|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Probably a bad guess, seeing that there have been (and probably still are in the areas that have not yet been saturated by Christian or Muslim missionaries) lots of "pre-civilized" human societies where pederasty, ritual male homosexuality, and even non-ritual male homosexuality have been an accepted part of the tribal organization. I'm just curious; since you have nothing to support your speculation, what led you to these conclusions? I have always preferred, as guides to human action, messy hypothetical imperatives like the Golden Rule, based on negotiation, compromise and general respect, to the Kantian categorical imperatives of absolute righteousness, in whose name we so often murder and maim until we decide that we had followed the wrong instantiation of the right generality. -- Stephen Jay Gould
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Chiroptera, re:
Probably a bad guess, seeing that there have been (and probably still are in the areas that have not yet been saturated by Christian or Muslim missionaries) lots of "pre-civilized" human societies where pederasty, ritual male homosexuality, and even non-ritual male homosexuality have been an accepted part of the tribal organization.
Ignorance. I was proceeding on the assumption that male homosexuality was extremely rare in nature, maybe even exclusive to humans. (I tend to see female homosexuality as a different thing.) Obviously, now, gay behavior does not seem to be exclusive to human males. What I was looking for was any evidence suggesting that gay behavior was a consequence of nurturing or the environment, as opposed to being entirely genetically predisposed. What I found was evidence to the contrary”maybe womb nurturing (hormones), or maybe tribal nurturing (ritualistic), or maybe peer nurturing (male bonding). I really don't know about gay genes at this point. I'm just curious; since you have nothing to support your speculation, what led you to these conclusions? ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
And the fact that an experimental procedure could "cure" a gay animal of homosexuality tells me that at this point it is simply more than just a choice, wouldn't you say?
AKA G.A.S.B.Y. George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Tazmanian Devil, re:
And the fact that an experimental procedure could "cure" a gay animal of homosexuality tells me that at this point it is simply more than just a choice, wouldn't you say?
Frankly, I don't know. If a gay gene could be switched off then I certainly would agree. But what about other experimental procedures? I'm not sure. I suppose I could submit to castration, rendering me a sexually neutral eunuch, but does this mean that I am a male heterosexual BY CHOICE? ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Heh. I think your choice of porn is skewing your view point. -
quote: Neither does anyone else, whatever they might think. What relevance animal studies have to such specific human behavior I won't pretend to understand. Especially with animals that are so distantly related to humans. Certainly, any real study of actual human behavior suggests a very complicated picture. Not to disparage human studies; neurology is interesting in its own right, and who can't help but be interested in human sexuality? What makes me cringe, though, is the attempt to bring this into the political arena. Not only are these studies ultimately irrelevant to the current civil rights/civil liberties debate, but by the time what might be carefully nuanced scientific conclusions make it into the public awareness it has pretty much become junk. I have always preferred, as guides to human action, messy hypothetical imperatives like the Golden Rule, based on negotiation, compromise and general respect, to the Kantian categorical imperatives of absolute righteousness, in whose name we so often murder and maim until we decide that we had followed the wrong instantiation of the right generality. -- Stephen Jay Gould
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
And I have not suggested that it was a gene responsible for homosexuality. All I said was if an experimental procedure could turn an animal from gaydom, then it appears to me that homosexuality is more than just a conscious choice biggots and homophobes often make it out to be.
If a gay gene could be switched off then I certainly would agree. I'm not sure. I suppose I could submit to castration, rendering me a sexually neutral eunuch, but does this mean that I am a male heterosexual BY CHOICE?
I think you just made the argument for me. AKA G.A.S.B.Y. George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Chiroptera, re:
Hoot Mon wrote:
Heh. I think your choice of porn is skewing your view point. I was proceeding on the assumption that male homosexuality was extremely rare in nature, maybe even exclusive to humans. (I tend to see female homosexuality as a different thing.) Certainly, any real study of actual human behavior suggests a very complicated picture. Not to disparage human studies; neurology is interesting in its own right, and who can't help but be interested in human sexuality? What makes me cringe, though, is the attempt to bring this into the political arena. Not only are these studies ultimately irrelevant to the current civil rights/civil liberties debate, but by the time what might be carefully nuanced scientific conclusions make it into the public awareness it has pretty much become junk.
The out-of-the-closet gays seem to be playing at the political arena. It's not a show I particularly care to see, but I don't disdain them. No gay person should ever be abused for being gay, and I don't count the current marraige laws as a form of gay abuse. (Why can't they just be civilly united?) The issue of being gay by choice vs. being gay by nature IS relevant. If it has a genetic component then this issue over choice will be varified when the gene(s) can be switched off. If it has other complications, as you contend, then of course the problem is greater. Maybe there is no "problem" at all. Maybe gays are natural. That's why I wondered about gay behavior in other animals. Not being gay myself, I see it as an aberration. Maybe I should accept it as fringe characteristric, like musical savants and dwarfism. I'm still muttering over this issue, trying to keep an over mind. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why can't they just be civilly united? I dunno. Why can't the darkies just have their own drinking fountains?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Why can't they just be civilly united?
I dunno. Why can't the darkies just have their own drinking fountains? "Her Comes the Bride" just isn't what it used to be. Today she might even have a penis. I suppose "Here Comes The Bitch" will be accorded some legal urgency, when humans petition to marry their dogs. ”Hoot Mon Edited by Hoot Mon, : tiffles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's not really clear to me what you're talking about. Perhaps you're just simply repeating the empty arguments of same-sex marriage's reactionary, moralist opposition without thinking about them?
I don't see where the gays lose anything by gaining a civil-union status. What, besides the 1000+ Federal rights accorded to, and only to, married couples? And to continue the same analogy - what do the African-Americans lose by gaining their own public water fountains?
Today she might even have a penis. I suppose "Here Comes The Bitch" will be accorded some legal urgency, when humans petition to marry their dogs. Why does that necessarily follow? Moreover - how can dogs consent to marriage?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
All right, I carried the analogy a little too far. This entire issue will evaporate like hot sweat when gay-gene therapy becomes a clinical out-patience procedure.
”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
You keep claiming to have an open mind, but I really haven't seen any evidence of that. All right, I carried the analogy a little too far. This entire issue will evaporate like hot sweat when gay-gene therapy becomes a clinical out-patience procedure. The real issue is so what if it is 100% choice? It makes no difference if tomorrow we find out that gay people are gay without any biological reason whatsoever. Since when did we as a society have the right to exclude other people from certain rights simply because they made a concious choice? In other words, whether homosexuality is a choice or not should have no bearing on what rights homosexuals should or shouldn't get. I am happily married, and I love the fact that whenever I tell people that this is my wife people automatically assume that she is the most important person in my life. I love the fact that if my wife ever gets hospitalized, I could simply say "that's my wife" and automatically nothing regarding the matter is excluded from me. Joint tax filing is a plus. So is insurance. If I ever get arrested for something I might or might not have done, I love the fact that by law my wife cannot be made to testify against me. These are just a few things that popped up in my head right now. I know some gay couples that have been together for years and years and years and they are still can't enjoy some of the things we take for granted. In fact, a couple years ago I attended a symbolic wedding between two men who had been together for 15 years. 15 years. That sure beats Britney Spear's 52 hour just for fun marriage. That beats Rush Limbaugh's 5 or so marriages and divorces. A few years ago, I hosted a gay couple from Norway who had 2 adopted sons with them. The affections they had for each other and the love they had for their non-biological sons made me had no doubt that these people probably made better parents than most straight couples out there, including myself. I see no reason why these people who are committing their lives to a monogomous relationship can't be legally recognized and yet straight people like me can marry, get a divorce, remarry, get another divorce, and remarry again and again and again. But on a different note, I couldn't help myself from writing out a script about the gay cure. Guess where I got this from. --------------------------------------------------------------- Professor: I don't have to be psychic to know something is bothering you. Sara: I don't get it. Eric is now a fugitive. We finally have a president that understands us. Why are we still hiding? Prof: We're not hiding. We still have a lot of enemies out there, and I must protect my students. Sara: You know, we can't remain your students forever. The professor chuckles. Prof: My dear, I haven't thought of you as my student for years now. In fact, I thought you might take my place some day. Sara: But I thought Scot... Prof: Scot's a changed man. He took Jean's death so hard. Yes, things are better out there, but you of all people should know how quickly the weather can change. Sara: There's something you're not telling us. The professor looks as though he is about to say something but then stops and proceeds to the guest room. Inside the guest room, Secretary McCoy is is greeted by the professor and Sara. Sara: Hank, it's good to see you. McCoy: I'm sorry to see you on such a short notice. Prof: You're always welcome here, Hank. You're a part of this place. McCoy: I have news. Prof: Is it Eric? McCoy: No, but we have been making progress on that front. We recently apprehended Mystique. Sara: You think your prison can hold her? McCoy: For now, we have a more pressing matter. A major Pharmaceutical company has developed a chemical agent that suppresses the gay gene X. Logan: Suppresses...? McCoy: Permanently. They're calling it the “Cure”. Sara: That's ridiculous, you can't cure being who you are. McCoy: Well, scientifically speaking... Sara: Since when did we become a disease? Professor: Sara, they're announcing it right now. As people around the country watches on their tv screens, the head of the pharmaceutical company addresses to the press. Bush: These gays are people like you and me. They suffer from a genetic defect and should be pitied, not persecuted. But it ends today. Bush holds up a chemical vile. Bush: Ladies and Gentlemen, we finally have a cure for homosexuality. In the professor's guest room... Sara: What kind of a coward would take the easy way out like that? McCoy: It depends. Is it cowardice to try to save oneself from persecution? Not everyone can blend in so well. .... AKA G.A.S.B.Y. George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
All right, I carried the analogy a little too far. No, you're just avoiding my question. It's a simple one, but apparently it was too subtle, so let me ask it explicitly - if we rejected "seperate but equal" accomodations for black people, why should we accept them for gay people?
This entire issue will evaporate like hot sweat when gay-gene therapy becomes a clinical out-patience procedure. Perhaps, but it hardly seems reasonable to discriminate against people now assuming that they won't even exist in the future. And what makes you think everyone will get the treatment in the first place? Or that it will work on everyone? It seems to me that the hypothetical "gay cure" doesn't solve any issues; it makes them more complicated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Porn? How so?
the bias that two gay men having sex or kissing is gross but two gay women are not
The out-of-the-closet gays seem to be playing at the political arena. It's not a show I particularly care to see, but I don't disdain them. No gay person should ever be abused for being gay, and I don't count the current marraige laws as a form of gay abuse.
it is abuse, you don't consider giving someone a right that everyone else has to be abuse? its just the same as any other group of people, they are discriminating aganst something that is part of the person.
The issue of being gay by choice vs. being gay by nature IS relevant. If it has a genetic component then this issue over choice will be varified when the gene(s) can be switched off. If it has other complications, as you contend, then of course the problem is greater.
ok you don't get how it works, people don't consider it a choice at all! being gay is not the same as having same sex with someone, no gay person considers having same sex being gay.do you consider someone who has hetro-sex hetrosexual? or do you not understand that the word referes to attraction and has for nearly 80 years? by the way theres many factors why someone might be gay not just one, and the only people that would want it turned off are bigots, who are the main cause of gay people not wanting to be gay Maybe there is no "problem" at all. Maybe gays are natural. That's why I wondered about gay behavior in other animals. Not being gay myself, I see it as an aberration. Maybe I should accept it as fringe characteristric, like musical savants and dwarfism. I'm still muttering over this issue, trying to keep an over mind.
sorry but i find your bigotry sickining. for someone who's "trying" to have an openmind you already show you already closed the door on this issuethe fact is if it is found it nature it is part of nature and not an abberration yes because they are gay or a dwarf or anything they are fringe and should be ignored till they are a problem for you. my faith in humanity just went down a notch
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
All right, I carried the analogy a little too far. This entire issue will evaporate like hot sweat when gay-gene therapy becomes a clinical out-patience procedure.
yes because being gay is a bad thing and somehow effects your life and well being, get over it
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024