This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Homosexuality - Genetic
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I never said it wasn't acceptable.
I disagree that there is any correlation between genetics and "acceptability." And until you can provide some evidence to support that, your argument really isn't saying anything.
Post by
Skreeran
erm, i don't agree with HSR on that point but
hurt =/= accepting.
I am not hurted by the situation in Afrika, but i don't find it acceptableWell, who is it hurting? If it's not hurting anyone, then it's not any of your damn business to object.
I never said it wasn't acceptable.
I disagree that there is any correlation between genetics and "acceptability." And until you can provide some evidence to support that, your argument really isn't saying anything.If someone is born with a condition that is out of their control, we should give them sympathy, not behead them.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I never said it wasn't acceptable.
I disagree that there is any correlation between genetics and "acceptability." And until you can provide some evidence to support that, your argument really isn't saying anything.If someone is born with a condition that is out of their control, we should give them sympathy, not behead them.
I find that to be an inaccurate representation of "anti-homosexuality" believes.
To say that people have believed for the last thousand years that "attraction" (whether to the same or opposite sex) is a choice is silly. The issue is the act itself. That is the choice. That is what people 1000 years ago and people today are referring to when they speak of a choice.
Post by
364444
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I never said it wasn't acceptable.
I disagree that there is any correlation between genetics and "acceptability." And until you can provide some evidence to support that, your argument really isn't saying anything.If someone is born with a condition that is out of their control, we should give them sympathy, not behead them.
I find that to be an inaccurate representation of "anti-homosexuality" believes.
To say that people have believed for the last thousand years that "attraction" (whether to the same or opposite sex) is a choice is silly. The issue is the act itself. That is the choice. That is what people 1000 years ago and people today are referring to when they speak of a choice.But what is wrong with it? What do you take offense to, to the point that you speak out against it?
It is hurting some fanatical Christians.
And i don't object to homosexuality. I actually don't care. What i object to, though, is homosexuality being called "normal".
It isn't. It's a perfectly good choice, no problem by me. It's not a "normal", "natural" choice though.So all you care about is the words? Who cares about words? They're just sounds we make with our mouths and translate into symbols.
Bottom line is, it's not hurting you. It's not hurting anyone. Why do you care what people call it?
this has nothing to do with the arguement.
Being born with a disease =/= homosexuality.That's effectively what you called it. I actually never said the word disease. If sexuality is genetic, then it is a condition that is out of one's control.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But what is wrong with it? What do you take offense to, to the point that you speak out against it?
First of all, you don't appear to be reading my arguments very well. I haven't spoken out against anything this entire thread except sloppy arguments.
Secondly, I personally take offense at it because it's the perversion of an act that transcends mere bodily interaction. But that has nothing to do with anything that has been said so far in this thread.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Also, Arathian - you gave the definition of natural as "Something that is predetermine to happen; not supernatural or magical." Homosexuality, if it is, in fact, genetic, is not supernatural or magical. Therefore, by your OWN definition, it is natural, as is mental deficiency and a whole slew of other things.
L2Readingcomprehension.
See my above statement.
Your above statements had absolutely no bearing on my post. I've dealt with every issue you brought up already.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
First of all, you don't appear to be reading my arguments very well. I haven't spoken out against anything this entire thread except sloppy arguments.Well, you're in this thread, speaking on the side against homosexuality. You're not supporting it, you're not remaining neutral on the manner... you're speaking against it.
Secondly, I personally take offense at it because it's the perversion of an act that transcends mere bodily interaction. But that has nothing to do with anything that has been said so far in this thread.Says who? Do you also take offense to heterosexual anal sex? How about oral? What about using condoms? None of those things are natural, but none of them are bad, either.
It's not a condition out of control.
You are merely affected by genes. You can be more PRONE to be a homo, you are making a CHOICE to be homo.
Read back: " both nurture and nature play a role on what choices a person makes".
Being born with 1 hand isn't a choice, being a homosexual is a choiceSays who? Show me the research. As far as I know, the exact cause of homosexuality is unclear. I believe it to be largely genetic, based on my research.
If you are genetically prone to schizophrenia, and you become schizophrenic, it is not because of any personal choice. Yes, there might be some chemical or psychological triggers that cause it to manifest, but it hardly your fault if you get it.
According to my research, some people are born genetically homosexual, and try to force themselves into being heterosexuals, but, again, based on what I've read, many of them suffer emotional and psychological damage from that kind of repression.
Post by
149406
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Well, you're in this thread, speaking on the side against homosexuality. You're not supporting it, you're not remaining neutral on the manner... you're speaking against it.
Where did I speak against it? Hmmm? The only thing I've argued against is the idea that if something is caused by genes, it is natural and therefore acceptable. You're arguing against your imagination.
Says who? Do you also take offense to heterosexual anal sex? How about oral? What about using condoms? None of those things are natural, but none of them are bad, either.
I'm not sure what you're doing....trying to put words in my mouth? Yes I take offense at anal sex, oral sex, and condoms.
Post by
Adamsm
You compare it to murder or rape; I'm not an A+ biology student but I don't think there's a "rape gene".There is no conclusive proof that there is a rape gene... though some scientist think they've found it, but can't prove it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If homosexual is genetic, it is natural. My thought of "natural" is without conscious, deliberate interference. If the person decides to be homosexual, that's unnatural, due to being a conscious decision, but if it's genetic, there was no conscious tampering or decision-making involved. You compare it to murder or rape; I'm not an A+ biology student but I don't think there's a "rape gene". There are genes that make people quicker to violence, yes, but it still takes
conscious decision
to commit murder or rape. The whole question of this thread is whether or not homosexuality is decided by genes. If it is, it's natural.
Of course, if I'm misinterpreting something let me know. I've had to leave for large chunks of this so I'm sort of skimming through the previous pages, heh.
So you're saying that there is no consciousness involves in having sex? I sure glad that isn't the case...
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.