are people who are there just for the "freak show" factor, but you also see happy couples and families and groups of friends and people with dogs -- a giant melting pot of people of all stripes.
too often we stay inside our own little bubbles. we need more events where people can come together and just have a little fun. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 10:29:18 AM · #68 |
For those men that say they are not homophobic or intolerant, but merely "disagree" with homosexuality, here's a test: what would you do if a man flirted with you? Would you be offended? What would your initial reaction be? Violent or passive-aggressive, or tolerant?
I ask because in my view this is a very real test of one's level of tolerance. Speaking personally, I have had both women and men flirt with me, and I found both very flattering. In my nightclubbing days lo those many years ago, I have had invitations to sex, both subtle and gross, from women and men, and was tittilated by both. What's your real-world tolerance level? |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 10:39:22 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I understand what you are saying. It just seems pretty unlikely given natural selection that a genetic disposition to -not- continuing the species would continue to exist over the long term. |
Rats (and other species) have been shown to exhibit homosexual behavior during times of over-population/food shortages, so perhaps it's actually a survival mechanism for the species as a whole -- while certain individuals may not reproduce, the species as a whole can survive in the face of Malthusian pressures. |
Maybe. I like to think we are slightly more evolved in that rats can neither manufacture birth control nor educate other rats about its use. But, could be. I would want to see some corollary between # of homosexuals in a population during periods influenced by different stressors. Wonder if anyone has tried to study it. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 10:39:49 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Louis:
For those men that say they are not homophobic or intolerant, but merely "disagree" with homosexuality, here's a test: what would you do if a man flirted with you? Would you be offended? What would your initial reaction be? Violent or passive-aggressive, or tolerant? |
What sort of car do they drive? |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 10:41:42 AM · #71 |
subaru
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Louis:
For those men that say they are not homophobic or intolerant, but merely "disagree" with homosexuality, here's a test: what would you do if a man flirted with you? Would you be offended? What would your initial reaction be? Violent or passive-aggressive, or tolerant? |
What sort of car do they drive? |
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 10:43:05 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Louis:
For those men that say they are not homophobic or intolerant, but merely "disagree" with homosexuality, here's a test: what would you do if a man flirted with you? Would you be offended? What would your initial reaction be? Violent or passive-aggressive, or tolerant? |
What sort of car do they drive? |
Ha. Why, a pink 1962 vintage VW bug of course, complee with flower-power decals. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 10:47:28 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by Louis:
For those men that say they are not homophobic or intolerant, but merely "disagree" with homosexuality, here's a test: what would you do if a man flirted with you? Would you be offended? What would your initial reaction be? Violent or passive-aggressive, or tolerant?
I ask because in my view this is a very real test of one's level of tolerance. Speaking personally, I have had both women and men flirt with me, and I found both very flattering. In my nightclubbing days lo those many years ago, I have had invitations to sex, both subtle and gross, from women and men, and was tittilated by both. What's your real-world tolerance level? |
An interesting question.
I've had men flirt with me on numerous occasions and every time I too was flattered. Certainly not offended or angry. Why would I be anything but flattered? |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 11:33:26 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I've had men flirt with me on numerous occasions and every time I too was flattered. Certainly not offended or angry. Why would I be anything but flattered? |
i would assume some people would not be flattered because they assume something about their appearance made the flirter think they were also homosexual. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 12:09:17 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I've had men flirt with me on numerous occasions and every time I too was flattered. Certainly not offended or angry. Why would I be anything but flattered? |
Realistically, you should not be - someone is letting you know that they find you interesting / attractive. Why would that be offensive ?
Unfortunately, it seems to quite often be thought of as offensive - whether that comes from an inborn fear of being thought of as "less masculine" or something else, I have no idea.
|
|
