Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!

89th - many people are homosexual.. a significant percentage of our population. I can't tell you how offensive I find your attitude.

If you are going to be judgemental; (out of politeness and why not), why would you share that judgement with those who might be gay. HAVE GOOD MANNERS is not a commandment, but it is as important a mandate as THOU SHALT NOT LIE.

If you knew anything about genetics, then you would not have posted utterly foolish things like :

a. Ever heard of recessive alleles?

b. I think I've given plenty of arguments for that statement.

c. The Nature article shows that homosexual behaviour is not necessarily a natural deformity or abnormal behaviour since it states that it seems to lead to an increased birth rate (which would make it a naturally evolved mechanism in order to increase birth rate), in this case "boosting female reproduction". Yet you say that no one can deny it.

d. Shows that you know nothing about scientific research and population ecology, the setup for your little experiment is ridiculous. Everyone but you realised that.

No I haven't, go check your facts.
I have given you one historical article in which the word animal never even occured and I have shown you an excerpt from a book about altruistic behaviour to show you that seemingly unnatural behaviour can lead to an increase in birth rate. (Notice that it is extremely important that the altruistic allele is recessive in order for it to survive.)
I have also used the Nature article that was posted by Nina, it isn't about animals either.

My theory? What exactly is my theory?

I have done nothing more than providing you with arguments for the foolish statements of yours that I quoted above. Statements you used to back up your opinion about the origin of homosexuality.

I don't care whether you think its origin is psychological or not, there are reasons to believe so, there are reasons to believe otherwise. But I have never seen such a poor defender of the psychological disorder theory as you.

When someone makes such foolish statements in a debate like the ones I quoted above, I think it's pretty normal that someone comes in to refute them. That's what I did, I showed you were you were wrong, only you refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong. That's what I'm trying to point out to you, and that what you don't seem to get or don't want to get.

Homosexuality and marriage are very valid issues to talk about, especially given the pending legislation.

I dont mean to be offensive, my thoughts and opinions on the topic are honest. Gay people shouldn't take them personally. If you told me that you think eating pie is disgusting or sinful, I'll say "Ok, thats your opinion, it doesn't bother me."

Many people call 'believing in God or the Bible' a waste of time, ignorant, etc...and I dont take what they say personally; and neither should gays.

Depends on the pie.

a. Sheesh, man, do I have to explain everything into the tiniest detail in order for you to understand? That was not what I meant. By comparing the possible genetic cause of homosexuality with the fact that two black parents will never have a white kid, you implied that if the cause for homosexuality is genetic, the allele is dominant. It's much more nuanced than that. That made your comment to be very ignorant. Besides, remember one of my previous quotes in which I said that in order for the altruistic allele to survive, it has to be recessive?
Is there any chance you might want to explain that to show me that you DO know something about (population) genetics?

b. The carrousel keeps on turning...
Yet again you twisted the words. Your original statement was that a species cannot survive with homosexual behaviour.
Here's a piece of what I posted in the original thread :
By the way, you have some way of twisting words. I never said that a species of homosexuals could survive, I said that a species with homosexual behaviour could survive. It's not because a species is a species with homosexual behaviour, that all the individuals of the species are homosexual, that's what you make of it, but that's not what mankind is either. We're not a population that consists only of homosexual individuals, we consist mostly of heterosexual individuals.
What I've been trying to tell you, and the only reason it didn't get through to you is because you don't know a damn thing about genetics and biology, is that a species of which the populations have a small percentage of homosexual individuals, are capable of surviving, and there's probably not even a negative effect from the homosexual individuals, possibly even a positive effect. It's what is written in the Nature article, it's what I tried to tell you with the altruistic behaviour part.

So, let us rephrase to clear it up :
A species can survive without homosexual behaviour. But : homosexual behaviour is not causing the species to become extinct since the populations of the species do not consist of only homosexual individuals like in your experimental setup. As implied in the Nature article, homosexual behaviour can lead to an increase in birth rate which would make it a natural mechanism to increase the chances of survival. But, that doesn't mean that the species is able to survive ONLY because of homosexual behaviour.
I'm really not going to explain this any further to you as it would take way too much of my time.

c. And yet you state that no one can deny that it is a natural deformity.


d. Yes, but once again, your hypothetical situation is ridiculous. I could also tell you to put 100 altruistic individuals on an island, since they don't reproduce, they won't survive either, and yet it has been proven that they make a contribution to the survival of the population and species.


[/b]

No, that's not my theory. I never told you whether I believe it is either psychological or genetical. What I did was pointing out the flaws in your reasoning, the reasoning you used to come to your opinion. I repeat : I have never seen such a poor defender of the psychological disorder theory as you.


You really don't get it do you. I don't care about your selective discrimination issue, I just showed you the flaws in the reasoning you used to come to YOUR conclusion that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. There are people who come to the exact same conlusion as you do (and who knows, maybe I'm one of them), only, they base them on much more knowledge and common sense than you do.

89th Key:

The fact that you've persisted in labelling homosexuality a "disorder" when it is simply a sexual preference or lifestyle reflects nothing other than your stubbornly clingling to judgemental views which have turned off just about everybody who even "bothers" to commmunicate with you on the subject.

Should you ever "evolve" to the point where you somehow acquire more compassion, you'll reject the jaundiced views you hold now. At that time you'll also be much more secure with your own identity as well.

So it is just a choice!! This is what I always thought.

lb

Ok so you dont want to address the selective discrimination issue, thats fine, and least I know that you dont want to talk about that.

Secondly, you need to state what your thoughts are on the origin of homosexuality before we contintue...if you agree with me, then say so. If you think they are born that way, then say so...but arguing about how I came up with my opinion is pointless if you already agree with it.

Who said I didn't have compassion? I never make any personal attacks toward anyone. I am only talking about the issue and situation of homosexuality.

I am sure you disagree with many lifestyles that 'dont hurt anyone', just as I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. Should I call you judgemental, stubborn, compassionless, holding 'jaundiced' views, and insecure?

No.

Dont be a hypocrite.

Sorry nunatax, I'm leaving work right now and I dont have time to respond, but I will as soon as I get a chance. It got real busy here the last few hours, so dont think I am ignoring your question...have a good one.

Actually, there I heard somewhere that their brain is slightly different in one section - just what I've heard... this is not in anyway shape or form against homosexuality, it's just what I've heard.

Nunatax,

Its good to know that you dont have a position on the origin of homosexuality, it makes our debate alot more productive when I know where you are coming from. So saying that, I digress...

A)I know about population genetics, alleles and all that. I have studied genetics, but whether you like it or not, two white parents are not going to have a black kid, recessive genes, dominant genes, doesn't matter. The reason I brought that up was because it is one reason showing why homosexuality is not genetic. Two heterosexual parents aren't going to have a homosexual kid...in the end, there isn't any proof on either side, because the genetic origin of homosexuality is still a THEORY.

B) We are both arguing the same thing. I said that a species can not survive WITH homosexual behavior, as in, using homosexual behavior. You were arguing that a species can survive WITH homosexual behavior, as in, with homosexuals in the population.

We agree with each other there, so that point is done.

C) I didn't say you cant deny that it is a natural defection, people can have any opinion they want.

D) Look at B.

Finally, you haven't pointed out any flaws in my base. You have twisted my words, and misunderstood my words, but every rationale I have used is a legitimate base for my opinion.

Also, I wish you would address the selective discrimination issue, but I can see why you wont: no one can. There is hypocritical, selective discrimination going on all the time, and no one wants to talk about it. Many people are jumping on the homosexuality band wagon, calling it 'tolerance'. You support homos or you are a bigot is the message I usually hear. And that is hypocritical to the Nth degree.

There is a glimmer of hope, and that is that every state that had the homosexual marriage issue rejected it on an average of 70%.

I would appreciate it if you didn't personally cut me down, because when you do it temps me to drop to your level, and it also shows you have run out of intelligent talking points.

Some people believe homos are born that way, some thing its a disorder. You know my stance and I have given you many reasons why I believe that way, without even addressing the biblical aspect.

Anything else?

I thought this was a thread about terrorism and the consequences of re-electing GWB not another thread sidetracked onto issues concerning homosexuality. Can't that be a different thread?

Apparently not. :rolleyes:

a.

OK, I'll walk you through this step by step.
You know why a black couple will never have a white baby? Because the two loci of the gene that codes for their skin colour, are both taken by the allele that codes for black skin colour. There IS no allele that codes for white skin colour there. OK, I guess you can easily follow up until now.
What happens to a black male/white female couple :
He has 2 alleles that code for black skin colour, she has two that code for white skin colour. All their offspring will have one that codes for black and another that codes for white skin colour. Their skin will have a mix of both colours. This is called co-dominance. This is why a black person has per definition NO allele coding for white skin colour.

(Sidenote : This really is oversimplified genetics, because many phenotypes are under control of more than one gene which can make the patterns which arise in the distribution of a certain characteristic in the offspring much more complicated than this. But let us assume that IF homosexuality has a genetic cause, that it is coded by only ONE gene.)

So again, why can't a black couple have a white baby? Because there simply IS not allele in any of the parents that codes for white skin colour.

Here comes in another mechanism : recessive vs. dominant.
Let us assume that the allele coding for black skin colour is dominant, the one coding for white skin colour is recessive. A couple in which the parents are both heterozygote for the characteristic skin colour, will have a black skin, since that allele is dominant. Now what possible skin colours could their offspring have (and this should look familiar if you know anything about genetics):
B is the dominant allele coding for black colour
b is the recessive allele coding for white colour

P: Bb x Bb

F1: BB 2Bb bb

Now, the BB and Bb offspring will all have a black skin, the bb offspring will have a white skin (surprise, surprise...).

So, this makes it perfectly possible for two heterosexual parent to have a homosexual child if its cause would be genetic, no?

Want more examples?
My mother has brown hair, my father has black hair, I have blond hair. My parents also both have brown eyes, I have blue eyes, in fact, three of us four kids have blue eyes, the fourth has brown eyes like our parents.

So you see, it is perfectly possible for offspring to have a certain characteristic that is absent in both the parents (actually, absent in their phenotype but present in their genotype), which makes your comparison with the black couple wrong, you just oversimplified it and made a big mistake as a result.

And I have also said that in order for the altruistic gene to survive, it MUST be recessive, any idea why?

b. I could live with it being just a misunderstandment. However, the whole statement and the island scenario is R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S. BECAUSE : we are NOT a population that consists of ONLY homosexual individuals. PLUS, I have pointed out to you that it is not because heterosexual individuals are the only ones that reproduce, that homosexual individuals cannot have a positive contribution to the birth rate. I'll say again : we, as a species, do not survive BECAUSE OF homosexual behaviour, but it is NOT MAKING US BECOME EXTINCT EITHER. It could help increase our CHANCES OF SURVIVAL without being just THE CAUSE of our survival. You really need to stop looking at this in black and white.

c. Yes you have, here's an exact copy of something you wrote in that thread :


d. Look at b



Yes I have, you only have a hard time admitting it.



Why do I have to address that issue? I haven't addressed it before, I never intended to do so either.
I was just READING that thread in order to learn something when I found I had to comment on those statements of yours. I don't see anything wrong with that.



I'm not trying to cut you down personally, it's a shame you think so, I'm trying to make you see that you are wrong at some crucial points in your thinking. It's also a shame that you think that in order to get to my level you need to "drop".

You don't know what you're talking about.

Science does not produce proofs, science ONLY EVER produces the best bet. For every single scientific theory there is the possibility that evidence that contradicts the theory will arise.

With certain theories for example heliocentricity (planets go round the sun, germ-based theory of disease (viruses and bacteria cause desease), or evolution, the "bet" is considered such good odds that one can effectively consider it true. But they are still not proofs. From what i have read there is not so much evidence that the genetic theory of homosexuality is as strong as the above mentioned theories (though i could be mistaken) but it still constitutes the best bet.

I gave you direct quotes from abstracts of papers published in peer reviewd scientific journals, what more can you possibly want?

Your logic is flawed, even if one accepts your assertation that i discriminate against other segements of the population that does not alter the argument regarding homosexuality. Your current 'refutation' of my stance, could be applied to any argument regarding discrimination.

Ie:

You: we should descriminate against people who are black.

Me: No we shouldn't heres why....

You: Aha but you think nakedness in public should be illegal, ahah!.

Me: That doesn't address my argument at all.

Furthermore, i answered your queries, beastiality can be viewed as abusing animals, furthermore as someone else pointed out beastilaity carries a risk of transfering diseases to man, diseases that cross the species barrier are the most dangerous.

Do i support keeping nakedness in public illegal? As i said earlier i don't really care that much, are there lots of people who really want to be naked all the time, is their quality of life seriously reduced? I don't think so.

Furthermore there is a difference here, nudity in public is choice, homosexuality irrespective of whether its genetic or environmental roots is NOT choice.

Bollocks, you can choose your rules. Not descriminating against someone who happens to find members of the same sex attractive is not going to lead to chaos.

Evolution at least as described by Darwin and his followers is VERY FAR from being proved, see Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton. And it was pretty funny to see the results of DNA taken from a supposed Cro-Magnan man which turned out to be from a dog, from a pig and from a modern human. Evolution is nothing more than a bad theory that allows philosophical materialism to be accepted in other areas of human life. There is likewise no solid evidence for Creationism as a literal interpretation of the Bible has it. The truth is WE DON'T KNOW.

It's a bit more than finding members of the same sex attractive.

But what does any of this have to do with terrorism of GWB?

There is a sort of gravitational principle that causes all threads, no matter how orthogonal, to inevitably spiral into a discussion of homosexuality. It may take more pages for a topic like planting roses than for one began as a discussion of terrorism but it is the black hole, so to speak, about which everything else on this board revolves and, inevitably, enters .