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.
This is why I am still confused about it and IMO most other heterosexuals. If homosexuality was so good I am sure it would have been part of society from the beginning and accepted by all. You can call it evolution of societies. It seems to have been rejected since most main stream societies do not see it as an accepted thing.
Left-handedness has been rejected throughout history too because it was uncommon, and therefore deemed wrong. It's purely based on it being uncommon. Even me, who is very supportive of LGBT rights, have paused when I've seen 2 guys kiss in public. Not because I think it's wrong or gross, merely because I don't see it very often, so it catches me off guard. We've been so conditioned by media and the bulk of the population to see heterosexual behavior exclusively, that people who go most of their life not interacting with gays will question it when they see it.
Quote:
I am leaving religion and politics out of it to just explore homosexuality's purpose. It has been all guess work as to the reasons for it anyway. Even people who are not religious reject it. The rejection can't be just because the bible says so. Even those societies that accepted polygamy rejected homosexuality.
What societies would those be, the Middle East? They reject it on religious grounds too. And some non-religious people may reject it, but I think, as evident by over 10 1st World countries having same-sex marriage or civil unions, and they all being far more liberal and secular than we are, is strong evidence that religion is the driving force behind the anti-gay agenda. Almost exclusively, any country that has a large, conservative religious population (be it muslim, Christian, etc.) will oppose gays, whereas nations with a large liberal or secular religious population, will support them. The one exception seems to be Israel, which is rather gay supportive despite the large Orthodox population. So while you may have fringe groups of atheists who don't like it, most likely due to the "icky" factor (because I've yet to meet an atheist who claims it's biologically/evolutionarily unnatural), it's not common among then. And even in that case, it's usually gay men that are opposed, not gay women. Most straight gays love hot lesbians. Which just goes to prove the massive double standard our macho, testosterone driven society stands by.
Quote:
All I can think of is the propagation of the species. Societies were afraid of becoming extent. Homosexuality threatens it with extinction. THAT IS INBRED, THAT IS HARD TO OVERCOME. Evolution at it's core purpose to guarantee species surviva, otherwise we would have all died out.
Populations must reproduce to survive, not all individuals need to. Evolution does not work at the individual level. And gays can and do reproduce, and homosexuality does not appear to be passed down genetically, meaning it's not going to spread in a population through reproduction.
In other words, straight people will continue to reproduce, and continue to produce mostly straight children, while a small subset will produce gay children. Gays have never made up a huge percentage of the human population in all of history, meaning it's never going to be an issue from an evolutionary standpoint. And some animal species have more gays in them, then straights, and they are not in danger of going extinct. If gays needed to reproduce to ensure the survival of the human race, they would be quite capable of it. It's a non-issue.
In other words, straight people will continue to reproduce, and continue to produce mostly straight children, while a small subset will produce gay children.
(Let me first state that I am pro-life, now moving on...)
It will be an interesting clash of ideologies when the gay gene can be isolated
and people may choose to abort based on that, however.
On one hand you will be saying "A woman should be able to abort for ANY reason"
and on the other hand you will say
"It's not right to abort a child with the gay gene!"
Just throwing that out there.
Quote:
homosexuality does not appear to be passed down genetically
So much for "born that way"?
Better alert Lady Gaga (who I think is an outstanding musician, btw) and everyone who has been touting her related message this past year.
So much for "born that way"?
Better alert Lady Gaga (who I think is an outstanding musician, btw) and everyone who has been touting her related message this past year.
You are aware there is more to biology than a single gene that controls homosexuality right? I'm saying there is not likely a specific recessive gene that 100% controls orientation. It's still predominately biological. Hormonal changes in pre-natal development for example, will not be passed on genetically, but still are a major component in the development of sex and gender identity.
On one hand you will be saying "A woman should be able to abort for ANY reason"
and on the other hand you will say
"It's not right to abort a child with the gay gene!"
Just throwing that out there.
When in fact, people who support "Abortion for any reason" will still support "Abortion for any reason".
What will be interesting, imo, will be the response from the small sect of religious pro-lifers who feel that homosexuality is an abomination.
But either way, this video had no impact on my ideas regarding SSM.
I said: Probably because there's no neutral button.
It translates to: A lot of people didn't vote either way because the poll has loaded answers (which is purposefully done). However, if a neutral-styled response were included (such as: This ad made no difference in my opinion), you would find that most people aren't swayed in either direction by this ad. The poll, as currently showed, is designed intentionally to receive the responses that the OP wishes to see.
I wanted to separate this particular response from the larger one to come because it requires focus on one particular point ...
The poll allows for a yes or a no as to the question of the video being offensive, not homosexuality per se, exemplified by a couple of gay folks who ALSO found it offensive.
So it's not a "stacked" poll at all, given the choice to directly disagree with the OP.
If the "percentages" were reversed, and 69% didn't find the video offensive ... would such a claim of manipulating the outcome ahead of time be forthcoming?
It seems to me that those who would take a totally neutral stance would predictably vote no. No? Or am I missing something?
What will be interesting, imo, will be the response from the small sect of religious pro-lifers who feel that homosexuality is an abomination.
Anyone who is truly religious
(and I assume you mean Christians, which I am,
and in that case I refer to the majority who actually follow Christ's teachings
and not the minority that is nothing like Christ)
will still be pro-life and not make a decision to abort simply because of a homosexual tendency.
First, you shouldn't pretend like you were a supporter of ssm when you change your mind simply because you saw a satirical video about the dumb reasons people have to be against it in the first place. Hit too close to home?? Second, since ssm will never come about through majority vote, that's probably not the goal either.
First, you should get your facts straight. I never said that I, personally, was swayed one way or another by this one video. I indicated that at one time I was somewhat of a supporter of SSM but that this type of in your face tactic caused me to rethink things, do some research and change my mind. While I still have some sympathy for gay people and their struggles, I am no longer manipulated into feeling sympathetic to a carefully media controlled picture of gays as victims and I certainly won't be bullied into silence or acceptance by the type of video in the OP. But, you of course, can believe whatever you want; just don't twist my words.
Actually, it has a "it's offensive" and "it's a great ad". The parts after the initial "yes" or "no" make them not only loaded answers, it's also academic dishonesty. If the responses were "Yes, it's offensive" and "No, it's not offensive", that would be different. But there's one more problem....
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
The poll allows for a yes or a no as to the question of the video being offensive,
And the bolded is that problem. The question actually reads: "Does this Ad help the Same Sex Marriage Cause?" not "Do you find it offensive?" There is a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
So it's not a "stacked" poll at all, given the choice to directly disagree with the OP.
It's along the same lines of the question "When did you stop beating your wife". Whereas, instead of two questions merged together ("Did you beat your wife" and the conditional "When did you stop?"), the poll answers have multiple answers (that may or may not match) merged together. For instance, per the actual poll question of "Does this Ad help the Same Sex Marriage Cause?" I feel that it does not help, but I don't find it offensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
If the "percentages" were reversed, and 69% didn't find the video offensive ... would such a claim of manipulating the outcome ahead of time be forthcoming?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
It seems to me that those who would take a totally neutral stance would predictably vote no. No? Or am I missing something?
There is no neutral response. There is a very wide gap between something being offensive and something being great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alltheusernamesaretaken
Anyone who is truly religious
(and I assume you mean Christians, which I am,
and in that case I refer to the majority who actually follow Christ's teachings
and not the minority that is nothing like Christ)
will still be pro-life and not make a decision to abort simply because of a homosexual tendency.
Or are you saying we are all hypocrites?
I wasn't referring to Christians at all. I was referring to any and all religious persons who are against abortion and homosexuality. I also didn't claim that there was going to be hypocrisy. Perhaps you are reading too far into my curiosity. It's merely the concept of "what ifs" where on one hand you have abortion and the other hand is a baby who will, without a shadow of a doubt, grow up to be a homosexual. For many religions and religious sects (not just Christianity), both hands are shameful and bad. So, the question becomes "Which one is worse?"
Curiosity killed the cat. Satisfaction brought it back.
Actually, it has a "it's offensive" and "it's a great ad". The parts after the initial "yes" or "no" make them not only loaded answers, it's also academic dishonesty. If the responses were "Yes, it's offensive" and "No, it's not offensive", that would be different. But there's one more problem....
And the bolded is that problem. The question actually reads: "Does this Ad help the Same Sex Marriage Cause?" not "Do you find it offensive?" There is a difference.
It's along the same lines of the question "When did you stop beating your wife". Whereas, instead of two questions merged together ("Did you beat your wife" and the conditional "When did you stop?"), the poll answers have multiple answers (that may or may not match) merged together. For instance, per the actual poll question of "Does this Ad help the Same Sex Marriage Cause?" I feel that it does not help, but I don't find it offensive.
Yes.
There is no neutral response. There is a very wide gap between something being offensive and something being great.
Oh for goodness sakes, when did this board turn into a scientific research site? Don't like the choices? Don't vote. I have already posted that this was the first poll I ever posted and based on feedback if I post another I will supply a neutral choice. Happy?
I wasn't referring to Christians at all. I was referring to any and all religious persons who are against abortion and homosexuality. I also didn't claim that there was going to be hypocrisy. Perhaps you are reading too far into my curiosity. It's merely the concept of "what ifs" where on one hand you have abortion and the other hand is a baby who will, without a shadow of a doubt, grow up to be a homosexual. For many religions and religious sects (not just Christianity), both hands are shameful and bad. So, the question becomes "Which one is worse?"
Curiosity killed the cat. Satisfaction brought it back.
I believe most people of faith, at least Christians, would not have the abortion. It is the "act" of homosexuality that is the sin. Also, even sinners are loved, they can be forgiven. Christians (exclude the Westboro fanatics) are not haters. JMHO
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.
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.
I have already posted that this was the first poll I ever posted and based on feedback if I post another I will supply a neutral choice. Happy? 
