Same sex marriage

[fskimospy]

No shit, but the genes that end up making guys want to stick their dicks in buttholes instead of vaginas are directly in opposition of the continuation of said genes. It makes no difference how complicated the mechanism is that created the genes or how many variables govern the interactions of said genes at conception; the only important factor in spreading the gene is what behavior it ultimately dictates.

Look at any population of literally anything in terms of the constraints that govern population continuation:

• You need an interaction between objects of type 1 and type 2 to make offspring
• Objects of the same type can interact, but aren't capable of making offspring

Now simulate the model after removing all type 1 and type 2 interactions. What happens? It could be millions of steps leading up to the actual interaction between objects, but if they can't mate then they all die and there's absolutely nothing you can say that will make that untrue unless you introduce an outside force, e.g. technology.

Gay people can procreate by choosing to override their programmed biological urges - I understand and accept that - but that's not what we're discussing. On that level, it's a different argument that must take into account more factors.

I'm sorry but you have no clue what you're talking about.

First, homosexuality is observed throughout the animal kingdom. Unless goats are using fertility clinics clearly EDIT: homosexuality is not perpetuated only through technological interention. This in and of itself refutes your entire line of reasoning.

Additionally, we know that homosexuality is not purely genetic in origin, as twin studies show that. It could in fact be related to other traits that are actually the result of large numbers of offspring, which is a genetic advantage. For example, with each successive son a mother births the odds of that child being gay increase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation

So a family having a lot of babies = more gay people. Sounds like lots of genes being passed on = more gay people. Explain how that fits into your theory?

I could go on and on. Like I said, it's not pea plants. Your view of how the genetics of homosexuality work are massively oversimplified to the extent that they are just wrong.

 

[Retro Rob]

Gay sex with young boys was (and still is in certain parts of the world) perfectly normal for hundreds if not thousands of years. In fact homophobia is a rather modern concept. We have tons of historical evidence.

Well, then why were there ever "closeted gays"? Mainly because of societal rejection.

I rest my case.

 

[soulcougher73]

Think of a gay person as having a combination of differences/changes/mutations/whatever that are capable of changing course regardless of what was inherited from their parents that make them attracted to their own sex. If you still don't understand, you should stop trying to participate in this discussion because subtlety and nuance clearly is beyond your grasp.

But you are acting like gays will just die out if they cannot breed. But when hetros are the ones who make gays in the first place, your point is kinda shot down and is pointless.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Based upon what evidence? Did we discover the "homo" gene when I wasn't looking?

I said combination because it seems likely, at least to me, that it's not as simple as one gene. It doesn't matter what causes it nor is it the keystone of my argument. The only thing that matters is the end behavior.

 

[mnewsham]

Well, then why were there ever "closeted gays"? Mainly because of societal rejection.

I rest my case.

Really mainly for western culture, don't be an idiot. Its a recent societal change, not long standing precedence since the beginning of time. Society is fairly obviously way more accepting today than even 20 years ago. So if that's the case why are you personally against it if modern society and ancient society accept homosexuals? It was only in the past 600 years or so where it gained a stigma and even then, not everywhere. As it stands today in the world the majority of people don't care.

 

[MrDudeMan]

But you are acting like gays will just die out if they cannot breed. But when hetros are the ones who make gays in the first place, your point is kinda shot down and is pointless.

My point is neither shot down nor pointless. You only think it is because you still don't understand that offspring don't have to behave exactly the same as the parents and whatever makes a person gay can apparently change during gestation. Well, that assumes you believe being gay isn't a choice, but it's irrelevant anyway.

If two people have 10 kids and 1 is gay, the 9 hetero kids will have offspring and the gay one won't in this simplistic model. I have no idea what makes a person gay and it doesn't matter because all that matters is what happens at the end.

 

[mnewsham]

My point is neither shot down nor pointless. You only think it is because you still don't understand that offspring don't have to behave exactly the same as the parents and whatever makes a person gay can apparently change during gestation. Well, that assumes you believe being gay isn't a choice, but it's irrelevant anyway.

If two people have 10 kids and 1 is gay, the 9 hetero kids will have offspring and the gay one won't in this simplistic model. I have no idea what makes a person gay and it doesn't matter because all that matters is what happens at the end.

Do you think that 1 homosexual child shouldn't be allowed to get married to someone of the same sex?

 

[MrDudeMan]

I'm sorry but you have no clue what you're talking about.

First, homosexuality is observed throughout the animal kingdom. Unless goats are using fertility clinics clearly EDIT: homosexuality is not perpetuated only through technological interention. This in and of itself refutes your entire line of reasoning.

Additionally, we know that homosexuality is not purely genetic in origin, as twin studies show that. It could in fact be related to other traits that are actually the result of large numbers of offspring, which is a genetic advantage. For example, with each successive son a mother births the odds of that child being gay increase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation

So a family having a lot of babies = more gay people. Sounds like lots of genes being passed on = more gay people. Explain how that fits into your theory?

I could go on and on. Like I said, it's not pea plants. Your view of how the genetics of homosexuality work are massively oversimplified to the extent that they are just wrong.

I accept your apology. Also, you've offered essentially nothing logical to refute my model. I don't give two shits what the rate of being gay is nor does it make a damn bit of difference in this argument. If every other child was gay, it still wouldn't change anything I said. All it would mean is people need to have more kids for population growth.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Do you think that 1 homosexual child shouldn't be allowed to get married to someone of the same sex?

I already said I don't care or have an opinion at all about gay marriage. Go fuck whoever you want in whichever hole they'll let you stick things in. That's fantastic for both of you.

 

[surfsatwerk]

I already said I don't care or have an opinion at all about gay marriage. Go fuck whoever you want in whichever hole they'll let you stick things in. That's fantastic for both of you.

Well there is 7 and 1/2 of us, but thanks for your well wishes none the less.

 

[mnewsham]

I already said I don't care or have an opinion at all about gay marriage. Go fuck whoever you want in whichever hole they'll let you stick things in. That's fantastic for both of you.

Then what the fuck is your point. The thread is about gay marriage.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Gay people can procreate by choosing to override their programmed biological urges - I understand and accept that - but that's not what we're discussing. On that level, it's a different argument that must take into account more factors.

That is exactly what you're discussing. The urge to procreate is demonstrably present in homosexual individuals. Often they choose adoption or surrogates to accomplish this, but apparently it is strong enough for them to go through considerable trouble to make happen. This would then fall under a kind of delayed gratification area. As humans we already do many things that we find distasteful or onerous in hopes that it will pay off somewhere down the road. We work for free for a while in hopes that our effort will net us a career. We save money instead of splurging on short term pleasures in hopes that we can retire. Most of human accomplishment can be attributed to our ability to do this. If everyone in the world suddenly turned gay, I think the human race would continue because we would intellectualize the process of procreation in recognition of it's necessity. We would slog through the messy and dis-pleasurable bits in order to get to the good part, just like we do with everything else.

That means that even your argument, that homosexuals being allowed to spread their genes more than they could in the past is bad for the human race, is incorrect. All it would do is solve the problem of overpopulation because procreation would almost never happen by accident. It's a useless argument anyway, because even if gays had 100% gay offspring, they could never outproduce heterosexuals who are driven to reproduce almost against their will. Imagine a world where gays made up 90% of the population. Don't you think the remaining 10% of heterosexuals would be by far the most rampantly reproducing segment of society? Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about how impossible it would even be to get to that point?

 

[MrDudeMan]

Then what the fuck is your point. The thread is about gay marriage.

Have you ever read past post number 10 in any other thread? Are you really so dense that you can't understand how a conversation could split into multiple topics loosely related to the original topic? I addressed a very specific argument made well over 100 posts ago and I also made it very clear that I don't care about gay marriage. I still want to discuss a related topic and this is a place to do that. Do you still need help understanding how to use a forum?

 

[Retro Rob]

Really mainly for western culture, don't be an idiot. Its a recent societal change, not long standing precedence since the beginning of time. Society is fairly obviously way more accepting today than even 20 years ago. So if that's the case why are you personally against it if modern society and ancient society accept homosexuals? It was only in the past 600 years or so where it gained a stigma and even then, not everywhere. As it stands today in the world the majority of people don't care.

That's why I said gays being "abnornal" is a purely subjective term, and that's why I can't say it was like that since the "beginning of time".

Hey, try this: actually read and understand what the hell I'm saying instead of trying to be some pseudo scholar of all that is history and rejecting my points out of hand.

You'd not look so flipping ignorant next time.

 

[mnewsham]

Have you ever read past post number 10 in any other thread? Are you really so dense that you can't understand how a conversation could split into multiple topics loosely related to the original topic? I addressed a very specific argument made well over 100 posts ago and I also made it very clear that I don't care about gay marriage. I still want to discuss a related topic and this is a place to do that. Do you still need help understanding how to use a forum?

Again what the fuck is your point. I'm not looking back through 200+ replies because you can't answer what your point is without throwing insults.

 

[MrPickins]

You'd not look so flipping ignorant next time.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[MrDudeMan]

That is exactly what you're discussing. The urge to procreate is demonstrably present in homosexual individuals. Often they choose adoption or surrogates to accomplish this, but apparently it is strong enough for them to go through considerable trouble to make happen. This would then fall under a kind of delayed gratification area. As humans we already do many things that we find distasteful or onerous in hopes that it will pay off somewhere down the road. We work for free for a while in hopes that our effort will net us a career. We save money instead of splurging on short term pleasures in hopes that we can retire. Most of human accomplishment can be attributed to our ability to do this. If everyone in the world suddenly turned gay, I think the human race would continue because we would intellectualize the process of procreation in recognition of it's necessity. We would slog through the messy and dis-pleasurable bits in order to get to the good part, just like we do with everything else.

That means that even your argument, that homosexuals being allowed to spread their genes more than they could in the past is bad for the human race, is incorrect. All it would do is solve the problem of overpopulation because procreation would almost never happen by accident. It's a useless argument anyway, because even if gays had 100% gay offspring, they could never outproduce heterosexuals who are driven to reproduce almost against their will. Imagine a world where gays made up 90% of the population. Don't you think the remaining 10% of heterosexuals would be by far the most rampantly reproducing segment of society? Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about how impossible it would even be to get to that point?

Yes, and I agree with what you're saying which is specifically why I stated the exception to which you're responding. There were many posts in this thread about what is natural and at a very basic level being gay doesn't fit. We're able to override it and/or use technology to spread the genes anyway, but it's not natural in terms of sexual reproduction which was my original premise. I very clearly delineated sexual reproduction from day to day behaviors several posts ago. Instead of arguing for a very broad, immeasurably difficult set of variables, it's easier to focus on a low level argument that can be easily explained or modeled, which is what I did. It's possible to then use that model as a basis for more complex arguments or points such as the one we're discussing right now.

 

[MrPickins]

It's not normal. Normal is defined as what most people do and most people aren't gay. Also, gay people can't continue making more gay people without the help of a higher level construct, so it's definitely not natural in terms of breeding. It is natural, though, in terms of how they are programmed to behave. I'm not making the argument that gay people choose to be gay, but it's ridiculous to call it normal. You can feel like a normal person and live a generally normal life, but, in terms of sexual reproduction, there's nothing normal about it.

I was using the word "normal" to refer to living as close a lifestyle of non-homosexuals as possible while having a relationship with a person of their choosing.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Again what the fuck is your point. I'm not looking back through 200+ replies because you can't answer what your point is without throwing insults.

I already explained my point and I don't really care if you understand or accept it, especially if you're too lazy to read the thread you're posting in.

 

[fskimospy]

I accept your apology. Also, you've offered essentially nothing logical to refute my model. I don't give two shits what the rate of being gay is nor does it make a damn bit of difference in this argument. If every other child was gay, it still wouldn't change anything I said. All it would mean is people need to have more kids for population growth.

Uhmm, I've offered you two pretty comprehensive refutations.

First, homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom. That's a damning indictment of your requirement for technological means or conscious overriding of instinct.

Second, I've showed you that behaviors associated with higher births and higher transmission of genetic information are also correlated with higher numbers of gay children. This clearly indicates that your idea that gay genes would die out stands in direct opposition to the facts.

You need to think about this more logically and less emotionally.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I was using the word "normal" to refer to living as close a lifestyle of non-homosexuals as possible while having a relationship with a person of their choosing.

I understand and I agree that's probably true, which is why I said:

You can feel like a normal person and live a generally normal life

 

[mnewsham]

I already explained my point and I don't really care if you understand or accept it, especially if you're too lazy to read the thread you're posting in.

No fuckhead I have a job and I don't have time to read the entire thread. I'm just asking what the point you're trying to make is. Seems like you barely know as apparently you can't even be bothered to tell me when asked directly.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Uhmm, I've offered you two pretty comprehensive refutations.

First, homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom. That's a damning indictment of your requirement for technological means or conscious overriding of instinct.

Second, I've showed you that behaviors associated with higher births and higher transmission of genetic information are also correlated with higher numbers of gay children. This clearly indicates that your idea that gay genes would die out stands in direct opposition to the facts.

You need to think about this more logically and less emotionally.

I couldn't possibly be less emotionally involved with this. It makes absolutely no difference to me what anyone does or why they do it. I very literally spend no time thinking about this issue from any perspective except the science of reproduction.

Your own wiki link, which is extremely solid evidence by the way, has a contrary evidence section that states basically the exact opposite point you're trying to make.

Secondly, I almost took you seriously until you showed your cards about not understanding the difference between the existence of homosexuality and the propagation of the genes that govern it. Someone who is clearly a board certified geneticist (you, right?) should be able to differentiate those concepts.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I have no idea nor does it matter for the purpose of my argument. If someone is born without a dick, for example, that's a mutation that would have a very hard time spreading to offspring.

Being gay isn't a horrible mutation like being born without a dick in my opinion, but the genes responsible for being gay can't pass themselves to offspring unless nature is circumvented or gay people engage in heterosexual activities even if only to breed. Draw whatever conclusions and make whatever assumptions will make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but gay genes don't propagate unless a P goes in a V.

What you are saying isn't necessarily true, assuming genealogy plays a role in whether someone is gay or not. Recessive genes can express themselves the same way a mother and father that both have brown eyes can have a child with blue eyes.

Say a family has three kids, one is gay and two aren't. Even if the gay child never has kids, there are recessive genes that can be passed on by the siblings to their children. Depending on what recessive genes their partners have, different outcomes can occur. Again, this is of course assuming genealogy plays a role in homo/hetro.

 

[MrDudeMan]

No fuckhead I have a job and I don't have time to read the entire thread. I'm just asking what the point you're trying to make is. Seems like you barely know as apparently you can't even be bothered to tell me when asked directly.

I've already answered your question multiple times in multiple posts when questioned by others in a similar way. By the way, it's amusing that you criticized me for using 'insults' (instead of what it really was - condescending, but mostly indirect, sarcasm).