BC Parents Will Have to Lie to Keep Kids out of Gay Advocacy
Previous 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 28 Next
USCAdad @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:33 pm
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
USCAdad USCAdad:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
lily lily:
Why would they need a turkey baster? They may prefer sex with their own "kind" but that doesn't mean that gay people, both men and women, haven't ever married and had kids the old fashioned way.
Yeah, fine, but so what?
Look, if you want to explain the existence of homosexuality by supposing that every gay person is either the recessive gene output of a gay parent produced in either that parent's prior life as a heterosexual, or by some surreptitious fertilization that secretly impregnated women with homosexual children, and that you can explain all of homosexuality by these far-fetched means back through the ages, fine.
But you'd be alone in the universe with that theory.
You wouldn't happen to be related to the Bonobos would you?
We all are.
You have a point, pirate-boy?
The point would be the Bonobo have a very complicated sexuality that includes homosexuality and a split between sex and reproduction in the Animal kingdom. Wouldn't it be strange that an animal that is so closely related to humans would have a more complex sexuality than the supposed sex for reproduction that gets bandied about?
$1:
The bonobo was officially classified as Pan paniscus, or the diminutive Pan. But I believe a different label might have been selected had the discoverers known then what we know now. The old taxonomic name of the chimpanzee, P. satyrus-- which refers to the myth of apes as lustful satyrs--would have been perfect for the bonobo.
The species is best characterized as female-centered and egalitarian and as one that substitutes sex for aggression. Whereas in most other species sexual behavior is a fairly distinct category, in the bonobo it is part and parcel of social relations--and not just between males and females. Bonobos engage in sex in virtually every partner combination (although such contact among close family members may be suppressed). And sexual interactions occur more often among bonobos than among other primates. Despite the frequency of sex, the bonobo's rate of reproduction in the wild is about the same as that of the chimpanzee. A female gives birth to a single infant at intervals of between five and six years. So bonobos share at least one very important characteristic with our own species, namely, a partial separation between sex and reproduction.
The species is best characterized as female-centered and egalitarian and as one that substitutes sex for aggression. Whereas in most other species sexual behavior is a fairly distinct category, in the bonobo it is part and parcel of social relations--and not just between males and females. Bonobos engage in sex in virtually every partner combination (although such contact among close family members may be suppressed). And sexual interactions occur more often among bonobos than among other primates. Despite the frequency of sex, the bonobo's rate of reproduction in the wild is about the same as that of the chimpanzee. A female gives birth to a single infant at intervals of between five and six years. So bonobos share at least one very important characteristic with our own species, namely, a partial separation between sex and reproduction.
Link
It's claimed that the behavior substitutes sex for agression. That would seem like a survival tactic to me.
Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:34 pm
SireJoe SireJoe:
I did you fucking idiot! Did you not even read the fucking post? Talk about confused. Sounds like your getting a touch of the hwacker.
You mean this?
$1:
Of course, by doing this, the people who have adopted this position have also undercut their own cause. If it's only genetic, we can screen for it and eliminate it. If it's only genetic, then pleas for understanding are meaningless. If its only genetic, then it's not something that can fight for dignity and self-respect, it's just a condition.
Let me ask you, what has to be true for all the sentences to be true?
Homosexuality would have to be genetic, and I say homosexuality is not genetic.
And then, let me tell you, if you're going to pick a fucking fight with somebody, make sure that you know what the hell it is you're getting into a fight over. I deal with your crap all the time, but if you don't know what the hell your talking about, you just become annoying.
And you can tell your pal lily, she's a liar.
Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:36 pm
USCAdad USCAdad:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
USCAdad USCAdad:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
lily lily:
Why would they need a turkey baster? They may prefer sex with their own "kind" but that doesn't mean that gay people, both men and women, haven't ever married and had kids the old fashioned way.
Yeah, fine, but so what?
Look, if you want to explain the existence of homosexuality by supposing that every gay person is either the recessive gene output of a gay parent produced in either that parent's prior life as a heterosexual, or by some surreptitious fertilization that secretly impregnated women with homosexual children, and that you can explain all of homosexuality by these far-fetched means back through the ages, fine.
But you'd be alone in the universe with that theory.
You wouldn't happen to be related to the Bonobos would you?
We all are.
You have a point, pirate-boy?
The point would be the Bonobo have a very complicated sexuality that includes homosexuality and a split between sex and reproduction in the Animal kingdom. Wouldn't it be strange that an animal that is so closely related to humans would have a more complex sexuality than the supposed sex for reproduction that gets bandied about?
Sex only for reproduction? Not my argument. You have me confused with someone else.
SireJoe @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:37 pm
lol I gave you TWO quotations. I even still have the other in the clipboard:
"You stupid idiot, by insisting it's biological, you're the one on the disease side of the equation."
You imply that I am taking the disease side of the arguement! It isnt true. You are making shit up.
As for your other quote. You IMPLY that if infact being gay is genetic it should be screened out. How does that NOT back up my claim and support yours? Your obviously confused.
Zipperfish @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:38 pm
Excuse me, is this the room for an argument?
SireJoe @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:38 pm
lol I gave you TWO quotations. I even still have the other in the clipboard:
"You stupid idiot, by insisting it's biological, you're the one on the disease side of the equation."
You imply that I am taking the disease side of the arguement! It isnt true. You are making shit up.
As for your other quote. You IMPLY that if infact being gay is genetic it should be screened out. How does that NOT back up my claim and support yours? Your obviously confused.
SireJoe @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:41 pm
I call for an arbitrator on this one. In fact! I call for SEVERAL arbitrators! Just to mix things up a bit here. Let others decide who is right. Whoever wins shall concede the point. Agreed?
Hardy @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:11 am
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
Oh, so you want to introduce factors no one knows of or understands to keep the inevitable math from taking it's course?
All factors involved are ones we don't know of or understand.
It's been several decades since Kinsey came out with his 7-point point scale to assess degree of homosexuality or heterosexuality, it's not exactly a new idea that people may fall in between. He did a survey, and found that 37% of the population fell somewhere in the middle ground. Other researchers nitpicked at his findings, saying that his sample wasn't random enough. So 25 or so years later, someone repeated it with a truly random sampling, and the result was 36.4%. Roughly 6-8 times the gay population, according to most semi-objective studies.
That does seem like a lot of people to exclude from consideration, doesn't it?
And while it strengthens the idea that genetics could play a role, at the same time it weakens some of the political arguments involved. It allows for the possibility that some people are born that way, but it also shows that a much larger number could probably go one way or the other under the right circumstances. Prison's probably a good example of that.
Some of the studies done on animals were criticised because they'd give them hormones or whatever, then they'd put the animal in a pen with an animal of the same sex, and see if they'd mount. The criticism levelled at these studies was that they were only finding out if the animal would mount their own sex, they were not presenting the animal with both sexes and letting it take its pick. So they never found out what the animal's sexual preference was.
Preference. It may not be an important word for 63.6% of us, but for the others, apparently it is.
hwacker @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:05 am
Kinsey don't know his ass from another guys ass.
Lock a guy in a lab for years on end you 'll come up with all kinds of BS. Look what this guy did.
USCAdad @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:23 am
hwacker hwacker:
Kinsey don't know his ass from another guys ass.
Lock a guy in a lab for years on end you 'll come up with all kinds of BS. Look what this guy did.
Lock a guy in a lab for years on end you 'll come up with all kinds of BS. Look what this guy did.
Persuasive.
Persiana @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:48 pm
I think that parents who have children enrolled in the public school system, should have more of a say perhaps as to what goes on in the curriculum, than two men who are otherwise uninvolved.
I can understand them wanting to teach tolerance, however making it specifically "gay friendly" the way that article is written, does seem a bit extreme.
Its a shame that there's enough parents out there who aren't doing their jobs, that the schools feel the obligation to put things like "respect" into their curriculum... my mother was a grade 1 teacher & is now retired, but I do remember when "respect" was something that was added on. Songs were made up about it & banners were everywhere. If parents taught their kids these things such as respect, tolerance, etc at home, then it would free up the teachers to teach other things.
As far as the earlier debate (I've read the first 3 pages) regarding "If you say anything you'll be labelled a homophobe" etc, no I don't think that's the case. Where I grew up there's people who
A: Simply don't care either way
B: Disagree with the gay lifestyle
C: Disagree to the point of being unable to comprehend that a homosexual may in fact still be a good person, and instead simply walks about slandering their person & lifestyle.
Which one of the above is a homophobe? Only C, in my opinion, and that's a rather small number. You can disagree with someone's sexual preference choices, and still be their friend. Its when you're blinded to their other qualities simply because of who they take as a lover, when you fall into "homophobe" category in my opinion.
Tman1 @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:54 pm
Alright class, now it's time for Queer history enactments. Now, who would like to be the lead male?
Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:26 pm
Hardy Hardy:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
Oh, so you want to introduce factors no one knows of or understands to keep the inevitable math from taking it's course?
All factors involved are ones we don't know of or understand.
No. How genetics works, we do understand.
Hardy Hardy:
It's been several decades since Kinsey came out with his 7-point point scale to assess degree of homosexuality or heterosexuality, it's not exactly a new idea that people may fall in between. He did a survey, and found that 37% of the population fell somewhere in the middle ground. Other researchers nitpicked at his findings, saying that his sample wasn't random enough. So 25 or so years later, someone repeated it with a truly random sampling, and the result was 36.4%. Roughly 6-8 times the gay population, according to most semi-objective studies.
Fine. I think Kinsey's approach was ridiculous, and his persona makes his results more than suspect.
A 7-point scale? Why not 36? It's the kind of claim that seems to be saying something, when in fact it isn't. I could claim that there are seven styles of domestic architecture in North America, and all houses can be understood as basically falling into one of seven styles. Is that science? or does the fact that I can force all houses in North America into seven categories simply proof that I can force all houses into seven categories?
Be that as it may.
Fine, degrees of homosexuality. Great. That sounds less like a genetic switch being on or off and more like a developmental scheme. In other words, a point against homosexuality being genetic.
Previous 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 28 Next