Homosexuality

[rvkevin]

Tautological statements don't require evidence...

Never mind. I would just say that if the premise of the argument is the conclusion of the argument, then I think the term argument is being applied very loosely. If A->A fits the definition of an argument, I suppose one could count A as a conclusion, but I doubt the usefulness of such an application in determining one's position unless that is their position.

 

[SuperBowser]

This is why I left the debate a while ago I'd like to go back to a point I made at the beginning of the thread before it got horribly sidetracked. Dre., I think you accepted that homosexuality is not a choice and it cannot be changed by any known treatment. We should then examine what happens from here.

Whatever you assert, it is natural for people to want to have sex. It is undeniable; this is what humans are physiologically programmed to want. However, a homosexual person does not want to have sex with a woman because they are simply not physiologically (or psychologically if you apprently believe) attracted to women. If we ban these people from having sex, what are we acheiving? What are we really asking of these people?

-To not have a sexual relationship for the rest of their life. This most likely means they will not have a meaningful relationship for the rest of their life.
-To live a lie. So many more people will be unhappy in this choice.

Ultimately we would be asking these people to not be happy. Despite what they are naturally attracted to they are told it is wrong, that they must never take part in such an unnatural act. The implications this would have on the mental health of anybody would be huge. I could not begin to imagine how this affects a person. And all of this would be for what? Some intangible notion of preserving ''naturalness''.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I never said it was one testimony, I said the testimony itself isn't reliable.

This is in peer-reviewed literature. It's reliable

If this homosexuality is so abundant why hasn't anyone produced a video of it?

I'm sure there is a video of it somewhere. But honestly, do you really need the video? You didn't for the Miracle of the Sun. I don't understand why you'd draw a line between them.

The fact that the only video that has been produced made gross exaggerations, showed no sexual intercourse, and called a female oranguatan a male has only made your case weaker.

The fact that you're denying any evidence that contradicts your position only makes your case weaker.

 

[Dre89]

There was no evidence though.

The video claimed that lions licking near each other's mouths was evidence of them having sex.

There was no footage of any homosexual sex at all.

It called a female oranguatan a male.

If this was so abundant I, and the people who work at the zoo would have witnessed this by now, yet none of this has ever been witnessed before.

The only thing we have is scientific testimony, which we/I know has political agendas for homosexuality, and in this case what it is claiming conflicts with every other method of attaining knowledge.

Considering that everything else conflicts with the tesimnony, they have a political agenda for that testimony, and the apparent evidence of what is supposedly so abundant didn't show anything, and actually got things wrong, how on Earth am I not justified in my skepticism?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't think that even matters that much, TBH. I still haven't gotten an answer to my questions here, and I think it is in fact a key point. Regardless how "correct" your philosophy may be, if it detracts from the human enjoyment of life, then it should be shunned.

 

[SuperBowser]

It's a BBC show for daytime TV! Expecting overt homosexual sex is silly. In fact, applying anything you see in a TV show to a whole community is silly, don't you think?

Bob Jane is telling you there is peer-reviewed literature available. There is a lot of it.

 

[Dre89]

There is probably also peer-reviewed literature for the gay-gene argument.

The gay gene is bullcrap because we know environmental factors influence sexuality.

For example, many gays (not all) lacked a male role model in their childhood, I even personally know of plenty of people who this is true for.

Secondly, people change their sexuality at different stages of their life. There have been gays who have converted into hererosexual Catholics, and there have also been married men who have turned gay in middle age.

Also, we know that things like fetishes are also a result of environmental influences. For example, boys who were beaten by their mothers in childhood often develop submissive sexuality, or in some cases grow to hate women and desire to harm them. This is just one example, there a plenty more.

The psychological nature of sexuality is pretty much entire reason criminal profilers exist. Male serial killers kill for sexual reasons, sexual tendencies they often developed due to environmental factors. Criminal profilers analyse the murder patterns of the killer and then can determine what sort of enviromental factors influenced the killer's behaviour.

There have been tribes in the past where obesity was considered sexually attractive. The fact that virtually an entire tribe can consider the same thing attractive, which we no longer consider attractive shows that sexually is nurture not nature.

Or take the Spartans for example, nearly every one of them participated in homosexuality with their colleagues in the barracks because the circumstances, not because by some massive fluke an entire city-state contracted the gay gene.

I don't see how the gay gene fits in to any of this. Trisome 21, or down-syndrome, as you would probably all know, is a chromosome defect, it's biological, and it affects everyone at around the same time. It makes no sense then that if there is a gay gene, why people turn gay at different ages, for different psychological reasons, that it can be converted and why all forms of sexuality have psychological reasons.

So no Blazed, my denial of homosexuality in the wild has nothing to do with philosophy. All that I've spoken of is what lead me to disagree with homosexuality, not the other way around.

It's not philosophy that makes me disagree with homosexuality, it's natural observation.

 

[GoldShadow]

There is probably also peer-reviewed literature for the gay-gene argument.

The gay gene is bullcrap because we know environmental factors influence sexuality.

"Probably"? Again, the scientific community never proposed a "gay gene" or anything of the sort. It is a complex multigenic, multifactorial trait. There is no single on/off switch.

Moreover, environmental factors influence most things. That doesn't preclude the existence of genetic factors that also influence those things, and some things are under stronger genetic control than others.

So no Blazed, my denial of homosexuality in the wild has nothing to do with philosophy. All that I've spoken of is what lead me to disagree with homosexuality, not the other way around.

It's not philosophy that makes me disagree with homosexuality, it's natural observation.

Seems to me like you ignore (or fail to research) observation that's at odds with what you want to believe.

 

[Dre89]

That doesn't make sense because when I did do the observation and research, there wasn't anything I 'wanted' to believe. In fact, the beliefs I had at the time were just like all the liberals here.

How can you honestly expect me to believe animal homosexuality? It's apparently so abundant, yet there's apparently no footage of it, both I and zookeepers have never witnessed it, and scientists have had agendas for homosexuality in the past.

Not only that, but the video that apparently evidenced animal homosexuality showed nothing and was evidently a sham for reasons stated previously.

Given all that, how could I in my right mind not be skeptical of animal homosexuality?

Instead of complaining about my skepticisim, just link me to footage of it and end the debate.

 

[Lore]

Rabbits have been known to have gay sex, and I've seen several videos. I would post one, but it probably wouldn't be appropriate for SWF, and I'm tired/on my iPod.

Pm me if you still want to see it, but you should be able to find something on YouTube.

 

[SuperBowser]

...I see this topic getting messy after your last post.

There is probably also peer-reviewed literature for the gay-gene argument.

Let's not use ''probably''s. There either is or there isn't. Show such literature or don't make silly claims.

The gay gene is bullcrap because we know environmental factors influence sexuality.

Rubbish. I don't think you understand the topic at hand to have reached this conclusion. Let's take a look at a more ''neutral'' condition.

Schizophrenia is a neurodevelopmental disorder. There is very good evidence genetics plays a role. However, in identical monozygotic twins you will not find a 100% concordance rate; it is only 40%. Yet if we look at dizygotic twins the concordance rate is just 15%.

Genetics clearly plays a role here. However you might wonder how that can be possible when identical twins do not suffer the same disease! This is because genetics merely provide a predisposition or vulnerability to go on to develop schizophrenia. Environmental factors such as abnormalities during pregnancy or malnutrition or marijuana are implicated. There is also good reason to believe that psychological and social factors play a role too. For example, stressful life events or suffering discrimination may precipitate the development of schizophrenia. However this is understandably more difficult to prove. Clinical experience from most doctors imply that psychological and social factors are important though. It's famously noted that Africans who stay within their own country have a lower incidence (normal) of schizophrenia than first generation Africans who migrated to America.

You see, studies looking into homosexuality have found similar results (though the %s involved are obviously different to schizophrenia). There is extremely good evidence genetics plays an important role; the mechanism is appears to be the same. Genetics provide that predisposition. However, just because there are environmental and psychological and social inputs does not mean that this state is reversible just like schizophrenia. Homosexuality is most likely neurodevelopmental.

I think people have shown you studies already but if not, I've provided very good, neutral sources in the past and I'm more than happy to dig them up for you. But let's also use a little common sense: sexuality cannot be purely psychological; even the simplest and dumbest of animals are attracted to the opposite member of the sex and this would indicate something more is at play (...unless they are homosexual lol).

For example, many gays (not all) lacked a male role model in their childhood, I even personally know of plenty of people who this is true for.

Secondly, people change their sexuality at different stages of their life. There have been gays who have converted into hererosexual Catholics, and there have also been married men who have turned gay in middle age.

I'd daresay that men who ''turned gay'' in middle age were always gay. They've been living a double life because of the pressure exerted by society. Also, there are people who are bisexual so the idea of ''changing sexuality'' isn't so difficult for them because they never actually changed.

Your first claim doesn't mean much, for reasons I have explained above. However, it is a common stereotype and I don't believe there are any statistics to corroborate your claim. There are lots of men raised by single mothers that are straight! Anecdotes are not satisfactory for several reasons: the ''statistics'' you provide are inherently inadequate and you may be unintentionally ignoring people that go against your hypothesis. Additionally, if you think about it it wouldn't be that surprising for a gay men to have poorer relationships with their father on average - they never fit the role their fathers wanted them to. Correlation =/= causation.

I think it's worth recognising that there's more than one reason for a person's sexuality and reasons are different for different people - pointing to one small portion of a group and extrapolating beliefs from their actions would be unwise.

There have been tribes in the past where obesity was considered sexually attractive. The fact that virtually an entire tribe can consider the same thing attractive, which we no longer consider attractive shows that sexually is nurture not nature.

What we find sexually attractive in a gender is different to the gender we find sexually attractive.

I don't see how the gay gene fits in to any of this. Trisome 21, or down-syndrome, as you would probably all know, is a chromosome defect, it's biological, and it affects everyone at around the same time. It makes no sense then that if there is a gay gene, why people turn gay at different ages, for different psychological reasons, that it can be converted and why all forms of sexuality have psychological reasons.

I hope my post answered your question. And that bolded underlined statement bothers me because we already had this discussion earlier. Do not make such stupid statements unless you are willing to back them up with evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that any form of therapy can ''cure'' homosexuality. In fact many of the ''studies'' from the organizations you allude to do not even meet the most basic principles of the scientific method. If you quote one, I guarantee I will break down its methodology and expose the terrible piece of ''science'' it is.

Did you know many of these organizations actively pursue former ''success'' patients and threaten to take them to court if they attempt tp speak out about how these therapies never worked? This is the true nature of these organisations which is why I act so harshly when people bring them up.

 

[Dre89]

I noticed you left out my comment about the Spartans, what's your explanation of that?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Hang on a second, before I dissect this post, I'd like to pull out a certain part where I can, again say that if you're using it as evidence in a serious debate, you are a ****ing moron.

There have been gays who have converted into hererosexual Catholics

There have been gays who have been duressed into pretending they were not gay, there have been bisexuals who decided to go the path of least resistance. Anyone claiming to "convert" truly homosexual people is a moron.

So. Now the rest of the post.

There is probably also peer-reviewed literature for the gay-gene argument.

The gay gene is bullcrap because we know environmental factors influence sexuality.

Superbrowser covered this.

For example, many gays (not all) lacked a male role model in their childhood, I even personally know of plenty of people who this is true for.

Secondly, people change their sexuality at different stages of their life. There have been gays who have converted into hererosexual Catholics, and there have also been married men who have turned gay in middle age.

I honestly think that it isn't the case of someone changing their sexuality; in the former case, it's a community putting pressure on someone until they pretend to not be gay, and in the latter case, it's someone finally coming out of the closet.

There have been tribes in the past where obesity was considered sexually attractive. The fact that virtually an entire tribe can consider the same thing attractive, which we no longer consider attractive shows that sexually is nurture not nature.

Or maybe that the opinion of the community (peer pressure) has a deep impact on behavior, to the extent of someone repressing their own sexuality, or pretending picking up a new fetish to please the group? Just pointing that out as an alternative hypothesis.

Or take the Spartans for example, nearly every one of them participated in homosexuality with their colleagues in the barracks because the circumstances, not because by some massive fluke an entire city-state contracted the gay gene.

While in at least one case, this is attributable to the homosexuals being specifically chosen for said job (the Sacred Band of Thebes), this is a good point. A very, very good point.

Although I just dug this up...

made up of what we, today, would call "same-sex couples". The Spartan army was not noted in any source as being in any way made up of what could be called "homosexual couples". The ancient Greeks, as a whole, had no particular problem with homosexual acts, but would not tolerate homosexual lifestyles. Any grown man who did not take a wife and have children was looked down on in society and would have a diminished standing in the community. It was alright to have affairs with other males, or with the appropriate females, but not to maintain a homosexual lifestyle.

Not sure how reliable the source is, but it would be an answer. I'm going to double-check the reliability of that testimony.

 

[Dre89]

With regards to the Spartans, are you aware of what the marriage ritual was?

The woman shaved her head and dressed in masculine clothing to look like a man, then the husband wrestled her to the ground as if to conquer her as his own.

Also, Spartan women were known to be very strong and atheltic, and dominated in inter city-state sporting events.

It's evident that there was a sexual idolisation of masculinity in Spartan society.

I was expecting you guys to use the 'they just didn't admit it until middle age' or 'they've just been brainwashed'.

It's irrelevant though, because there's proof that particular events influence sexuality. Everything I said about fetishes, serial killers and their criminal profilers evidence that.

The Spartans weren't born gay, they were only gay because the culture sexually idolised masculinity and their cirucmstances made the majority of them gay. If homosexuality was genetic, there'd be a conssitent percentage of gays across every civilisation and time period, but evidently there isn't.

So yes, people alter their sexuality at different stages in life, due to subconscious influences. It's got nothing to do with hiding it their entire life or being brainwashed.

By the way, is the idea behind the gay gene idea that the gene is passed on to offspring?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The only thing we have is scientific testimony, which we/I know has political agendas for homosexuality, and in this case what it is claiming conflicts with every other method of attaining knowledge.

Please explain. I don't see how it conflicts with every other method of attaining knowledge. People have seen this occur. It's been documented, you can't say they were all lying, because that just wouldn't make sense. Why would they lie?

Considering that everything else conflicts with the tesimnony, they have a political agenda for that testimony, and the apparent evidence of what is supposedly so abundant didn't show anything, and actually got things wrong, how on Earth am I not justified in my skepticism?

Everything else? What political agenda and why?

 

[Dre89]

Everyone knows academics lie for political, social and financial motives. John Locke said it himself.

They made stuff up about the gay gene, which I know is bogus because there is an overwhelming body of evidence which proves that sexuality is nurture not nature. So I know it's not beyond scientists to lie about homosexuality.

I, nor the zookeepers I used to be associated with have ever witnessed any of this. Footage of this is never shown, only hetereosexual practice is shown.

The video that apparently showed homosexuality showed nothing and was in fact a sham, evidenced by the fact it called a female oranguatan a male.

If this is so abundant why has no one shown me footage of this occurring in the wild? If it's so abundant surely someone can post a link and end this debate.

Also, the claims of homosexuality seems to conflict with alot societal practices in the wild.

Male cockroaches who look for breeding partners can accidently stumble across another male, in which case they go their separate ways, instead of having sex.

In many mammal species, such as lions and apes, the dominant male will ostracise lesser males when they come of age. Females are not ostracised, for the alpha male values them as sexual partners. What doesn't make sense to me is that why these males would be ostracising the lesser males if they supposedly valued sexual relations with them as well.

These are just two examples, there are plenty more.

Whether or not it occurs in the wild, I am certainly justified in my skepticism until an adequate video is presented.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Everyone knows academics lie for political, social and financial motives. John Locke said it himself.

So they're all lying? That doesn't honestly sound right. If anything they probably would lie to cover up Homosexuality occurring in nature. Who would provide the funds for pro-gay science? I know who'd provide funds for anti-gay science though...

They made stuff up about the gay gene, which I know is bogus because there is an overwhelming body of evidence which proves that sexuality is nurture not nature. So I know it's not beyond scientists to lie about homosexuality.

Sources please.

I, nor the zookeepers I used to be associated with have ever witnessed any of this. Footage of this is never shown, only hetereosexual practice is shown.

Yeah, the people in Central Park Zoo, who deal with Chinstrap Penguins would disagree

If this is so abundant why has no one shown me footage of this occurring in the wild? If it's so abundant surely someone can post a link and end this debate.

It's not exactly abundant as you say. Maybe people who've seen this happen weren't carrying video cameras. Also, you are applying a double-standard here. You asserted that the Miracle of the Sun occurred, yet there was no video evidence.

Also, the claims of homosexuality seems to conflict with alot societal practices in the wild.

Male cockroaches who look for breeding partners can accidently stumble across another male, in which case they go their separate ways, instead of having sex.

In many mammal species, such as lions and apes, the dominant male will ostracise lesser males when they come of age. Females are not ostracised, for the alpha male values them as sexual partners. What doesn't make sense to me is that why these males would be ostracising the lesser males if they supposedly valued sexual relations with them as well.

These are just two examples, there are plenty more.

Homosexuality is the exception and not the rule. So, any examples of heterosexual behaviour you list here, don't really matter.

 

[Dre89]

I'm pretty sure one of the sources said something like 1500 species do it.

Besides, one of those 'exceptions' was meant to be lions, which is why I specifically made reference to them.

The Miracle of the Sun is different in that we know the girl, as well as other people who have claimed marian apparitions, correctly predicted multiple occurences.

It's not really contested that she correctly predicted the occurence of the sun. What is most contested is whether what happened was supernatural or not. But let's not turn this into a debate about that.

Come to think about it, I said I would stop debating and that we should leave this debate because we're beginning to kick a dead horse, so why am I still debating?

As of now I resign from this thread. Don't worry, there will be plenty more debates for you guys to disagree with me in the future,

 

[rvkevin]

Out in Nature: Homosexual Behavior in the Animal Kingdom.

Who would provide the funds for pro-gay science? I know who'd provide funds for anti-gay science though...

LoL, so true.

Seriously, when someone suggests that a scientist is lying, all you need to do is look up some of their papers and point out the flaws. This is why I hate these general claims that they all have an agenda, etc, and then don't point to a single example to support it or don't give evidence for the single example they've given. By the way, first Google hit for "gay gene" yields this, "Biology and sexual orientation: This was popularly (but inaccurately) dubbed as the 'gay gene' in the media, causing significant controversy." What did they make up? Evidence or it didn't happen.

 

[SuperBowser]

I noticed you left out my comment about the Spartans, what's your explanation of that?

Spartans were actually bisexual if we want to get technical. It was considered abnormal in their cultures for a man to only sleep with other men.

Did you know that, given the correct environment, one can induce psychosis in anybody? We can all develop schizophrenia? Your example does not go against what I have posted. I don't deny that psychological and social factors play a role. What I am telling you is that genetic and biological factors do play a significant role and provide a greater predisposition to become homosexual in the first place. Studies indicate most people's sexuality is developed before adulthood and remains the same from that point on. There is incredibly good evidence for what I am saying. If you actually believe there is some political agenda, then please show me it. I guarantee I will rip apart any study you bring to the table, but we all know you cannot do the same. The studies do not lie and there are dozens of them.

Your empty claims -that is what they demonstrably are at this point- are desperation; the double standard we see is profound. I offer evidence but you do not return the favour. I think you very well know that the ''studies'' backing your beliefs are based on rubbish but you choose to to be ignorant and trust them because it fits your worldview.

I've given you enough details already. You should eduate yourself instead of assuming it's all a lie.


Perhaps instead of using a psychiatric disorder, I should have used a physical disease like cancer. I think it would much more readily bring across my point.

 

[Dre89]

I didn't say there was definitely a political agenda, I just said that I wouldn't put it beyond scientists, because I had come to understand that they argued for a gay gene, when in fact as I've shown sexuality in humanity is nurture not nature.

However Rvkevin did post a far more convincing video, and one of the related videos showed male lions mounting each other for a prolonged period of time. Naturally, I just have to swallow it and accept that it definitely shakes my theory of homosexuality.

Christians can still defend their stance theologically by saying that homosexuality is a result of the Fall of Humanity etc. but I won't go into that.

Until that video was provided, I still believe my skepticism was justified, given my prior understanding of animal behaviour and my understanding of the gay gene idea.

 

[Deleted member]

Where have you shown that it is nurture? And can you then give examples of nurture influences that would raise the chance of someone turning out gay?

 

[SuperBowser]

Until that video was provided, I still believe my skepticism was justified, given my prior understanding of animal behaviour and my understanding of the gay gene idea.

Then educate yourself. Here is a balanced unbiased source; it does not overstate the findings of a single study cited, unlike any media or religious or political scientist may be accused of: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm

A very small excerpt:
''A gay male from the population that Hamer studied would notice that more of his mother's brothers will be gay than his father's brothers; so too with the various classes of maternal cousins when compared to his paternal cousins. Thus, much male homosexuality is caused by a gene on the X chromosome. Hamer went on to find the approximate location on the chromosome where the gay-causing gene was located. He found that many of his subjects had an identical sequence on the Xq28 region of their X chromosome. This shows the approximate location of the "gay gene." Researchers speculated that a group of interacting genes (including one in this region) might be found to determine sexual orientation in males. This prediction came to pass. The statistical "p" value is a measure of the significance of a test: the probability that it could have happened by chance. P values less than 0.01 (1%) are considered very significant. The Hamer study had a P factor of 0.00001, and so is considered extremely reliable. ''

Interestingly, this source used schizophrenia as an example like I did It was once believed schizophrenia was a result of poor parenting!

 

[Dre89]

Vi veri Here's a quote from where I argued it before-

"For example, many gays (not all) lacked a male role model in their childhood, I even personally know of plenty of people who this is true for.

Secondly, people change their sexuality at different stages of their life. There have been gays who have converted into hererosexual Catholics, and there have also been married men who have turned gay in middle age.

Also, we know that things like fetishes are also a result of environmental influences. For example, boys who were beaten by their mothers in childhood often develop submissive sexuality, or in some cases grow to hate women and desire to harm them. This is just one example, there a plenty more.

The psychological nature of sexuality is pretty much entire reason criminal profilers exist. Male serial killers kill for sexual reasons, sexual tendencies they often developed due to environmental factors. Criminal profilers analyse the murder patterns of the killer and then can determine what sort of enviromental factors influenced the killer's behaviour.

There have been tribes in the past where obesity was considered sexually attractive. The fact that virtually an entire tribe can consider the same thing attractive, which we no longer consider attractive shows that sexually is nurture not nature.

Or take the Spartans for example, nearly every one of them participated in homosexuality with their colleagues in the barracks because the circumstances, not because by some massive fluke an entire city-state contracted the gay gene.

I don't see how the gay gene fits in to any of this. Trisome 21, or down-syndrome, as you would probably all know, is a chromosome defect, it's biological, and it affects everyone at around the same time. It makes no sense then that if there is a gay gene, why people turn gay at different ages, for different psychological reasons, that it can be converted and why all forms of sexuality have psychological reasons."

Also, I'll add that even if homosexuality was genetic, it would make no difference to the debate. It could still be considered a defect, considering that there are genetic defects like Trisome 21, and that would mean things like attractions to children and harming women would be genetic too.

But this debate is definitely over now, even though it's not really a debate when only side puts their argument across.

 

[SuperBowser]

If you don't believe I have put an argument across to you Dre., then I have nothing more to say to you.

 

[Dre89]

You're arguments were an attempt to refute mine.

No one here put across a detailed argument saying why homosexuality was permissable, instead everyone was just concerned with refuting my argument.

For some reason, you all just assumed that refuting my individual argument= winning the debate and homosexuality is permissable.

You assumed absence of evidence of anti-homosexuality was evidence for pro-homosexuality, which it isn't.

But anyway I don't want to get into it, I've been trying to end this debate for awhile now and now is a good time to do so.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I put an, IMO, very solid argument on the table as to why homosexuality should be acceptable.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10523443&postcount=256

You still haven't replied to it.

EDIT: And the first half of this one: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10525589&postcount=267

 

[Cyn]

The way I see it we should all live and let live. We shouldn't care. Does it directly affect anyone but themselves? Not really (not counting men who decided they were gay after having children and deserting their family). Frankly it's not really anyone's business but their own. If it is what makes them happy then so be it. As far as getting married goes, why not? If the definition of marriage is between a "man and a woman" then why not change the definition. Are we as a society bound by the definition of words? Or do humans determine the definition of our language?

If there is a "gay gene" then nature will weed out the defective as it has always done. They weren't meant to mate if there actually is a gay gene, which I think is doubtful. Anyways this is a good debate.

 

[GoldShadow]

If there is a "gay gene" then nature will weed out the defective as it has always done. They weren't meant to mate if there actually is a gay gene, which I think is doubtful. Anyways this is a good debate.

Are you sure it has to be a defect, biologically speaking?

 

[Cyn]

Are you sure it has to be a defect, biologically speaking?

I'm not even convinced there is such a gene, but if there was such a gene from the standpoint of biology and procreation, then yes I would consider it a sexual defect. Sex is meant to continue our species. But as I said live and let live, if they choose not to procreate then so be it. Gays may not contribute to society as far as continuing our species, but they contribute in all the other ways. They vote, they pay taxes, they hold jobs. They contribute to our economy in the same way everyone else does. They just don't contribute to the gene pool. So what? There are millions of others who do.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The Miracle of the Sun is different in that we know the girl, as well as other people who have claimed marian apparitions, correctly predicted multiple occurences.

It's not really contested that she correctly predicted the occurence of the sun. What is most contested is whether what happened was supernatural or not. But let's not turn this into a debate about that.

I think we have a double standard here. You want video evidence of homosexuality in nature, yet you don't need video evidence that the girl predicted the miracle of the sun.

We know the scientists and we know the journalists who've observed homosexuality in nature. What's the difference?

 

[GoldShadow]

I'm not even convinced there is such a gene, but if there was such a gene from the standpoint of biology and procreation, then yes I would consider it a sexual defect.

Are you sure that not reproducing is always a biological defect or failure? There are several examples in nature where this is not the case.

 

[SuperBowser]

If there is a "gay gene" then nature will weed out the defective as it has always done. They weren't meant to mate if there actually is a gay gene, which I think is doubtful. Anyways this is a good debate.

Well there's quite a few reasons these genes could continue propagating themselves. Perhaps these ''gay genes'' provide a survival advantage in situations. Imagine, for example, the sickle cell trait that is protective against malaria. Perhaps people with a genetic propensity to develop homosexuality (but do not!) possess traits such as greater empathy, intelligence or linguistic skills and thus have a reproductive advantage. Just a thought.

You're arguments were an attempt to refute mine.

...by providing an alternate mechanism for why homosexuality exists. What I've put across extends much further than simply refuting what you had to say. Part of the debate hall is for learning. Clearly you don't care to enlighten yourself.

But whatever.

 

[Dre89]

...by providing an alternate mechanism for why homosexuality exists. What I've put across extends much further than simply refuting what you had to say. Part of the debate hall is for learning. Clearly you don't care to enlighten yourself.

But whatever.

What?

I openly admitted I was wrong, yet you say I don't want to 'enlighten myself', as if to imply I'm narrow minded, when I swallowed it and conceded defeat.

I never said your arguments are bad, they were good. I just didn't like how all of a sudden the burden of proof was shifted onto me and you guys thought that if I couldn't prove my position, then yours was justified without having to put an argument across of your own.

So I don't understand where you get this idea of me not wanting to learn comes from, considering I've said many times that's what I'm here to do, and I openly admitted I was wrong.

Honestly if that's not evidence of open-mindedness I don't know what is.

 

[SuperBowser]

I didn't think you gave an admission that anything I posted corrected your beliefs.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Cyn]

Are you sure that not reproducing is always a biological defect or failure? There are several examples in nature where this is not the case.

Please provide them, when is sex not supposed to be for reproduction?

 

[Dre89]

I didn't think you gave an admission that anything I posted corrected your beliefs.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Well what made me accept I was wrong was the video posted by Rvkevin displaying animal homosexuality.

But that doesn't mean I thought your arguments were bad, they were good and worthy of the DH. You can't call someone narrow-minded just because you don't change their mind though.

 

[SuperBowser]

Well what made me accept I was wrong was the video posted by Rvkevin displaying animal homosexuality.

But that doesn't mean I thought your arguments were bad, they were good and worthy of the DH. You can't call someone narrow-minded just because you don't change their mind though.

Thanks.

I do feel ignoring the last source and excerpt I provided, which directly contest your claims, is a dubious move though. It's an extremely well researched source that explains the major studies and their findings. It will also readily tell what the shortcomings were. I think it's worth a read if you don't understand the genetics - there's more than one page from the link.

 

[Dre89]

It's not that I deliberately ignore things that potentially refute my arguments, it's that when there's multiple people posting against me I have to be selective with what I reply to.

This is why I keep saying debates should be 1 v 1 instead of 10 v 1, so that things don't get missed, people don't have to re-explain thesmelves multiple times, and the debate is overall more productive.

 

[GoldShadow]

Please provide them, when is sex not supposed to be for reproduction?

I wasn't referring to sex, but to organisms that don't reproduce or can't mate.

Worker bees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_bee) and worker ants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant) are the most obvious examples.