Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay rights...

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 9:38:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Alright. I know that there are strong feelings pro gay rights so I hope there is no large rants. Take it as a time to educate people.

I have been working with a few scientist about trying to find a link between genetics, DNA, chromosomes and being gay.

There is no proof that people have a "gay" gene.
No XX Y or X YY making them gay.

So my stance on gay rights takes a step back.

The way I am looking at it is,
There is no way for gay people to procreate. It does not seem natural to have sex with the same sex. It seems as an indulgence of the soul with no real good outcome.
So I am leaning away from rights for gay people as a group and still keeping myself on the rights for them as individuals.

The right for Life, Liberty, And pursuit of happiness.

But to give gay people special rights seems a little bit of a stretch.
Where do we cross the line.
People like having sex with cows, should they be given special recognizable rights because of there sexual likings.
No.
But as individuals they should have rights.

I know that gay people scream that they are not looking for "special" rights just equal rights.
And as an individual they should have equal rights but when it comes to marriage than you have to see why straight people have that right.

Some believe it is the federals governments way of promoting procreation.
If that were the case than gay people gave up there right to procreate in turn giving up their right to being recognized as married by the federal government.

Well, I will leave it up to that.
I hope the gay people here can help me in my quest to find answers and not go crazy when they read this.

(In the genetic testing we found that being gay has more to do with phycological reasons rather than being born that way. I am not gay so I can not attest to it. )
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 9:48:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh, and I still think that the government should have no say in gay marriage or not. They should not have any say in marriage period.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 9:49:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 9:38:21 AM, comoncents wrote:
And as an individual they should have equal rights but when it comes to marriage than you have to see why straight people have that right.

Wait, what?

That makes no sense comon. Why is it that you base your ideas around "individual rights" in reference to the LGBT community, yet for heterosexuals its suddenly different and "marriage" suddenly becomes a collective right only for them?

Should it not be that individuals have rights to the bond of marriage to whomever they want? Why the double standard? It's unfair.

And you need to read these articles. These "scientists" might not be telling you the truth.

http://www.thestar.com...
http://esciencenews.com...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...

The idea of a true "gay gene" is a confusing one. There probably isn't a "gay gene" per se, but there are definitely genetic and environmental factors which make it prevalent among populations. It may not be just a gene, but a collection of genes which, firing in a different way, lead to homosexuality.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:00:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 9:49:43 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/14/2010 9:38:21 AM, comoncents wrote:
And as an individual they should have equal rights but when it comes to marriage than you have to see why straight people have that right.

Wait, what?

That makes no sense comon. Why is it that you base your ideas around "individual rights" in reference to the LGBT community, yet for heterosexuals its suddenly different and "marriage" suddenly becomes a collective right only for them?

No. I am not addressing straight marriage. I do not think the government should be involved there either but for me to be an advocate for gay marriage in this day when the government is in charge of marriage is hard for me to do.
I do not understand it.

I still think they should not have an individual rights taken away.

Should it not be that individuals have rights to the bond of marriage to whomever they want? Why the double standard? It's unfair.


Not recognized by the federal government. That is not an individual right it is a straight right.

And it is not fair that gay people do not have a chance to go to an institution that recognizes them. But with the government involved it is different.

And you need to read these articles. These "scientists" might not be telling you the truth.


We went into research with an open ming and talked to many of there colleagues that are neutral and just look at the science.

http://www.thestar.com...
http://esciencenews.com...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...

The idea of a true "gay gene" is a confusing one. There probably isn't a "gay gene" per se, but there are definitely genetic and environmental factors which make it prevalent among populations. It may not be just a gene, but a collection of genes which, firing in a different way, lead to homosexuality.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:02:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yeah I'm pretty sure the scientific community has resolved the gay gene... The burden of proof would rest on your evidence against it to make any real point here.

I am also confused as to your point. You complain that gays shouldn't have equal rights but then turn around and say the gov't has no say in marriage; what rights are you talking about, exactly?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:05:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 10:00:40 AM, comoncents wrote:
I still think they should not have an individual rights taken away.

Then you should have no problem with same-sex marriage. The concern isn't whether the government is involved or not - it's whether or not you think heterosexual individuals have a right to marriage over homosexual individuals. Take the government out of it for a second.

Not recognized by the federal government. That is not an individual right it is a straight right.

What the hell is a "straight right" except a collective right? You're giving straights a collective right to marriage over homosexuals. It's a double standard, especially when you talk about homosexuals being granted equal individual rights, and act as if this is the ultimate thing.

We went into research with an open ming and talked to many of there colleagues that are neutral and just look at the science.

Mhm. They didn't look at the science clearly enough, then.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:10:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"I know that gay people scream that they are not looking for "special" rights just equal rights."

Did you know that in England screaming homosexuals are called roaring poofs?.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:11:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 10:02:38 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Yeah I'm pretty sure the scientific community has resolved the gay gene...

I know.

I am also confused as to your point. You complain that gays shouldn't have equal rights but then turn around and say the gov't has no say in marriage; what rights are you talking about, exactly?

I am talking about gays as a group.
As an individual they should have equal rights but sexual preference is different than identity.

I am for them to have individual rights but fail to see them needing or me supporting gay rights.
I will support there rights as an individual.

It does sound confusing, your right.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:12:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 10:05:10 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Commoncents what is your field of study? Are you a science major?

No. Poli-sci.

I have just gotten together with some scientists after taking a few Bio classes.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:13:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 10:10:44 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
"I know that gay people scream that they are not looking for "special" rights just equal rights."

Did you know that in England screaming homosexuals are called roaring poofs?.

I can always count on you for a laugh.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 11:40:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 9:38:21 AM, comoncents wrote:
It does not seem natural to have sex with the same sex. It seems as an indulgence of the soul with no real good outcome.

This kid says he's been "talking to scientists" and then describes sex as an indulgence of the soul. I love it.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 11:42:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Indulgence of the body maybe :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 11:47:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
True, but that would imply that everything not necessary for survival is an indulgence. It would also mean that ALL SEX outside of sex specifically for procreation is morally wrong. Ergo all of those double headers comon's been talking about lately (no pun intended) would be immoral making him a hypocrite. Sigh, it always goes back to this doesn't it :|
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 11:51:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 11:47:47 PM, theLwerd wrote:
True, but that would imply that everything not necessary for survival is an indulgence. It would also mean that ALL SEX outside of sex specifically for procreation is morally wrong.
I was just commenting on the language. Indulgence doesn't mean wrong (or all that avoidable hehe, if he's gonna go from indulgence to immoral I'd like to see him respond to this fine rebuttal: http://www.menagea3.net... )
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2010 12:04:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lol, very true. I'm partial to the ear nibbling as well. That said, gays aren't just in it for the physical aspects of sex (comon). They have romantic feelings too -- that whole love and sex pair bonding thing that humans like to do apply to gay people too. It's the same thing. Whether gay attraction is psychological or genetic, we know that regardless it's legitimate attraction, and that its biological (as even psychological conditions are bioloigcal... duh... and environmental as well). So basically whatever conclusion you come to about sex and morality would have to apply to everyone regardless of their sexuality. If gay sex is wrong because gays can't procreate (which will actually be FALSE eventually and is already false regarding some animals), then ALL SEX without the intention of procreation must also be morally wrong. So using protection is obviously wrong. Come on, use your brain. I'm convinced that comon belongs to this conservative propoganda group that constantly tries to convert him to do the dark side.
President of DDO
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2010 2:39:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 9:38:21 AM, comoncents wrote:
The way I am looking at it is,
There is no way for gay people to procreate. It does not seem natural to have sex with the same sex. It seems as an indulgence of the soul with no real good outcome.

1. The world's population is increasing exponentially. If anything, homosexually should be encouraged because homosexuals can't reproduce.

2. 'Natural' is not the same as 'good'. Medicine is not natural. Besides, there are multiple instances of homosexuality in nature.

3. Not good outcome? Love? Companionship? Sex? Homosexuals would obviously disagree.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2010 5:48:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm thinking...

Is Paraphilia Biolgical or Genetic?

I'm thinking about sexuality and the genetic eviromental distinction. I mean it would help universally in the sexual orientation debate. What part of sexuality is genetic even in heterosexuality? ei. 'Fetishism'
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2010 6:20:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/15/2010 5:48:59 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I'm thinking...

Is Paraphilia Biolgical or Genetic?

Biological or genetic? Seriously... the first part of your statement is not true.


I'm thinking about sexuality and the genetic eviromental distinction. I mean it would help universally in the sexual orientation debate. What part of sexuality is genetic even in heterosexuality? ei. 'Fetishism'

You are only now asking such questions?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2010 9:13:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Zetsubou is asking what part of sex is biological/genetic. The answer is all parts. Sex and arousal are hormonal (i.e. based on biology). Sexuality is based on psychology - what you're attracted to - which is also based on biology (and environment/experience). One's genetic make-up determines or largely influences one's biology.

There have been tons of experiments that can prove sex is biological. For instance, humans are attracted to scent. Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) is a sequence of approximately 100 immune system genes coded for proteins that assist the immune system in recognising pathogens. Studies show that people are attracted to those whose scents are most biologically compatible with us [1]. This is just one 'study' of many that indicate our feelings about sex and sexual partners come from factors far outside of our conscious grasp.

People don't CHOOSE to be gay just as they don't choose to be straight. What we find attractive is instinctual to our biological, chemical and physical make-up. This is proven everywhere in science. I could be sexually attracted to garbage cans and it might seem strange but the attraction is still legitimate with physical results. The thing about homosexuality is that people still refuse to accept that it's just as 'natural' as heterosexuality, or somehow feel that those who are biologically inclined to be homosexual (which science has proven is also largely genetic i.e. female hormones infiltrating male fetuses) are worthy of less rights and respect. All of this is false. It just demonstrates a complete lack of any educated conclusion. I expect this of Zets and Mirza (who still have not challenged me) and also comoncents who just regurgitates whatever it is his conservative friends tell him. They need to put down the bibles and pick up the science books if they ever expected to be taken seriously by intellectuals in the real world.

[1] http://psychology.suite101.com...
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 10:42:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am reading up on different theories, and looking up at the facts backing them up. I believe that females and males may have different causes to their sexual orientation, but I need to see strong facts. I cannot conclude too much yet.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 4:04:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 11:40:33 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 6/14/2010 9:38:21 AM, comoncents wrote:
It does not seem natural to have sex with the same sex. It seems as an indulgence of the soul with no real good outcome.

This kid says he's been "talking to scientists" and then describes sex as an indulgence of the soul. I love it.

Indulgence of the soul is just another way of integrating socratic belief and does pertain to just over doing it.

Indulgence of the soul is like saying that I enjoy a drink vs I love to get drunk beyond my mind every night.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 4:05:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 11:47:47 PM, theLwerd wrote:
True, but that would imply that everything not necessary for survival is an indulgence. It would also mean that ALL SEX outside of sex specifically for procreation is morally wrong. Ergo all of those double headers comon's been talking about lately (no pun intended) would be immoral making him a hypocrite. Sigh, it always goes back to this doesn't it :|

You missing the point. I could careless that a women has sex with a women but when getting rights that were given to promote procreation are being addressed than no.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 4:08:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 4:05:34 PM, comoncents wrote:
You missing the point. I could careless that a women has sex with a women but when getting rights that were given to promote procreation are being addressed than no.

Since when did marriage become a right to "procreation"? When did "procreation" become a legal right?

Marriage is not about procreation, not in the modern world anyways. Marriage is about association - not just procreation.

Would you deny people that were sterile the right to marry because they can't procreate? Even if they where heterosexual? It's ridiculous, comon.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 4:11:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/15/2010 12:04:56 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Lol, very true. I'm partial to the ear nibbling as well. That said, gays aren't just in it for the physical aspects of sex (comon).

I could careless.
But if I like having sex with a donkey and it were legal, I should not get federal rights that a person that has sex with the opposite sex has to procreate.

They have romantic feelings too -- that whole love and sex pair bonding thing that humans like to do apply to gay people too. It's the same thing. Whether gay attraction is psychological or genetic, we know that regardless it's legitimate attraction, and that its biological (as even psychological conditions are bioloigcal... duh... and environmental as well). So basically whatever conclusion you come to about sex and morality would have to apply to everyone regardless of their sexuality.

I do not care about sex and morality.
Girl on girl sex makes no sense in a genetics and you are choosing to be gay.
I choose to be straight, you choose to be gay.

If gay sex is wrong because gays can't procreate (which will actually be FALSE eventually and is already false regarding some animals), then ALL SEX without the intention of procreation must also be morally wrong.

I still could careless if it is morally wrong. Why give gays federal marraige rights, b/c of principle? Straights do not get federal marriage rights b/c of principle.

I am talking about giving gays federal rights.

So using protection is obviously wrong. Come on, use your brain. I'm convinced that comon belongs to this conservative propoganda group that constantly tries to convert him to do the dark side.

I am. Don't be bias and use yours.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 4:14:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 4:11:37 PM, comoncents wrote:
I do not care about sex and morality.
Girl on girl sex makes no sense in a genetics and you are choosing to be gay.
I choose to be straight, you choose to be gay.

And the root of the ignorance surfaces...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 4:18:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 4:11:37 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 6/15/2010 12:04:56 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Lol, very true. I'm partial to the ear nibbling as well. That said, gays aren't just in it for the physical aspects of sex (comon).

I could careless.
But if I like having sex with a donkey and it were legal, I should not get federal rights that a person that has sex with the opposite sex has to procreate.


They have romantic feelings too -- that whole love and sex pair bonding thing that humans like to do apply to gay people too. It's the same thing. Whether gay attraction is psychological or genetic, we know that regardless it's legitimate attraction, and that its biological (as even psychological conditions are bioloigcal... duh... and environmental as well). So basically whatever conclusion you come to about sex and morality would have to apply to everyone regardless of their sexuality.

I do not care about sex and morality.
Girl on girl sex makes no sense in a genetics and you are choosing to be gay.
I choose to be straight, you choose to be gay.


Stop trolling.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 4:18:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 4:14:54 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 6/16/2010 4:11:37 PM, comoncents wrote:
I do not care about sex and morality.
Girl on girl sex makes no sense in a genetics and you are choosing to be gay.
I choose to be straight, you choose to be gay.

And the root of the ignorance surfaces...

It is true.
To deny it is ignorance.

Even if I wanted to be gay and am attracted to the opposite sex, I still have a chose to make.

Do I pursue a gay relationship or not.

It is a choice.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 4:20:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 4:18:52 PM, comoncents wrote:
It is true.
To deny it is ignorance.

Even if I wanted to be gay and am attracted to the opposite sex, I still have a chose to make.

Do I pursue a gay relationship or not.

It is a choice.

Lol, comon, I don't think you quite understand what it means by "it's a choice."

"Choice" implies that homosexuals can simply turn off their homosexuality at their whim. There is nothing biological or environmental about it that can't be fixed.

Your "choice" is simply, "ignore how I feel and force myself to act the opposite way." That fails and is not what people are talking about.

Or should everyone simply lie to themselves about what they feel?