Alright, I guess we're allowed to say anything without having to back it up, especially considering in some of those studies, there is no reproductive behavior involved in the pairing. My turn. All humans were seeded here from an alien species as homosexuals. The only reason we have opposite-sex pairing is because of a small microchip implanted in our brains by the evil lemurs of Lalaland.
- Oct 10, 1999
- 30,883
- 12,386
- 136
Go take a biology course. Then get back to me.
Believe me I am not anti-gay.
I studied a lot of biology and other sciences in school and outside of school.
One thing I hate is people who twist science in the name of whatever agenda they are pushing. Animal behaviour is a complex field of study. Most of that behaviour is directly related to sexual reproduction. Most of that behaviour is instinctual, not conscious. Humans have a tendency to add human qualities to animal behaviour and until that is stopped, these types of arguments will continue.
Can't you just accept the fact that these things happen without injecting homosexuality into it?
- Oct 10, 1999
- 30,883
- 12,386
- 136
I never said there can be no homosexual animals.
I said that people should stop giving animals labels like that when there is no evidence to support it. Claiming an animal is gay when it is not is stupid.
Quickly, please ban all books that have interracial friendships and relationships in them too. That was once taboo and I haven't learned to grow as an individual and must cling to archaic beliefs based on fear and irrationality.
Please remove all books that may have Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc from the library as I don't believe in them and thus would not like these outrageous ideas horrendously inflicted our innocent children who mustn't know about the diversity of the world until I want them to. Please, get over yourselves.
Please remove all books that may have Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc from the library as I don't believe in them and thus would not like these outrageous ideas horrendously inflicted our innocent children who mustn't know about the diversity of the world until I want them to. Please, get over yourselves.
I'm a comparative psychologist...I study social aspects of animals and humans for a living. I have no agenda, besides pushing proven science. You have yet to provide proof for your views.
Most behavior is directly related to reproductive fitness, not the act of reproduction itself, and much behavior is plastic, thus will change depending on the context of situation. In certain situations, same-sex pairing may have a fitness benefit over opposite-sex pairing (i.e. relatives replacing opposite-sex flock mates in monogamous organisms to increase the survivability of offspring, and reduce individual parental investment).
Note, I never said that same-sex pairing was a conscious act, nor related it to human homosexuality. I also never said that same-sex pairing is the norm, as it is not. However, just as there is a polygyny threshold, at a certain point, environmental conditions can cause an organism to switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality.
There are also many neurological underpinnings affecting instinctual behavior. Mutations and variations in these likely cause a change in mating and selection behavior.
Now, I seriously doubt that the many ethologists and comp psychologists who have performed studies and written articles on the same-sex pairing of animals (and been accepted for publication) lack basic biological knowledge, nor have an agenda to push (besides beefing up their vita).
Originally posted by: TravisT
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: TravisT
Exactly, likewise for you... just in the opposite direction.
No, the available evidence is leaning to the direction of it not being a choice, the exavct mechanism(s) are still largely unknown. However nothing totally conclusive has yet surfaced. Your certainty is merely a result of your religious beliefs.
Double standard again... apparently it's okay for you to throw your beliefs on me as fact, but its not okay for me to claim my beliefs as fact. As you said, there is nothing totally conclusive, which is why I am okay with agreeing with the idea that is my belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a genetic defect. Why don't you follow your own rules here and claim that it is your belief as well so we can get passed this and get back to the topic?
No opinion on gay penguins...
Just going for the longest nested quote in ATOT history. :roll: Close?
- Oct 10, 1999
- 30,883
- 12,386
- 136
I never said behaviour is directly related to the act of reproduction. Reproduction involves more than just the exchange of genetic information. Behaviours involving the choosing of mates, how the sexes react to each other, how this effects sexual and non sexual interaction of animals, etc...
I have seen so many pro gay people go out of their way to show what they consider gay animals and it makes me mad.
Of course mutations can affect behaviour, this is how natural selection works. But gay animals would be at a disadvantage if they possessed a genetic trait that was beneficial but could not be passed on.
I have seen situations where, by virtue of test conditions, they create an environment for homosexual behaviour. I have observed male rats put under stress and start having sex with other males when no females are present . For us humans it is far more complex because we are self thinking animals. We tend to push down our instincts with our intellect. In a setting like a prison, homosexual sex occurs frequently, but not all of the men or women are gay or even bisexual. This is related to both the natural desire for sexual release and psychological needs for affection and/or protection.
Perhaps I am a bit pessimistic: I assume studies of same sex pairing is just special interest groups' way of spreading propaganda.
Unless, like my example above, the same-sex pairing ensured the survival of enough of his relatives. You cannot just look at the individual for the passage of genes, you must examine all of the relatives.
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,862
- 13,987
- 146
Being gay is most likely neither learned, nor genetic.
It is more than likely a random birth defect. This explains why homosexuality does not run in families and why it's not a "trait" that would have been erased by evolution.
It also explains why the incidence of homsexuality is roughly the same % no matter how isolated the culture was/is.
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 33,929
- 1,097
- 126
I'm going to get flamed for this, but I feel the need to say it. The people who don't want their kids dealing with these issues aren't evil or bad. They just don't want their kids exposed to a very minority sexual preference that is the topic of lots of debate. Most people aren't gay and theres no reason for such a small portion of the population to be so forceful and demanding.
It seems like the smaller a minority population is, the more lound and obnoxious they are.
It seems like the smaller a minority population is, the more lound and obnoxious they are.
Well, I don't know the cause, but I'm more inclined to believe there is a genetic predisposition. However, my comment had nothing to do with how one becomes gay. Rather, I meant to convey that just because one is homosexual does not necessarily mean that one's fitness is jeopardized.
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,862
- 13,987
- 146
Then explain why homosexuality does not run in families? Also explain why the lack of breeding has not caused the rate of homosexuality to decrease or cease alltogether.
There is no evidence whatsoever that it is genetic. All the evidence points to a birth defect. The problem is, most gay people will be offended with this, truth be damned, and the facts will never be known.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 46,044
- 33,089
- 136
Sheltering your children until they reach majority age might seem like a good idea to some, but it always backfires. Seen it too many times. If parents don't prepare their children for the things they will encounter out in the world they are doing them a major disservice.
While I think that the overly militant gays (verging on heterophobia) should STFU, that dosen't mean the subject as a whole isn't important and worthy recognition/discussion on the part of parents.
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 33,929
- 1,097
- 126
That's true, but as someone who has grown up in a very homophobic and racist environment, I really have to say that these minority groups are going about this the wrong way. You cannot force yourselves on the xenophobic white Christians (XWCs). The best way to gain their tolerance and eventually acceptance is to prove that you are their equal. Prove that the homosexual community is not a threat to their way of life. Prove that you have the same wants and dreams in life and that you have an ethic that they can respect.
Why should you have to prove yourselves to the XWCs? Because they run the country and the world. They are the majority in America and they are the majority in the power circles in many nations.
That's the price you must pay for being different.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 46,044
- 33,089
- 136
I don't really disagree all that much. There is an extremely vocal militant gay minority that makes things more difficult for the group at large. This is often the case with most segments of society that are regarded as a minority (ethnic, sexual, or otherwise).
What I consider a larger issue is the influence of those XWCs on what is supposed to be a secular government. I find that troubling on many fronts besides this one.
Alright, apparently you didn't read my comment earlier. A genetic predisposition to homosexuality would not cease simply because the individual does not breed. The gene would be carried on in the individual's relatives. Note, a genetic predisposition does not mean that an individual will become gay, nor does it mean that genetics alone are the cause. It means simply that. There is a predisposition. A differing environmental stimulus may elicit this predisposition, or it may simply be a predisposition to a birth defect, as you believe is the cause. I don't know the cause, and neither do you. My whole point stands, a homosexual trait would not be erased simply because an individual does not breed.
MrK6
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2004
- 4,458
- 4
- 81
Just a few thoughts to throw out there. The problem I see here is lazy parents wanting parenting to be done for them rather than actually take on the task which having children brings about. For example, the mother who was shocked about that line in the book should have read the story herself before sharing it with her daughter. Dont complain that the library didnt do what you should've done. I totally agree with moving the book to the nonfiction section of the library, as that is what the story is. Any restrictions on it, however, are censorship and should not even be considered.
This article is a great example of two of the major faults of American society - parents not doing their job and "sheltering children" nonsense. The former point I partially explained, but it can be seen elsewhere, including FCC censorships, the "videohead" generation, etc. Without going way off topic, parents need to be involved in their children's lives and make sure they give them the best upbringing possible. Don't have children if you're not prepared to put all of your time, heart, and energy into being a good parent. The second topic about sheltering children is just complete bulls***. Somewhere within the last 15 years society thought it would be great if people just wouldn't grow up. It's widespread throughout this country, and really, along with obesity, is becoming a national epidemic. The major downfall of this is that it puts the country behind in every aspect, something we can't afford right now because we're already so far behind other countries. The sooner children realize what the world is and how it works, the better off they'll be. Now you have children in their late twenties and early thirties living at home, you have kids staying at home and not going to college, children get jobs later and later; essentially, parents are making their children useless mooches. For example, kids in Japan at the age of 6 take the train in to the city to go to school and come back home. They're prepared, they understand the world, and the function phenomanally. Leading kids to believe that the world is all wonderful and filled with cotton candy and ponies just leads them up to a majorly depressing let down when they realize life isn't all cake and ice cream, it's what you make of it, so get working. On this specific topic, "gay" animals (although its not the same as human "gay" as there's not really much of the emotion, etc. there) exist and gay humans exist and beyond the difference that it's a hormonal imbalance, there's nothing wrong with it, so what's wrong with letting children know that earlier on?
This article is a great example of two of the major faults of American society - parents not doing their job and "sheltering children" nonsense. The former point I partially explained, but it can be seen elsewhere, including FCC censorships, the "videohead" generation, etc. Without going way off topic, parents need to be involved in their children's lives and make sure they give them the best upbringing possible. Don't have children if you're not prepared to put all of your time, heart, and energy into being a good parent. The second topic about sheltering children is just complete bulls***. Somewhere within the last 15 years society thought it would be great if people just wouldn't grow up. It's widespread throughout this country, and really, along with obesity, is becoming a national epidemic. The major downfall of this is that it puts the country behind in every aspect, something we can't afford right now because we're already so far behind other countries. The sooner children realize what the world is and how it works, the better off they'll be. Now you have children in their late twenties and early thirties living at home, you have kids staying at home and not going to college, children get jobs later and later; essentially, parents are making their children useless mooches. For example, kids in Japan at the age of 6 take the train in to the city to go to school and come back home. They're prepared, they understand the world, and the function phenomanally. Leading kids to believe that the world is all wonderful and filled with cotton candy and ponies just leads them up to a majorly depressing let down when they realize life isn't all cake and ice cream, it's what you make of it, so get working. On this specific topic, "gay" animals (although its not the same as human "gay" as there's not really much of the emotion, etc. there) exist and gay humans exist and beyond the difference that it's a hormonal imbalance, there's nothing wrong with it, so what's wrong with letting children know that earlier on?
JM Aggie08
Diamond Member
- Jan 3, 2006
- 8,156
- 789
- 136
The topic is too mature for a children's book. I think requiring parent permission is a fair step.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter