Conjoint Gaming [Game On]
CG Main => Debate Forum => Topic started by: SkiesAhoy on February 14, 2012, 11:26:12 PM
-
I know what you're thinking: "Oh God not another gay thread." But as I was reading a few old threads, I stumbled upon this, and I think it's necessary to explore it further:
Gay is a birth defect it's already well known. The human species (and all species for that matter) has 1 purpose. To reproduce, if one of them can't because there sexual attraction prevents this it's a defect. Huamns are made to be stright. I don't care if someones gay but its redicilious to deny the obvious.
- Inject.
I'm curious. How is it that, after hundreds of thousands of years worth of evolution, homosexuality was never eliminated from the human species (and several other animal species as well)? I understand that we humans do tend to carry on defects. Down's syndrome, for instance. However, people afflicted with said syndrome or other defects are not abundant, and they represent a rather small minority. However, homosexuals, even thought they are not as abundant as heterosexuals, represents an ever growing statistic. Who knows how many gay men and women are out there. Coming out for some people is still hard in many places of the globe, so the statistics we posses can hardly be called accurate for the total amount of worldwide homosexuals. But anyways, back to the point. If homosexuality is a defect, shouldn't it have been eliminated or at least diminished after years of evolution?
This is a wild personal hypothesis with little evidence, but I think we should take into consideration that fact that MAYBE, and just maybe, homosexuality is one of nature's population-control methods. In order to avoid overpopulation, some individuals are born homosexuals, thus efficiently stopping reproduction to a large degree.
Anyways, those are my 2 cents for now.
/discuss
-
I know what you're thinking: "Oh God not another gay thread." But as I was reading a few old threads, I stumbled upon this, and I think it's necessary to explore it further:
Gay is a birth defect it's already well known. The human species (and all species for that matter) has 1 purpose. To reproduce, if one of them can't because there sexual attraction prevents this it's a defect. Huamns are made to be stright. I don't care if someones gay but its redicilious to deny the obvious.
- Inject.
I'm curious. How is it that, after hundreds of thousands of years worth of evolution, homosexuality was never eliminated from the human species (and several other animal species as well)? I understand that we humans do tend to carry on defects. Down's syndrome, for instance. However, people afflicted with said syndrome or other defects are not abundant, and they represent a rather small minority. However, homosexuals, even thought they are not as abundant as heterosexuals, represents an ever growing statistic. Who knows how many gay men and women are out there. Coming out for some people is still hard in many places of the globe, so the statistics we posses can hardly be called accurate for the total amount of worldwide homosexuals. But anyways, back to the point. If homosexuality is a defect, shouldn't it have been eliminated or at least diminished after years of evolution?
This is a wild personal hypothesis with little evidence, but I think we should take into consideration that fact that MAYBE, and just maybe, homosexuality is one of nature's population-control methods. In order to avoid overpopulation, some individuals are born homosexuals, thus efficiently stopping reproduction to a large degree.
Anyways, those are my 2 cents for now.
/discuss
It's just rodonkulus to misspell ridiculous it so obvious god inject jee wizz
also Skieski will you be my valentine?
-
I think there is something that hardwires each and every one of us in this decision, but once people realize that EVERYTHING that they think, believe, and want are all a part of the choices that they themselves can decide.
I can make myself like a food I don't like, it would just take time and strong willpower. We all choose everything we do.
Liking men or women, though, to me, has more to do with your experiences through life.
Animals that experience homosexuality are most likely sexually deprived of finding a mate that can carry their offspring, so will try to produce an offspring (reproduction is a basic instinct) with the same gender. This might happen in a well diverse group of animals if all of the females are guarded by their mates, or they reject the males that can't find a mate for one reason or the other.
-
I'm curious. How is it that, after hundreds of thousands of years worth of evolution, homosexuality was never eliminated from the human species (and several other animal species as well)? I understand that we humans do tend to carry on defects. Down's syndrome, for instance. However, people afflicted with said syndrome or other defects are not abundant, and they represent a rather small minority. However, homosexuals, even thought they are not as abundant as heterosexuals, represents an ever growing statistic. Who knows how many gay men and women are out there. Coming out for some people is still hard in many places of the globe, so the statistics we posses can hardly be called accurate for the total amount of worldwide homosexuals. But anyways, back to the point. If homosexuality is a defect, shouldn't it have been eliminated or at least diminished after years of evolution?
This is a wild personal hypothesis with little evidence, but I think we should take into consideration that fact that MAYBE, and just maybe, homosexuality is one of nature's population-control methods. In order to avoid overpopulation, some individuals are born homosexuals, thus efficiently stopping reproduction to a large degree.
Anyways, those are my 2 cents for now.
/discuss
Now first of all I hope I didn't piss anyone off. Let me get this out of the way first. I'm not homophobic. I believe homosexuals deserve equal rights. I have nothing against them I'm just arguing that the fact of being homosexual is a disability. NOT THAT THAT'S A PROBLEM. It's fine. I just think people should know first off that I do not hate or dislike gays in ANY way. Now on to my points:
In my opinion theirs not FORCE that attempts to control the population such a thing could only be a natural predator or not enough resources for the creature to sustain at high rates. You talk about things like down's and saying not many people have it. Hears some nice info:
In the modern West, according to major studies, 2% to 13% of the population is homosexual or has had some form of same-sex sexual contact within his or her lifetime.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] In a 2006 study 20% of respondents anonymously reported some homosexual feelings, although fewer participants identified themselves as homosexual.
More people get the flu every year, granted not a genetic defect.
about 1.5% of people have autism, which is about 46,000,000 people
2 percent of the world's population has Down syndrome.
Now yes you see 2-20% in homosexual but someone in vent brought up a good point. This study doesn't quite say who's gay its who's had gay interactions IE if they were curious tried out or more likely the massive quantity of jail inmates, because no females are around and they need to release there sexual frustrations in some way.
Also why would it be eliminated or gone? There's tons of disibilitys that have shown no sings of leaving down through generations. Also the study of homosexuals includes people who think there homosexual and are not, and people who are bisexual which could be considered a different defect anyways.
It's not a wild hypothesis at all scientist have debated this for years the reason it's rarely talked about however is because its a touch subject and people take it the wrong way and get offended. But the point is I'm not offending anyone. And I'm sorry humans and all creatures are ment to reproduce theirs no magic force slowing us down the only force is a defect.
So there. There's my whole bag of coins. Your Move... XD jk but seriously. That's my opinion, as well as many other peoples including highly educated scientist. I'll try to get you links and articles on it but Like i said being a touchy subject people are shot down hard for even questioning homosexual these days. Were pretty much forced to just say NO ITS FINE. And it is fine if you are I just think we should try to stop future births doing it to.
-
Inject, I think that the problem that we reach here is: What exactly is a "defect"? With the current state of affairs, with overpopulation, with people swarming in every single inch of this poor planet, is homosexuality a defect? Granted, you may say it's a biological defect. I stand my ground on that point. There are many hypothesis out there, and I will try to show you proper links once I find them. One of them suggests that homosexuals are individuals that provide but demand little. In a family group environment, a homosexual male or female can protect the genetic material that lives in the bodies of his heterosexuals brothers and sisters offspring without producing more demand (more offspring). In a way, by defending the offspring of their relatives, they are encouraging the spread of their own DNA to a large extent, since said offspring shares a large amount of their genetic material. There are also studies that show that sisters of homosexuals brothers have a higher fertility rate than sisters of heterosexuals brothers. Nature balances itself out. Ultimately, I stand on my point. The statistics for homosexuality are bigger than the statistics for harmful mutations. Homosexuality has survived eons, has survived evolution. Even if we cannot quite understand the reason for homosexuality just yet, it is my firm conviction that there is one, else it would not exist as it currently does. And if humanity is finally able to modify our species genetic makeup as it sees fit, I believe homosexuality, if anything, should be encouraged. Earth has no more space.
-
Inject, I think that the problem that we reach here is: What exactly is a "defect"? With the current state of affairs, with overpopulation, with people swarming in every single inch of this poor planet, is homosexuality a defect? Granted, you may say it's a biological defect. I stand my ground on that point. There are many hypothesis out there, and I will try to show you proper links once I find them. One of them suggests that homosexuals are individuals that provide but demand little. In a family group environment, a homosexual male or female can protect the genetic material that lives in the bodies of his heterosexuals brothers and sisters offspring without producing more demand (more offspring). In a way, by defending the offspring of their relatives, they are encouraging the spread of their own DNA to a large extent, since said offspring shares a large amount of their genetic material. There are also studies that show that sisters of homosexuals brothers have a higher fertility rate than sisters of heterosexuals brothers. Nature balances itself out. Ultimately, I stand on my point. The statistics for homosexuality are bigger than the statistics for harmful mutations. Homosexuality has survived eons, has survived evolution. Even if we cannot quite understand the reason for homosexuality just yet, it is my firm conviction that there is one, else it would not exist as it currently does. And if humanity is finally able to modify our species genetic makeup as it sees fit, I believe homosexuality, if anything, should be encouraged. Earth has no more space.
Nature doesn't balance it self out in that scene. There's no magic forces playing part.
I'm heading to bed so I'll make this brief. I'm sorry I stand my ground on my point being correct. As far as a population crysis. Good lord I hate when people say that. Stop grinding into the media hype THERE IS NO POPULATION CRYSIS. Population Density Crysis on the other hand yeah a theres some of that. But that's 100% Different. As for the population in western developed places the population is actually VERY LOW compared to everywhere else.
(http://i.imgur.com/mJYeI.png)
Clearly defined in the diagram above. However where not here to discuss population.
Homosexuality is a defect. It should be stopped in terms of having future births with it and it is NOT natures way of fixing population that would be absurd and insane to think so.
I'll let jorgen back me up on the technical end of things. I really don't have the time to hunt down tons of artials and scientific journals at 12:30AM
-
Nature doesn't balance it self out in that scene. There's no magic forces playing part.
I never mentioned magic and I have no idea why you imply that I did. When I speak of nature, I speak of evolution, essentially. When I speak of population crisis I mean the sheer amount of people in the planet. No need to get worked up about terminology. The world is undergoing a major population DENSITY crisis and this cannot be denied. We are 7 billion human beings and the growth curve is ascending steeply.
Homosexuality is a defect. It should be stopped in terms of having future births with it and it is NOT natures way of fixing population that would be absurd and insane to think so.
It should be stopped in terms of having future births? As in genetically modifying the human genome to eliminate the hypothetical "gay gene" and avoiding more homosexuals to be born? Em, why, exactly? Does it threaten human survival? With 7 billion people, I think not. And besides, if you were to progressively eliminate homosexuality, what about the quickly shortening minority of gay people? What would they do? Surely this process would not be immediate. Which means that there would still be gay people in some parts of the globe but they would be condemned to live, perhaps, lonely lives, due to the lack of "potential mates". If eliminating homosexuality is not imperative for human survival, then what's the point?
And please, do tell me just why it would be "absurd and insane" to think that homosexuality is nature's way of fixing population density?
-
Nature doesn't balance it self out in that scene. There's no magic forces playing part.
I never mentioned magic and I have no idea why you imply that I did. When I speak of nature, I speak of evolution, essentially. When I speak of population crisis I mean the sheer amount of people in the planet. No need to get worked up about terminology. The world is undergoing a major population DENSITY crisis and this cannot be denied. We are 7 billion human beings and the growth curve is ascending steeply.
Homosexuality is a defect. It should be stopped in terms of having future births with it and it is NOT natures way of fixing population that would be absurd and insane to think so.
It should be stopped in terms of having future births? As in genetically modifying the human genome to eliminate the hypothetical "gay gene" and avoiding more homosexuals to be born? Em, why, exactly? Does it threaten human survival? With 7 billion people, I think not. And besides, if you were to progressively eliminate homosexuality, what about the quickly shortening minority of gay people? What would they do? Surely this process would not be immediate. Which means that there would still be gay people in some parts of the globe but they would be condemned to live, perhaps, lonely lives, due to the lack of "potential mates". If eliminating homosexuality is not imperative for human survival, then what's the point?
And please, do tell me just why it would be "absurd and insane" to think that homosexuality is nature's way of fixing population density?
The other issue of eliminating homosexuality is that it's just wrong. Homosexuality is a part of who some people are, I doubt they'll be happy of people either a) fucking with their genetics to make them like everyone else or b) killing them off (if you wanna get extreme.)
And what if genetically the problem is solved? Is that going to ever stop people from going "I'm gay" and liking the same gender? No. I'm pretty sure people have the right to be gay and trying to eliminate homosexuality would cause all sorts of problems.
-
I don't understand how something you have a choice in can be a defect. I think defect, I think about a goddamn arm that's shorter than the other one, or perhaps a mental disease that makes you incapable of even walking. I don't feel like being gay is anywhere related to that. You don't give birth to a child and the doctor says "I'm sorry, your child is homosexual..." I don't even think it's something that's wired into you at all. If anything, there's factors in your creation that push you towards deciding your gay (if you have that liberty) but that doesn't mean you are. I mean honestly, if my parents were two gay guys, and my whole life I was exposed to just.. guys.. I'd probably be a flaming queer, sadly my parents expect children from me and say they wouldn't appreciate me being gay too much, but they'd still love me, same old same old.
It's a decision you can only make after you've lived so much life. You aren't born that way, but you can be raised that way..
-
I have to tell every1, the likelihood of there being a gay gene is practically 0%, obviously a somewhat subjective thought but that is the way my brains puts it. There may be some genetic traits that make you more or less prone to becoming a homosexual (hormones and different brain formation in some cases). Most people discover their homosexuality around puberty. Reason for this being that this is when the genetic traits come into action, you get a surge of different hormones and you notice the genetic traits you would wish to pass down into your family (by that I mean fetishes, genetic ones though, which means do you like tall girls/guys or small girls/guys)
However to the defect side of things. A defect is something that hinders you from working as intended, technically that only counts for physical disabilities and I consider homosexuality more of a mental thing (not saying disability). Technically a gay man can still procreate therefor it is not a defect, his sperm probably works and his penis probably works, in short it is therefor not a direct defect.
So that is that aspect out of the world.
However, the means of which you explain Skieski, that nature has a reason for this, is wrong. Nature itself does not use evolution as a way to do what I call population control. If it did then we would not have as many animal populations who constantly go up in population to a certain point and then get a population crash, many animals have this as a continuing cycle.
Also as I described before in my mind there is no direct gay gene.
Also if nature used it as a reason we would see a rise of homosexuality mainly in China and other high density countries, not really that much in low density countries such as the western ones.
-
Stop it just.. please.
Anyway, ever heard of gay animal buttsechs. There are some documentaries about it. When a male can find a female he needs his pleasure. And just have buttsechs with other monkey.
It's true. search up on google or something.
wasnt there two gay pinguens?
-
First of all I'm done posting on this therad if people like black lama old crow and finnie are going to not even bother reading everything that's posted.
Skies Read's my post and responds to them he doesn't take things insainly out of context so far lol.
I'm done on this thread seriously I NEVER SAID TO ERADICATE THE GAYS. If you would be so kind as to read I said no such thing. I never said to eliminate or kill anyone. NOTHING should be done with people whome are currently homosexual. They should continue to live their lifes as normal.
Skin tone is not a human defect as it does not effect humans normal ways of living. Not even relivant not even a tiny ass bit at fucking at all to this thread. So hears rule one:
DON'T EVEN POST ON THIS THREAD IF YOUR NOT EVEN GOING TO READ MY WHOLE POST CORRECT!!!
I'm sorry but it's insane when people all scream HES A HOMOPHOBIC or HES RACIST. I'm nothing of the sort.
And I will not keep posting if people will continue to misread and take things out of context.
Is this hard to understand?
Sorry this is only meant for certain people. And thank you to the people who actually read.
-
the likelihood of there being a gay gene is practically 0%
Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions Jorg. We have a VERY limited understanding of the human genome. It will be a while until we can finally decipher which gene sequences do exactly what. I would avoid making absolute statements until then. Same goes to everybody else.
Also, I would encourage you to read this: http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm (http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm)
-
the likelihood of there being a gay gene is practically 0%
Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions Jorg. We have a VERY limited understanding of the human genome. It will be a while until we can finally decipher which gene sequences do exactly what. I would avoid making absolute statements until then. Same goes to everybody else.
Also, I would encourage you to read this: http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm (http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm)
I know of a case in which a female was raped when she was rather young, she became lesbian. Is she not gay?
If you say she is then you admit to nurture having something to do with it, then you exclude the possibility of a definite gay gene. What you do not eliminate though as I said is genetic traits that make you more or less prone to become a homosexual.
those genetic traits could be why there are some differences in the gay brain formation (in some cases obviously), there are also straight men who have the same brain formation though so it has to be a trait that only makes you more prone to become a homosexual it does not exactly make you gay.
Same goes for hormones.
-
Is this hard to understand?
Yeah, I had to read it a few times to get it. So basically you're not posting in this thread anymore, then you made rules for the thread, you don't think gays deserve to be irradiated you just think they're born with a defect you don't have, and said you won't post if people aren't going to attempt to read your posts.
Honestly our best bets are in skepticism. Everything that pops up over the next few years will be theories and experiments. I feel like we trust too much in science these days, and some studies should never be publicized, small studies with little backing that cause false belief and whatnot, I'm not saying that about anything posted in this thread, but in general.
Also, no one ever answered the bisexuality questions, if it's a defect, how does it manage to HALFWAY affect people? :l
-
Is this hard to understand?
Yeah, I had to read it a few times to get it. So basically you're not posting in this thread anymore, then you made rules for the thread, you don't think gays deserve to be irradiated you just think they're born with a defect you don't have, and said you won't post if people aren't going to attempt to read your posts.
Honestly our best bets are in skepticism. Everything that pops up over the next few years will be theories and experiments. I feel like we trust too much in science these days, and some studies should never be publicized, small studies with little backing that cause false belief and whatnot, I'm not saying that about anything posted in this thread, but in general.
Also, no one ever answered the bisexuality questions, if it's a defect, how does it manage to HALFWAY affect people? :l
Like when someone is born with half their body paralyzed? ... trollface
If there isn't a gene for homosexuality, then there shouldn't be one for heterosexuality.
The gene must be for reproduction, then. And the owner of said gene is free to try and reproduce in whatever way his own mind desires. And his mind is usually made of the experiences of his life. I guarantee you, that if someone is raised in a homosexual family with the same thinking of many parents in the last twenty years, believing anything that doesn't agree with their religion and social norms is horribly wrong and you deserve to die for it, that person would turn out homosexual.
-
you don't think gays deserve to be irradiated
irradiated you say??? what does radiation have to do with anything?
-
Is this hard to understand?
Yeah, I had to read it a few times to get it. So basically you're not posting in this thread anymore, then you made rules for the thread
See a doctor right now. Immediately! You clearly have tumor. My post was very easy to understand was written clear and easy to read.
If you couldn't read it its because of your own problems not mine. I took a long time on my first post on this thread. The second no but I was yelling after that because people were misreading my easy to read post.
And I'll post now that you seem to have figured it out.
And bisexual isn't half way effecting you. Bisexual and homosexual are two different things.
I'm aware that they both contain homosexual relations. I'm just saying that the 2-20% study would have included bisexuals.
Both things would however be sperate things in terms of topics.
-
I'm always ignored Meme5
-
I'm always ignored Meme5
Tell me about it.
Also, guys, take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0
Interesting theories, amirite? Also, ignore the guy Dawkins is talking to.
-
I'm always ignored Meme5
It's hard to argue with something that make sense
-
I'm always ignored Meme5
Tell me about it.
Also, guys, take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0
Interesting theories, amirite? Also, ignore the guy Dawkins is talking to.
that awkward moment when in the end he supports what I was saying all the time, seeing that he said this is my theory then sais pretty much exactly what I said in a more gay friendly tone.
-
I'm always ignored Meme5
Tell me about it.
Also, guys, take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0
Interesting theories, amirite? Also, ignore the guy Dawkins is talking to.
that awkward moment when in the end he supports what I was saying all the time, seeing that he said this is my theory then sais pretty much exactly what I said in a more gay friendly tone.
That awkward moment when in the end he presents ONE of the THREE hypothesis he believes in. And BTW, he is not saying that it's not determined by genes, he explaining the environmental effect on the activation of said genes.
-
I'm always ignored Meme5
Tell me about it.
Also, guys, take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0
Interesting theories, amirite? Also, ignore the guy Dawkins is talking to.
that awkward moment when in the end he supports what I was saying all the time, seeing that he said this is my theory then sais pretty much exactly what I said in a more gay friendly tone.
That awkward moment when in the end he presents ONE of the THREE hypothesis he believes in. And BTW, he is not saying that it's not determined by genes, he explaining the environmental effect on the activation of said genes.
A gene might make you more susceptible to becoming gay later on in life, and the trigger point would be something in the environment. Which is what I have been stating all along, a definite gay gene would mean that you with a 100% accuracy will become gay if you have i, and also it would say all gay men will be alike in one or several specific ways.
A definite gene would be your eye color you can not chose that due to the environment.
-
I'm always ignored Meme5
Tell me about it.
Also, guys, take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0
Interesting theories, amirite? Also, ignore the guy Dawkins is talking to.
that awkward moment when in the end he supports what I was saying all the time, seeing that he said this is my theory then sais pretty much exactly what I said in a more gay friendly tone.
That awkward moment when in the end he presents ONE of the THREE hypothesis he believes in. And BTW, he is not saying that it's not determined by genes, he explaining the environmental effect on the activation of said genes.
A gene might make you more susceptible to becoming gay later on in life, and the trigger point would be something in the environment. Which is what I have been stating all along, a definite gay gene would mean that you with a 100% accuracy will become gay if you have i, and also it would say all gay men will be alike in one or several specific ways.
A definite gene would be your eye color you can not chose that due to the environment.
LoL I don't even know why we are still posting, given that we are saying the same things. WHERE'S DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WHEN YOU NEED IT?