First gay marriage, now polygamy; what next?

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Sam Spade, Sep 25, 2012.

  1. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist


    Then homosexuality would be natural. Since you do see it out in nature.

    Doesn't matter if it's natural or not, guns are not natural. You can't find those off the gun-tree. Alcohol is not natural, yet you can walk into any grocery store and buy that. Natural is irrelevant, which is what I believe you were getting at to begin with.

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    Yes, that's my point, observing something in nature and using that as an excuse for what you do is retarded.

  3. No, it doesn't. Your argument is stupid, plain and simple, and I'm against gay marriage.

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
  4. Freedom is not "provided by the state," since freedom is an absence of forced coercion, and the defining tool of the state is coercion itself. Try "not buying government services" with your income, and then let me know how free you are (if they'll let you use a computer from your cell block).

    If you propose a government with the size and scope of the original USA, you are already at least 90% to anarchy. And if you realize that modern, fully developed markets can easily supply many services that may have initially been a problem for markets 200 years ago, you are at least 99% to anarchy. At some point, the distinction between a limited state and a non-existent one becomes unimportant.
  5. "Natural" is what can be observed in nature. As such it can be something characteristic of a very small minority of individuals. For what it is worth, "normal" is something which can be observed in a majority.

    The purpose of using a natural example as the basis of argument in this case is to show that homosexuality is not a "choice" by an individual equivalent to deciding that Pepsi is superior to Coke but something which, by whatever means is built in to the individual and as far as we know cannot be changed.

    You don't like the idea of comparing ourselves to intellectually inferior animals but if we use a little intelligence and knowledge it can be very informative. Our closest living relatives are the chimpanzees and for medical experimentation the results found on them are most like the results found on humans where those found on rats, for example, are often different. But our social and sexual systems are very different from chimpanzees because of the environmental forces acting on us since we diverged from our common ancestor. Rabbits are rather further separated from humans, but are still relatives which are useful for much medical experimentation. But rabbits do eat their own doo doo and fall ill if they are prevented from doing so. Why should that be? Because they live on hard to digest grasses which they digest with the aid of bacteria in their guts. But the bacteria don't have enough time to do so and so the rabbit needs to pass the same food through its gut twice. Cattle have the same problem but they have evolved a second stomach and regurgitate partly digested grass to chew it again after it has beed partly digested. This is what we know as chewing the cud. You might like to think of it as eating their own vomit!

    So, we have to know enough not to compare our social systems to those of chimpanzees or our digestive systems to rabbits or cattle but otherwise our biochemistries are very similar.

    When we can see such commonality across the animal world then something such as homosexuality, which probably can be seen in every species of mammal and bird we care to study, obviously has the same root cause as it does in humans. As such it cannot possibly be a conscious choice of what is most fun or however you might think of it. This is not lowering ourselves to equality with animals except in those things in which we are equal. Where we differ is that we have the ability to think and gain knowledge in the form of theories which we can refine or discard as facts dictate. Some of us have the intelligence and knowledge to understand that. Others are either too dumb or too incapable of seeing past their religious beliefs to do so. In this case it is you who is denying the most basic thing that makes you different from other animals - your ability to think and so discover the nature of things you can observe and learn about.

    Since you are capable of using a computer on the internet and writing as you do and presumably are able to chew gum at the same time, you can't simply be too dumb. The information is all around you but only you can decide to make the effort to study it with an open mind. Opening your mind is far harder than studying, and if your mind remains closed you will continue to deny the evidence no matter how much you study. It takes a kind of mental courage to discover facts which are at odds with your existing beliefs and then accept that the facts are facts and so discard the belief.

  6. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    No need to be disrespectful.

    There's proof that nobody is born gay, I don't believe it to be something they can't help. There's nothing but inconclusive assumptions and suppositions when attemption to prove it, as even gay scientists end up in frustration with their inability to prove it's an inborn trait. Animals lick their bottoms after they poop, and this can be seen in many species, can you help yourself NOT to do the same? That's the point, we don't do everything animals do, we choose to do as we will. Using "nature" as an excuse is, honestly, pretty denigrating and regressive to the human race. Last time I checked, I don't see cows driving cars or mosquitoes pooping in the toilet. If you want to be like an animal, then you should get off of your computer right now and go live in the forest. Then you'll be one with nature. Tell me, why do we call pedophiles perverts and not gays? What is the difference between their preferences?
  7. Children can not give consent. That's it.

  8. OP, What's Next?

    Julia will be able to marry her cat.

  9. *sigh* Cats can't give consent.
  10. There is no talking logic to many on this board, you can state the obvious as you've done but the core issue is that a lot of the folks here can't accept that other adults choose to live differently and they need to mind their own business.
  11. Personally I could care less of Julia likes a little *****.

  12. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    Yes, they can, it's simply not legally recognized, but they can. What is a child, anyway? Is one considered a child in California at one age and an adult at the same at another state? I'd like to see you on the front rows fighting NAMBLA when they finally get the APA to lower the age of consent and then push it through legislation.

    If it's not scratching the heck out of you, it's consenting.
  13. See, this illustrates my point.:rofl:
  14. You should try harder to read what I wrote and then try ten times harder to think rationally.

    You say there is proof that nobody is born gay but fail to give any evidence for this statement. You immediately follow it, in the same sentence, by saying that you don't believe it is something they can't help. You give no evidence for that either, but clearly you think that your feelings or beliefs are more significant than any evidence or argument from evidence.

    I have no interest in gay scientists trying to support what they wish to believe. Gay science is a contradiction in terms - science should seek to reduce ignorance and not to support a preconceived position. If you think about it a little you should see that this is precisely what you are doing with your unsupported claims. As far as I know, the gay scientists have tried and failed to demonstrate a genetic link to homosexual behaviour. That does not mean that there is not one. It just means that they haven't found one.

    With better understanding of genetics as a whole, as opposed to the techniques of statistical gentic analysis, they should have understood that homosexual behaviour, as a non survival trait, can be of very complex origin and that normal heterosexual behaviour can be disrupted at multiple points. Blindness is a very simple exemplar of this principle. In the process by which the embryo and fetus grows the eye and its neural connections there are well over a dozen points at which a genetic failure will produce blindness. What we see is the end result but most blind people can have children with other blind people without producing blind children. This is because they are carrying different faults in a homozygous state, but, though the heterozygous faults for blindness in their children are higher than the average for the population, they are not the same faults and so do not produce blindness in that generation.

    In genetic terms blindness follows a simple multiple recessive defect model. There is no evidence that homosexuality is as simple as that, but as blindness is an obvious symptom and can be followed through families and isolated groups over many generations it has been possible to determine much of its causality by what are natural breeding experiments. Homosexuality has been mainly hidden for generations and so this natural breeding experiment has not been available, quite apart from the problem that homosexuals are less likely to breed.

    It is worth noting that blindness is much rarer than homosexuality and so either it is less damaging to the population and the individual or it is far more complex in its nature. This is almost certainly a far more significant idea than you realise. Mutations happen all the time and damaging mutant genes are lost by selection against them all the time. If you are blind or suffer from haemophillia you will have been far less likely to have as many children as others and so you will not pass on as many of those damaging genes. (For those who know what alleles are, I appologise, but I am trying to keep this easy for those who don't.) But those genes are recessive and so they only show their effects when an individual has two of them - one on each of the chromosome pair. So, if the frequency of the gene (not the displayed defect) in the population is 1 in 100, then the defect will only be shown in 1 in 10,000 (10,000 =100 x 100) births. Only the 2 genes in that one in 10,000 individuals will be destroyed (if we assume that the defect results in no children at all rther than just a reduced number!), and so the deselection rate is 1 in 5,000. If the defect is at a stable frequency in the population the spontaneous re-creation of the defective gene will also be 1 in 5,000. If medicine improves the survival of these individuals the frequency in the population will slowly rise until the rate of deselection once again matches the rate of spontaneous re-creation.

    If we accept that 1 in 20 people are homosexual and that a simple recessive gene was the cause, then something around 2 in 9 people would be carriers. That would be easy enough to discover by statistical analysis of the genome because all homosexuals would have two copies of the gene and 4 and a bit of every 20 heterosexuals would have one copy. This is the kind of simplistic science that the homosexual scientists have started with and, surprise surprise, it hasn't worked. They then moved onto more complex models and they thought they had something but I think further work has shown they didin't.

    What we then have to think about is that if as many as 1 in 20 is homosexual, and it doesnt make much difference if it is 1 in 40, the genetic model has to be wrong or homosexuals have to have been having almost as many children as heterosexuals for hundreds of generations or the rate of spontaneaous mutation of homosexualality causing genes has to be phenomonally and unbelievably high. The latter is not a viable proposition. Since human breeding success depends both on number of children produced and the number they produce in turn and so on, and that this progression through the generations is also a function of good parenting, the genetic model has to be wrong. Although there might be good homosexual parents now in our politically correct age with multiple niches for earning good money and being homosexual, for the hundreds of thousand of years before that they would have been unable to be good parents.

    Things can go wrong in development from the egg not just because of genetic damage but because of developmental damage caused by environmental factors beyond the control of the genetic system. If homosexuals are doomed to homosexuality from birth or early childhood then it is the environmental factors that we should be looking at rather than genetic factors.

    That brings us back to whether homosexuality is a choice. You persistently fail to understand the significance of the evidence from the animal kingdom. As I tried to point out with my examples of cows and rabbits, animals have evolved to deal with their particular problems of survival in different ways. The fact that rabbits need to eat their own excrement to gain enough nourishment from hard to digest material is part of nature. As such it is natural, but that does not mean that it is something humans should be doing and as far as I know only a very rare number of extremely disturbed individuals do so. The fact that dogs lick their bottoms is also natural. They have no other means of keeping them clean and free from infection. It is natural and essential for them but it is part of their body maintenance system and not some perverted pleasure.

    Animals do what they do from instinct, and not from conscious choice except in the case of some kind of training. So if we see animals egaging in homosexual acts it is not because they think it is cool or exciting as we might suspect of humans. If we see that the great majority of animal individuals egage only in heterosexual sex but that some individuals engage almost exclusively or entirely exclusively in homosexual sex then we can think of those minority individuals as homosexuals. There are countless examples of precisely this! Since very few animal species have the ability to think to any significant extent we have to believe that this is a natural aberation and not a "choice" in any way related to what we think of as human choices. On that basis we must suspect very srongly that human homosexuality is no more a choice for humans than for animals. This is nothing to do with the idea that it is natural and therefore it is good. It is not using animals as an excuse for some kinds of human behaviour. It is simply an examination of the evidence and the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from it.

    #154 English, Oct 9, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2012

Share This Page