U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is homophobia just as bad as racism?
Yes 93 55.69%
No 68 40.72%
Not sure 6 3.59%
Voters: 167. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-17-2011, 08:57 AM
 
10,452 posts, read 10,234,362 times
Reputation: 12496

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennsylvanian1
In the early 2000's, the International Human Genome Consortium revealed its long awaited conclusion regarding the isolation of the so-called 'gay gene'. As with many other tests of this sort, as the world undoubtedly held its breath in anticipation, alas it came to nothing. Homosexuals have been compared to fruit flies, and a number of other bi-sexual woodland creatures, as pro-homosexual supporters scramble to find even a shred of conclusive scientific or physiological evidence substantiating that this disorder is something other than a perversion.
Not all genetic conditions can be traced to a single gene. Genetic conditions are often a result of the interaction of multiple genes, and oftentimes, the environment does play a factor. Take Usher's Syndrome (http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/usher.htm - broken link), for example. It's proven to be a genetic condition, and causes deafness and blindness, but it comes in different degrees: Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, and subtypes a and b because it's a result of multiple genes interacting with each other. And more is still being studied--for example, why do two people with the same gene patterns for Usher's end up losing their hearing or vision at different points in their life and to different degrees? There are doctors that devote their entire career to studying Usher's. But that doesn't make the deafness and blindness that Usher's people experience any less real just because it can't be owed to one single gene or because there are still things doctors don't know about Usher's.

The environment may trigger a gene or a set of genes to turn on or off. To equate homosexuality with one single gene, completely independent of environmental factors, is to put a tremendously simplistic twist on a scientific issue that is still being studied today.

In any case, even if it were purely a choice for each person, what does that matter? Homosexuality isn't harmful. As long as any sexual practice is done privately between consenting adults, no one's getting hurt.

Last edited by nimchimpsky; 03-17-2011 at 09:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2011, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Reality
9,958 posts, read 7,317,789 times
Reputation: 3306
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky View Post
This assumes that natural means "resulting in direct production of babies." However, while homosexuality doesn't directly lead to offspring, it does increase clutch size for some species. In other words, it doesn't make babies but it makes females ten times more fertile. In that way homosexuality could be seen as a means for reproduction, albeit a less direct one.

Another thing to consider is that if something being unnatural is grounds for disapproval, then why don't people who disapprove of homosexuality also disapprove of nail polish and asphalt roads and the myriad of other unnatural things we do and make every day?
No it doesn't, you made that assumption on your own. I can't even begin to address your insane second comment, you'll grasping at straws with every turn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Reality
9,958 posts, read 7,317,789 times
Reputation: 3306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamky View Post
Nice deflection. You have no "natural" answer to all the millions of women that don't want to have babies even though by nature they were made to have babies. And you ignore the portion of men that have no interest in sex even though they should spread their sperm as nature tells them.
You're talking about what someone wants to do or doesn't want to do, that's a personal choice. I'm talking about what the human body was designed for or evolved to do, that's 2 VERY different things.

I own a chain saw, I can choose to use it to cut up wood as it was designed to do or I could just leave it in my workshop because I choose not to cut down trees... that doesn't change it's purpose or design. On the other hand if I try to use that chainsaw to stir paint I'm doing something unnatural. Sure it may work and chances are nobody is going to get hurt but that's not what the chainsaw was designed to do and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Reality
9,958 posts, read 7,317,789 times
Reputation: 3306
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlerain View Post
Unless you are gay and have been a victim of homophobia you have no clue...none.
I am not gay and I have never been a victim of homophobia mainly because I don't know anyone with an irrational fear of homosexuals... I don't need to be either of those things to form an educated opinion about homosexuality and basic biology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 09:14 AM
 
10,452 posts, read 10,234,362 times
Reputation: 12496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspace View Post
No it doesn't, you made that assumption on your own. I can't even begin to address your insane second comment, you'll grasping at straws with every turn.
I didn't make that assumption on my own. That's the implication when someone views anything that doesn't lead to the reproduction of babies (a.k.a. heterosexuality) as unnatural.

The argument that homosexuality is unnatural is already grasping at straws. 90% of the things we do today, like driving cars, and using chainsaws, and so on and forth, are unnatural. The environment never selected for roads and houses. Mankind did that against nature, and we continue to destroy the environment as we insist on resisting against the natural flow of evolution. But most people don't care about that--they only care about "natural" when it pertains to homosexuality. It's a weak argument IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Reality
9,958 posts, read 7,317,789 times
Reputation: 3306
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky View Post
I didn't make that assumption on my own. That's the implication when someone views anything that doesn't lead to the reproduction of babies (a.k.a. heterosexuality) as unnatural.

The argument that homosexuality is unnatural is already grasping at straws. 90% of the things we do today, like driving cars, and using chainsaws, and so on and forth, are unnatural. The environment never selected for roads and houses. Mankind did that against nature, and we continue to destroy the environment as we insist on resisting against the natural flow of evolution. But most people don't care about that--they only care about "natural" when it pertains to homosexuality. It's a weak argument IMO.
Who said anything about "leading to the reproduction of babies"? You keep bringing up reproduction, who besides you is talking about that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 09:19 AM
 
Location: California
11,425 posts, read 16,669,464 times
Reputation: 12447
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer View Post
You are so confused that you put words in that others never say. You have no clue at all. I am not confused, not matter how many times you say it, yet you will remain locked in your little world of bigotry. It is you that is trying to push your straight agenda on me. Get a life, and I never called you, "your boy" Where do you come with all the BS of yours. GET LOST.
LOL feel better?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 09:26 AM
 
43 posts, read 13,340 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspace View Post
I am not gay and I have never been a victim of homophobia mainly because I don't know anyone with an irrational fear of homosexuals... I don't need to be either of those things to form an educated opinion about homosexuality and basic biology.
Nobody is afraid of gay people, that definition is ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 09:27 AM
 
Location: bold new city of the south
5,200 posts, read 4,110,607 times
Reputation: 6156
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky View Post
The argument that homosexuality is unnatural is already grasping at straws. 90% of the things we do today, like driving cars, and using chainsaws, and so on and forth, are unnatural. The environment never selected for roads and houses. Mankind did that against nature, and we continue to destroy the environment as we insist on resisting against the natural flow of evolution. But most people don't care about that--they only care about "natural" when it pertains to homosexuality. It's a weak argument IMO.
The environment never selected for roads and houses.
That's not true. animals have paths that they use every day. Birds migrate, the same way every year. Many elk, deer, Wildebeests, Bison migrate on the same paths, every year. Birds build nests, gopher turtles dig holes, Bears use caves, as do Bats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 09:29 AM
 
10,452 posts, read 10,234,362 times
Reputation: 12496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspace View Post
Who said anything about "leading to the reproduction of babies"? You keep bringing up reproduction, who besides you is talking about that?
To anyone who finds homosexuality unnatural in this thread, why do you find it unnatural?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top