Gay people more likely to die...

[acludem]

NewGuy: I know people who are activists for gay equality, but to say they go out and recruit children to be gay is as I said before a crock of crap.

DMP: When you quote something it is generally wise to cite the source specifically. When you fail to do so it weakens your argument because it appears you have something to hide.


acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
NewGuy: I know people who are activists for gay equality, but to say they go out and recruit children to be gay is as I said before a crock of crap.

DMP: When you quote something it is generally wise to cite the source specifically. When you fail to do so it weakens your argument because it appears you have something to hide.


acludem

Not arguing that all activists act the same because they dont, how do you justify the textbooks?

 

[acludem]

I haven't seen any textbooks that encourage kids to be gay. Most people, myself included, who support equality for gays and lesbians would argue you are born gay. I would be happy to read some of these books and get back to you. Do you have some titles?

acludem

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by acludem
I haven't seen any textbooks that encourage kids to be gay. Most people, myself included, who support equality for gays and lesbians would argue you are born gay. I would be happy to read some of these books and get back to you. Do you have some titles?

acludem

Ted Bundy..was he BORN a killer?
John Gacy - same question.

It's very very bad science to claim "Because we can't prove Gay ppl ARE NOT born that way, we must assume they ARE"

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by acludem


dmp: When you quote something it is generally wise to cite the source specifically. When you fail to do so it weakens your argument because it appears you have something to hide.


acludem

What do you know about wisdom? After all, you claim ppl are BORN gay.

(shrug).

 

[Reilly]

There have actually been a number of studies that suggest sexual orientation is biological. For instance:
1. A study by Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist at the Salk Institute, in 1991, found brain structural differences between gay and straight people dealing with the size of the hypothalamus gland.
2. Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University conducted sibling studies that found siblings are more likely to share a sexual orientation.
3. Studies by J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada compared the number of ridges(finger prints) on the index finger and thumb of the left hand with corresponding digits on the right hand. They found that 30% of homosexuals had excess ridges on the left hand digits, while only 14% of heterosexuals showed the same characteristic.
Because fingerprints are fully developed in the fetus before the 17th week and do not change thereafter, this study may suggest a genetic link to sexual orientation that is determined before birth, perhaps at conception.
4. Research led by Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute compared the DNA of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers. They found that almost all shared a genetic marker in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome (one of the two sex chromosomes). While this study hasn't precisely isolated a gay gene, it suggests that sexual orientation may have a genetic component.

You can find more information about these studies on the internet.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
I haven't seen any textbooks that encourage kids to be gay. Most people, myself included, who support equality for gays and lesbians would argue you are born gay. I would be happy to read some of these books and get back to you. Do you have some titles?

acludem

Actually, you are setting up a straw man. When you advocate that any choice is a good one, you are advocating all as equally good. As such, a book saying having 2 mommies is ok is advocating the lifestyle.

You know this as well as I do.

If you want to get stupid and claim no book does this, be my guest but it won't be truth as we can illustrate quite easily.

Since you would be happy to read these books, you would no doubt be aware of a few of the titles yourself. I don't think we need to be redundant and illustrate the whole thing here, since it isn't even the subject of the debate as much as justification.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
There have actually been a number of studies that suggest sexual orientation is biological. For instance:
1. A study by Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist at the Salk Institute, in 1991, found brain structural differences between gay and straight people dealing with the size of the hypothalamus gland.
2. Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University conducted sibling studies that found siblings are more likely to share a sexual orientation.
3. Studies by J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada compared the number of ridges(finger prints) on the index finger and thumb of the left hand with corresponding digits on the right hand. They found that 30% of homosexuals had excess ridges on the left hand digits, while only 14% of heterosexuals showed the same characteristic.
Because fingerprints are fully developed in the fetus before the 17th week and do not change thereafter, this study may suggest a genetic link to sexual orientation that is determined before birth, perhaps at conception.
4. Research led by Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute compared the DNA of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers. They found that almost all shared a genetic marker in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome (one of the two sex chromosomes). While this study hasn't precisely isolated a gay gene, it suggests that sexual orientation may have a genetic component.

You can find more information about these studies on the internet.

The whole argument ends up missing the only point that even matters.

If single heterosexual people can keep from taking it out on sheep, then homosexuals can NOT engage in improper behavior as well.

The whole idea of debating how they are born is irrelevant.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Reilly
There have actually been a number of studies that suggest sexual orientation is biological. For instance:
1. A study by Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist at the Salk Institute, in 1991, found brain structural differences between gay and straight people dealing with the size of the hypothalamus gland.
2. Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University conducted sibling studies that found siblings are more likely to share a sexual orientation.
3. Studies by J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada compared the number of ridges(finger prints) on the index finger and thumb of the left hand with corresponding digits on the right hand. They found that 30% of homosexuals had excess ridges on the left hand digits, while only 14% of heterosexuals showed the same characteristic.
Because fingerprints are fully developed in the fetus before the 17th week and do not change thereafter, this study may suggest a genetic link to sexual orientation that is determined before birth, perhaps at conception.
4. Research led by Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute compared the DNA of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers. They found that almost all shared a genetic marker in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome (one of the two sex chromosomes). While this study hasn't precisely isolated a gay gene, it suggests that sexual orientation may have a genetic component.

You can find more information about these studies on the internet.

That's a crock of horseshit.

I'll show you why, tomorrow.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
The whole argument ends up missing the only point that even matters.

If single heterosexual people can keep from taking it out on sheep, then homosexuals can NOT engage in improper behavior as well.

The whole idea of debating how they are born is irrelevant.

Actually, your post assumes two things that are debatable. One, that gay sex is improper. I don't think so, and you haven't given me a reason why it is. Second, the difference between the sheep example and homosexuals lies in the fact that one is a decision of two consenting adults, the only parties to the act. It is really quite silly to equate an act between two consenting adults with an act imposed on an animal. It is also demeaning.

 

[Reilly]

DMP, why is it horseshit? You haven't even read the studies yet and already you dismiss them - on no grounds whatsoever. I have no reason to think that the National Cancer Institute has a gay agenda. Can't you even conceive of the fact that homosexuality is biological? If you can't open your mind to things that you don't currently believe, how do you ever expect to evolve?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
Actually, your post assumes two things that are debatable. One, that gay sex is improper. I don't think so, and you haven't given me a reason why it is.

Simply put, if you take all heterosexuals and make them homosexuals, what happens to the population 130 years from now?

This doesn't even get into deeper realms that you would have no way to counter. Simple logic dictates it is improper if it kills a species....unless you think a giant redwood is more entitled to occupy space than we are.

Second, the difference between the sheep example and homosexuals lies in the fact that one is a decision of two consenting adults, the only parties to the act. It is really quite silly to equate an act between two consenting adults with an act imposed on an animal. It is also demeaning.

You are right: it is demeaning to people who are trying to procreate and have ethics.

Your logic says that 2 consenting adults make it right. You just came up with a logic that justifies ANY behavior including murder.

You then make right and wrong a situation of situational ethics when it is not. If you want to go down that path, you are opening a can of worms you won't like. I will put you into a chair and face to face with your creator.

If you think my example is demeaning, you should think about your example in relation to myself and God.

-But of course, you don't care about that, you would rather do what you want to do instead of what is right.

 

[Reilly]

Sorry buddy. I am not really that concerned about being put into a chair face to face with the creator. My guess is neither you nor I really understand the nature of creation very well.

First, we are not talking about turning every heterosexual into a homosexual (and even then, science has provided us a means of procreation). Surveys have demonstrated that about 5-10% of persons are homosexual. No risk to the future of the human race there.

Second, I am suggesting that this activity, between two consenting adults, that harms no one, is neither wrong nor demeaning to people who want to procreate sexually. Go for it. I don't see how the private activities of other people prevent you from getting down with the Missus.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
If you think my example is demeaning, you should think about your example in relation to myself and God.

I can't respond to this statement because I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
Sorry buddy. I am not really that concerned about being put into a chair face to face with the creator. My guess is neither you nor I really understand the nature of creation very well.

Keep guessing. You may be right someday.

First, we are not talking about turning every heterosexual into a homosexual (and even then, science has provided us a means of procreation). Surveys have demonstrated that about 5-10% of persons are homosexual. No risk to the future of the human race there.

That wasn't the issue and you know it. The issue is not how can you get away with it, but if it is wright or wrong. The outcome is still the same. If the behavior kills, it kills. 1st grader logic is when you try to justify your behavior because you can "get away with it" without repercussion.

Second, I am suggesting that this activity, between two consenting adults, that harms no one, is neither wrong nor demeaning to people who want to procreate sexually. Go for it. I don't see how the private activities of other people prevent you from getting down with the Missus.

You just changed the entire point again.
It harms the entire human race when you do things that can kill it. YOu would probably also claim that pollution caused by cars is bad and we therefore need to ban all gasoline engines. What do you say about a clunker getting 3 miles to the gallon spewing smoke?

I bet you don't say "Oh, that's ok, he is just 5-10% of the population."

In addition, as I said, you only try to justify your FEELINGS with logic. Try matching your feelings to logic instead. In addition, maybe the reason you DONT want to be sat in front of your creator is because you feel guilty about your behavior and don't want to get caught?

 

[Reilly]

No.No.No.No.
You are missing it. My point was that homosexuality doesn't kill. It just doesn't produce - just like masturbation, or eating donuts. Since gays are only 5-10% of the population, the human race isn't in danger of extinction. See. No killing, just not producing (although lesbians can theoretically still product by artificial insemination).

I am not afraid of being sat in front of the creator (if there is one), it is just something I don't worry about. I feel good about the life I lead.

 

[Reilly]

However, to show I am reasonable, I do agree with you that it would probably be bad for the human species if we were all gay.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Reilly
DMP, why is it horseshit? You haven't even read the studies yet and already you dismiss them - on no grounds whatsoever. I have no reason to think that the National Cancer Institute has a gay agenda. Can't you even conceive of the fact that homosexuality is biological? If you can't open your mind to things that you don't currently believe, how do you ever expect to evolve?

I've read them - they aren't scientific...and have gaping holes. I'll show you why tomorrow.

It's horseshit.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Reilly
Second, the difference between the sheep example and homosexuals lies in the fact that one is a decision of two consenting adults, the only parties to the act. It is also demeaning.

You'd have to prove that the Sheep did not consent. Drawing the line at 'consent' is dumb. I know of a man in Germany who consented to being cannibalized by another man. Should we allow consentual cannibalism?

 

[Reilly]

DMP, I am impressed if you have read those studies. They are quite long and very technical. When you are done parsing those, I have a few other studies to which I can refer you.

As for your consent, I don't think that is where we should draw the line, exclusively. If you recall, I said that it is a matter of consent that doesn't pose harmful externalities on others. In fact, it not only doesn't pose harmful externalities, but brings happiness to those who engage in it. As for consent, it only distinguished the situation from cases of animal/human sex. While you are right that I can't prove a sheep didn't consent, as a society we have always taken the position that unless consent can be demonstrated as rational and mature, it is not really consent. That is why there are statutory rape laws - because minors are not deemed capable of consent. I think this definitely also applies to animals.
As for your cannabilism example, (1) harm to others must always be considered when evaluating whether an activity is permissible (even if one of those being harmed is a participant, as differentiated from homosexuality where neither party is harmed), and (2) because the survival instinct is found in all humans and animals (likewise, homosexuality is also found in humans and animals), society should be especially careful (as a prophylactic matter) to ensure that actions that contradict the survival instinct are actually consented to and are not the result of undue pressure or psychological disturbance. That is why one can murder a willing victim. Extinguishing a life is just too important an issue to assume the consent was willing and rationale.
Homosexuality differs because no participant or third-party is physically harmed, it appears to be a biological desire (found in a significant portion of the population of humans and in many species of animals), and the consent is rational and informed.