Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Possibility of a "Gay Gene"?
hfc-media.blogspot.com — Probably not, but this new scientific discovery allows scientist to turn fruit flies gay, and then straight again. Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?
DrunkenDevil25- 541 diggs
- digg it
- Waterrat, on 12/11/2007, -27/+15 I'm leaning towards there being a gay gene...there is a world of difference between higher mammals and birds and insects.
- norman619, on 12/11/2007, -7/+10What?
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -4/+7Just ignore him, it'll be better on your intelligence.
- thebaron2, on 12/11/2007, -0/+26I wouldn't be surprised if there was a biological aspect to why people are *****/heterosexual. I'll tell you what though, if they confirm this is the case in humans it sure deals a mighty blow to the religious bigots that insist people can be "cured" of their sexual preferences.
And if it is confirmed, how do you reconcile a God CREATING someone to be gay and condemning them for it at the same time? I wouldn't be surprised to hear religious organizations start belittling this research.- philipl411, on 12/11/2007, -0/+17I am very faithful and I think gays are born, not made. but what if this research leads to the ability to change a gene and the person is no longer homosexual? What would parent do if a test showed their unborn child has the gay gene. Would they have it "turned off"?
- JoeVet, on 12/11/2007, -1/+5And what does that say about God and man's ability to change what God himself made?
- philipl411, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3There is a long leap from modifying a gene to creating one from nothing.
- pintomp3, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4next stop, gattaca.
- rebrad, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1I'm not sure as to the state of gene therapy but identification could work like test for downs syndrome does now.
- sethisastud, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3Um...Phillip. I'm gay, if I do have that gene, I don't want it 'fixed.' What if a parent saw their child has brown eyes, but they want him to have blue eyes, would you think it was OK to allow them to change that? Most christians I know think designer babies are sinful.
- RobotBuddha, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1Eye color, sure. Skin color, why not. You choose both for you kid just by who you mate with in the first place. Even if it comes to what you're attracted to, I don't see why people get so caught up in that as a measure of identity. I think having sex with women is great fun, but I wouldn't even place that as the top ten things that define me as an individual.
- philipl411, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Designer babies are going to happen and it wont matter if Christians like it or not. But the question was, "Would parent choice to change that gene?" What if the same procedure could be use on a deformed child? Do you think a parent would alter that child genes to have a healthy baby born? I am not trying to debate if 'gay" is normal or not. Just what would a parent do.
- JoeVet, on 12/11/2007, -1/+5And what does that say about God and man's ability to change what God himself made?
- oldhick, on 12/11/2007, -7/+8Not really. Simply because you are born with a proclivity to a certain behavior doesn't change the moral implications of that behavior. Before you Digg me down, I'm simply explaining the religious rights thinking, not defending it.
If its true that a gene leads to homosexual tendencies then it actually deals a larger blow to the community defending homosexuality right?
As long as we believe that LOVE is the motivating factor than who are we to judge? If it can be shown that love has nothing to do with and that its actually biological, than it could be treated more like alcoholism or eventually eradicated.
Again, these aren't my beliefs, I'm just throwing out arguments you'll start hearing.- lydecker, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4But isn't religious morality based on behaviors and giving into sin? If you are genetically attracted to members of the same sex, you never were tempted by "sin", but you were born with those feelings. People aren't born murderers, adulterers, theives, so I have a hard time believing fully in homosexuality being a sin. Orientation, our thoughts, can't be sins. But actions of promiscuity and drug use may be.
Anyway, sins are relative. - kozie, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Religious morality is based on only God possessing it and us, as humans, being born into it. I.e. you're born into sin. That means that you are born as a murderer/adulterer etc. Religious morality even goes as far as to say looking at someone with lust is adultery and hating a brother is murder.
So I think you might be mistaken.
- lydecker, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4But isn't religious morality based on behaviors and giving into sin? If you are genetically attracted to members of the same sex, you never were tempted by "sin", but you were born with those feelings. People aren't born murderers, adulterers, theives, so I have a hard time believing fully in homosexuality being a sin. Orientation, our thoughts, can't be sins. But actions of promiscuity and drug use may be.
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -2/+10Don't you realize that religious bigots don't believe in science?
- TheTaoOfBill, on 12/11/2007, -2/+10Bigots in general don't believe in science. Not just religious ones.
- andburn1, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Oh, many would say they do. It's just that their science is *****. Intelligent design is supposed to be a scientific theory, remember.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 12/11/2007, -2/+10Bigots in general don't believe in science. Not just religious ones.
- Pillage, on 12/11/2007, -5/+1There has to be some sort of defect at the onset of birth (minus psychological effect due to trauma/abuse) . It (literally) goes against nature to be gay; which is to say that life's #1 goal is to procreate and preserve itself; In many species life itself is less valuable then then the existence of its genes. So what would cause there to be a desire to stop from procreating and thus stopping the continued survival of its fitness genes. Is it possible that in the genetic code there is a stop sign for some reason?
- nullchris, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8Life doesn't have a goal, but there are conditions to ensure it continues.
The process of evolution involves the survival of certain genes. If you live in a tribal commune, and are gay, while your elder brother is not, you may aid your family with your labors, while a set of genes very similar to your own gets passed on by your relatives. In this way, you are aiding in the survival of "your" genes, whether your procreate or not.
Outside of the hypothetical, you see this behavior in all kinds of animals. Not all in a pack mate. Insects have swarms of infertile workers. Why? Their evolution and continued survival don't rely on them to, as their care and protection of the queen ensures their survival.- Pillage, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1I didn't mean "defect" in a negative connotation, I meant it from a literal interpretation. Something in the genes are different from the mass, not unlike autism is a genetic defect. It is a natural thing that has changed the humans behavior.
I'm an atheist so all this god BS in the way of figuring out why people are gay is frankly in the way. But I will have to disagree that life has no purpose. If it did not have a purpose it would not continue, the fact that it continues gives it a purpose, the goal to continue its specie. I did acknowledge that it could be something in the genes for a reason, as a Stop sign there to make sure more fitter animals are able to mate. The point that by not procreating, an animal allows others to procreate its genes is valid. but what begs to be answered is Why? Why would nature choose to stop a specie from putting fourth its genes? Did it deem it unfit to continue for some reason?
The infertile animals brings up a point that some naturalists speculate. That they may have originally been homosexual and evolved to the point in which they were not able to reproduce, but instead be used for work and not be distracted by the process of mating.
Of course it could be an entirely different reason, the problem I have with people who think being gay is natural and not different impede scientific progress. No you are not the same as most people, and we are curious as to why. Just as we are curious as to why we are straight or black or white or have red hair or green eyes. - nullchris, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1You ask why nature would choose to stop a species from putting forth its own genes, but I'll assume you mean an individual. This is why I say there is no purpose, just as there is not a choice being made. It continues to happen because the same gene pool this arises in is surviving.
To put it another way, nature doesn't "choose" the "purpose" of creating a bug that can turn other bugs into zombies, and drive them around (true story, heh). This happens as the result of intermediate behaviors in which there are survivors, positively enforcing the gene pool with one set of probabilities, and those that die off, removing an avenue for their genes to go on through them. Eventually, certain specializations flourish in their environmental niche, and you end up with some neat adaptations. The end result IS NOT the purpose, however. Surviving in your niche happens, or it does not. The reasons for survival may influence the tools available to each successive generation.
- Pillage, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1I didn't mean "defect" in a negative connotation, I meant it from a literal interpretation. Something in the genes are different from the mass, not unlike autism is a genetic defect. It is a natural thing that has changed the humans behavior.
- andburn1, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4There are dozens, if not hundreds, of species of animals who display homosexual traits. "Defect" or not, it's completely natural. And as it doesn't actually physically affect the health or sanity of the individual who is homosexual, homosexuality really can't be called a defect. And, no, because there is no "intelligent designer," there doesn't have to be a purpose. Certain things about our biology have reason, but not in accordance with anyone or anything's will or wish. That is to say, homosexuality doesn't have to make sense for it to be natural.
- nullchris, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8Life doesn't have a goal, but there are conditions to ensure it continues.
- philipl411, on 12/11/2007, -0/+17I am very faithful and I think gays are born, not made. but what if this research leads to the ability to change a gene and the person is no longer homosexual? What would parent do if a test showed their unborn child has the gay gene. Would they have it "turned off"?
- raynar, on 12/11/2007, -4/+9Who's going to hang my curtains and teach me how to dress??
- mywhitenoise, on 12/11/2007, -4/+3Your wife?
- amoirae, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3His beard.
- mywhitenoise, on 12/11/2007, -4/+3Your wife?
- abid786, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2"there is a world of difference between higher mammals and birds and insects."
You'd be surprised. This comes from Dr. David Featherstone's lab webpage:
Drosophila (fruit fly) learning relies on the same particular type of glutamate receptor relied upon by humans.
Also, 87% of the human genes associated with mental retardation have equivalents in flies
75% of genetically-linked human disease genes have matches in flies- rootneg2, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Well certainly we share *many* of the same proteins, and although the difference may not amount to much genetically, there are some profoundly "new" phenomenon that those few genes cause in humans.
*Especially* in humans, sex and mating are very behaivioral and often involve very "high-level" functioning in addition to basic drives that might be common with a fruit fly. Take humor for example: humor has virtually no analogue in fruit flys, but yet it can be an extremely important factor in human mating behavior.
The amount of genetic information or genetic difference is very loosely correlated to complexity.
- rootneg2, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Well certainly we share *many* of the same proteins, and although the difference may not amount to much genetically, there are some profoundly "new" phenomenon that those few genes cause in humans.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 12/11/2007, -2/+12Does anyone else think it's kinda funny they chose to use fruit flies?
- zachlac, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1Why is he being dugg down?
- tim04, on 12/11/2007, -2/+2if there was a "gay gene", then according to evolution it wouldn't exist anymore. the majority of purely homosexual people don't tend to have children. that's why it's doubtful that this gene exists.
- rootneg2, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4you are forgetting to take into account kin-selection
Often times a gene survives not due to a direct benifit towards the individual, but due to a net benifit for the community. Perhaps having a gay uncle is a positive influence on your survival. For instance, the presence of homosexual behaivior or tendancies may help to reinforce or bring together the social structure of a community or group. Homosexual behavior is actually relatively common throughout the animal kingdom, especially among mammals and those animals with more complex social interactions. Dogs, as many dog-owners may be aware of already, will often mount each other (regardless of sex) in order to maintain the dominance hierarchy. Perhaps the most striking example, however, is that of Bonobo Chimpanzees, for whom sex and sexual contact/behavior (both heterosexual and homosexual, seen in both males and females) seem to play an integral role in social interaction, used in greeting, for conflict resolution, as part of a trade or barter (as with food or grooming), or merely to show affection.
- rootneg2, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4you are forgetting to take into account kin-selection
- norman619, on 12/11/2007, -7/+10What?
- dmoney22, on 12/11/2007, -4/+46minus the blog spam = http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html
- RadicalEdward, on 12/11/2007, -18/+12because fox is sooo much better?
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -16/+7This is one time I'd take the blog-spam over the source
- andburn1, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3The blog's source is Fox News.
- AllYourBase3, on 12/11/2007, -2/+4are you stupid? the blog takes everything directly from foxnews
- JoeVet, on 12/11/2007, -2/+7Anyone who gets their science news from fauxnews or any media outlet are fools. Journalists have poor understanding of science and often get it wrong. If you want the truth go to the journal and remember to evaluate the work, not just the conclusions.
- andburn1, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2I've read this elsewhere - it's not complicated in terms of the necessary understanding. One must know only that scientists were able to make fruit flies gay and then straight and then gay again by messing with one gene that they identified. The article doesn't make any grand conclusions or statements - not everything on Fox News has to be sensationalist or propaganda.
- JoeVet, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1You are not understanding what Fauxnews actually wrote. They are claiming that because the scientists can use a drug to control homosexual behavior that means it is not genetic. The fact is that the scientists use RNAi which is a way to turn on genes and thus the scientists are confirming the existence of a homosexual gene. This is opposite of what fauxnews claims. The distinction is important for the right wing agenda which says that homosexuality is a conscious decision and not biological. In other words Fauxnews is spreading propaganda based on false interpretation of a scientific paper.
- re506, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4And had you actually looked at the article, you would've seen that it was merely a reposting of an article from LiveScience that no one at Fox wrote.
- JoeVet, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Look at the actual science journal article, idiot. News media do not understand science and 95% of their reporting is wrong. The only way to review science is to look at the journal article directly and critically evaluate it.
- andburn1, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2I've read this elsewhere - it's not complicated in terms of the necessary understanding. One must know only that scientists were able to make fruit flies gay and then straight and then gay again by messing with one gene that they identified. The article doesn't make any grand conclusions or statements - not everything on Fox News has to be sensationalist or propaganda.
- Rakuseki, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6You do realize Fox News didn't originate the story right? It came from Live Science which is apart of the Imaganova Group. They syndicate news to all the major news outlets just like the AP. You'd know that, of course, had you actually read the article.
- JoeVet, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1Only an idiot would read a reporters synopsis of a science article. The article has been epublished and if you would read it you would see that all three articles incorrectly state the conclusions.
- Rakuseki, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Whether or not Live Science is right in their conclusion isn't what's being talked about in this particular comment thread. The contention is whether or not Fox News is better for bringing the article to light as opposed to the blog. I was saying that Fox didn't write the article so he should take his fox bashing elsewhere. Robert Roy Britt doesn't even work for Fox News. It was just ported over for more attention.
- JoeVet, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1Only an idiot would read a reporters synopsis of a science article. The article has been epublished and if you would read it you would see that all three articles incorrectly state the conclusions.
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -16/+7This is one time I'd take the blog-spam over the source
- chris9902, on 12/11/2007, -5/+9hahaha it points to fox. You couldn't make this ***** up.
- swizzcheez, on 12/11/2007, -1/+14What are you lot whining about? If the claim is that homosexuality is not a choice, then a gay gene would certainly reinforce such a hypothesis. For FSM's sake, one can find conspiracy in white bread if you look hard enough.
- andburn1, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2They're trying to make us fluffy and delicious!
- RadicalEdward, on 12/11/2007, -18/+12because fox is sooo much better?
- mickcn, on 12/11/2007, -35/+11I really don't think a person's sexual preference matters, at all. Altering a person's genes to make them straight is pretty ***** ridiculous. Kinda pisses me off. Democracy comes from a society of bisexual peoples.
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -2/+26Oooh, so close. You were going so well until you started talking about Democracy. Thank you for playing, and come back soon.
- norman619, on 12/11/2007, -2/+7What parting gifts do we have for them Chuck?
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Well Bob, we have a choice between a kick-in-the-ass, or a toothbrush.
- tHePeOPle, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2Is that the home version of 'kick-in-the-ass'?
- mickcn, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Can I just have the toothbrush?
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Well Bob, we have a choice between a kick-in-the-ass, or a toothbrush.
- mickcn, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Whats wrong with democracy? Just because we ***** it up, doesn't make it bad.
- dbs1221, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1He thinks that the greeks were all bisexuals... WRONG
Just because you don't demonize the naked human form and the penis doesn't mean you are bisexual, they did accept ***** and bisexuals though, ... there is still so much we can learn from them....- mickcn, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1No, that is not what I think. And also, just because you do demonize the naked human form and the penis, doesn't mean you aren't bisexual.
- norman619, on 12/11/2007, -2/+7What parting gifts do we have for them Chuck?
- blakeage, on 12/11/2007, -6/+27Actually, I'd argue that many homosexuals wished they were straight, just to avoid the social stigmas.
- apzdsx, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5And there's a lot more straight porn.
(gay)- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -0/+14Although gay pron usually pops up when you least expect it.
- mywhitenoise, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4And those god damn trannys.
- wesd, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2You're right, there is a lot more straight porn but if you're actually running out of gay porn then... oh dear.
(straight)
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -0/+14Although gay pron usually pops up when you least expect it.
- pintomp3, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6and i bet a lot of black people wished they were white. it's a response to bigotry.
- mickcn, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2I haven't met one, and their's a ***** load of gay people around here.
- apzdsx, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5And there's a lot more straight porn.
- Myonosken, on 12/11/2007, -1/+9They aren't trying to make gay people straight, they're trying to discover the age old answer as to WHY people are gay.
- JoeVet, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5That is even more dangerous. If homosexual is genetic then it must be by God's hand and doesn't the bible say to hate homosexuals. This would make God vindictive toward a people he create. In orther words God created homosexuals just for the rest of the world to hate. Or it could mean that the bible is wrong. Either way it means that the religious basis for this hate is a hoax perpetrated either by the authors of the bible or God himself. Good thing these religious types don't believe in the fact based decision making process.
- MacEnvy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6"Or it could mean that the bible is wrong."
Yeah, I think I'm going to have to go with that one. - andburn1, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2As you said, religious fanatics can still damn homosexuals to hell by simply ignoring the discovery of any biological cause. Many religious people believe they don't have to explain their religion to science.
- dbs1221, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Or God doesn't control mutations to the gene that regulates sexuality
- MacEnvy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6"Or it could mean that the bible is wrong."
- mickcn, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1I know. But it will obviously come with time.
- JoeVet, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5That is even more dangerous. If homosexual is genetic then it must be by God's hand and doesn't the bible say to hate homosexuals. This would make God vindictive toward a people he create. In orther words God created homosexuals just for the rest of the world to hate. Or it could mean that the bible is wrong. Either way it means that the religious basis for this hate is a hoax perpetrated either by the authors of the bible or God himself. Good thing these religious types don't believe in the fact based decision making process.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 12/11/2007, -3/+3I think if there ever became an option to alter a fetus's genes to avoid homosexuality there isn't any reason to be really against that. I mean you can choose to leave the genes if you want but I don't think there is anything wrong with doing it. I'm not a homophobe or anything but I would personally change the gene on my baby if it turned out he/she had it just to be sure they avoided a life of persecution and general disgust in their life. I'd want my child to live a happy life with all the opportunity in the world. Nothing wrong with that.
- Mononuclear, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5I respect your opinion. The same could be said though of skin color. If you could chose the skin color of your baby would you chose white skin so that your baby could avoid persecution and live a happy life with all the opportunity in the world? Would you chose to have your baby male instead of female for the same reasons? It's an interesting question. You want to give your child the best life possible and prejudice exists in the world. Would you chose to make your baby the least persecuted (white straight male) possible?
- TheTaoOfBill, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2That is a pretty interesting question that I never really thought of. I only hope the government stays out of it and gives people the ability to choose for themselves.
- Mononuclear, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5I respect your opinion. The same could be said though of skin color. If you could chose the skin color of your baby would you chose white skin so that your baby could avoid persecution and live a happy life with all the opportunity in the world? Would you chose to have your baby male instead of female for the same reasons? It's an interesting question. You want to give your child the best life possible and prejudice exists in the world. Would you chose to make your baby the least persecuted (white straight male) possible?
- edd17, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3Tell me more about this bisexual utopia you mentioned
- mickcn, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1Ancient Greece....
- dbs1221, on 12/12/2007, -1/+3The greeks weren't bisexual, they were accepting and they didn't demonize sexuality or the human form, If a society doesn't create a taboo around sexual organs then they become just part of the body (except they have more nerves and they aren't the same in men and women).
- mickcn, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1I didn't say all greeks were bisexuals. Anything I've ever heard, says it was pretty common, By todays standards, yes, it was a utopia for bisexuals.
- dbs1221, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1it wasn't a utopia
it was accepting of bisexuals that doesn't mean it was "a society of bisexual peoples"
- dbs1221, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1it wasn't a utopia
- mickcn, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1Ancient Greece....
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -2/+26Oooh, so close. You were going so well until you started talking about Democracy. Thank you for playing, and come back soon.
- scrumpy, on 12/11/2007, -11/+131The gay gene can be found in the Gap.
Which damn side do I shop on?
That's a nice sweater, oh ***** wrong side, I'm gay.- norman619, on 12/11/2007, -10/+2LOL
DUGG- jdm0778, on 12/11/2007, -1/+9LOL
Buried- TomTruelle, on 12/11/2007, -4/+2LOL
DUGG - defectDS, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4LOL
Buried- TheTaoOfBill, on 12/11/2007, -2/+4LOL
COMBO BREAKER - saisumimen, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2LOL
Buried
- TheTaoOfBill, on 12/11/2007, -2/+4LOL
- TomTruelle, on 12/11/2007, -4/+2LOL
- jdm0778, on 12/11/2007, -1/+9LOL
- smoothmedia, on 12/11/2007, -1/+17LOL
PATTY MAYONNAISE - jbhelms, on 12/11/2007, -3/+3You don't have to be gay at the Gap, you could be a metrosexual.
- saisumimen, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3Did you hear about the Gap credit card for metrosexuals?
Bi now, Gay later.
- saisumimen, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3Did you hear about the Gap credit card for metrosexuals?
- TomTruelle, on 12/11/2007, -2/+2ahhaahahhahaahh i actually lol'ed. I must be tired.
- BigBoyBoobs, on 12/11/2007, -8/+0LOL I must have misread Scrumpy's post... I thought he was referring to the gap in their bunghole.
- joessandwich, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2A real Gay doesn't shop at the Gap, just wannabes. A real Gay does much better.
- norman619, on 12/11/2007, -10/+2LOL
- rplantz, on 12/11/2007, -8/+24OFCOURSE there's a gay gene. It's the one that's always belting out show-tunes.
- hellosaysme, on 12/11/2007, -6/+6you're just jealous, bitch.
- khairy1974, on 12/11/2007, -37/+5Guys......this is purely against mother nature......don't think she likes this gay gene thing that much.....I don't think a bull screwing another bull will delight her.....
- leatherscot, on 12/11/2007, -4/+13Well, I dont think there is a record of bulls shagging - but plenty of other same sex mammals do! Maybe Mother Nature is a lesbian?
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7Mother Nature gets it on with Venus.
Did I just create a rule 34? I sincerely apologize, I'll just hang my head in shame in the corner.- jon30041, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Oh crap... planetary pr0n is on the way people! Blame Drakenlot!
- Myonosken, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2@jon: Planet. No he didn't mean the planet.
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Planetary pron is prolly much worse so...
- Mononuclear, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Greek god porn
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7Mother Nature gets it on with Venus.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -2/+29So you're saying that homosexuals are aliens? Because that's the only way homosexuality can be against "mother nature". I think that by "mother nature" you mean the bible and by "bulls" you mean you and by "delight her" you mean you secretly want to suck on the *****.
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -7/+4Yeah, because everyone knows that being a jerk is going to convince them they're thinking with their eyes and mind closed. Instead of insulting them, try simply conversing.
- m3th0dm4n, on 12/11/2007, -0/+9Welcome to the Internet, chief.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4Why don't people talk to dogs? Because they don't understand.
Why would I try the same with a human who has the brain of a dog?- Mononuclear, on 12/11/2007, -1/+7my dog understands quite a bit... your dog must be retarded
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4How do you know my dog's name?
- TheTaoOfBill, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3If I ever get a dog I am going to name him stains so whenever I call him inside I can shout Come stains! Come Stains!
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Never said it'd work, just that it probably has a better chance than resorting to 'your mom' jokes and the like..
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8Yeah except I actually believe that men who are hostile towards homosexuality have repressed homosexual feelings. In fact, it's been demonstrated scientifcally.
http://www.petertatchell.net/homophobia/bigots%20a ...
Which reinforces my belief that there is no such thing as heteros and *****. We're all both but at different degrees.
And in any case, not a single person in the world is attracted to an entire gender. Invidividuals are attracted by other individuals. A heterosexual man isn't attracted to ALL women, he's attracted to HIS type of women.
To me homosexuality is the same exact thing as personnal tastes. You either like wine or you don't. You either like beer or you don't, etc. Men who refer to themselves as homosexuals are just stigmatized as men who prefer other men. But preferring men in general doesn't mean that you can't be attracted to women.- Mononuclear, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2I almost agree with everything you said. Like you said attraction is personal taste. Some straight men like women with more masculine traits etc. Some gay men like other men with more feminine traits. A lot has to do with the equipment though. A straight man attracted to masculine women is not attracted to men, even feminine men because of the simple fact that they are men and not women. If a man is generally attracted to men but also attracted to some women he is bisexual and not gay.
- Mononuclear, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3Edit timeout:
We are not all both to different degrees. I am personally attracted to more athletic women some would say androgynous women. I prefer smaller breasts to huge gigantic fun bags. I don't like girly girls and high maintenance girls. I am not attracted in any way to men. Whether they be androgynous men, manly men, feminine men.. it doesn't matter. The simple fact is I am not attracted to men. There is nothing wrong with it.. It just isn't me.
Some people are attracted to both sexes and are bisexual. Some people like me are attracted to the opposite sex are are Heterosexual. Some people are attracted to the same sex and are Homosexual. It doesn't matter how manly you like your women, or how feminine you like your guys if you are only attracted to the opposite sex. - ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+7Some people like chocolate cake, it doesn't matter how good the cheesecake is, they simply won't eat it.
Some people are gentically pre-disposed to like chocolate cake.
Personnaly, I don't like chocolate cake. I like cheesecake with some chocolate on it but I do not like chocolate cake, it just isn't me.
Some people like both, they are bicakal.
It doesn't matter how much cheese you put on a chocolate cake, I still don't like chocolate cake. - drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2*giggle* Bicakal...
I'm tricakal, gotta love the ice cream ones.
seriously, what you're saying does make sense, but how would you explain bi-curious? that can mean they aren't attracted per se, just wondering what it would be like.
Like a cheesecaker tasting chocolate to see what the fuss is all about. - ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4I explain it the same way I explain homosexual or heterosexual behaviour:
They're attracted to individuals, not genders. They think they might enjoy sex with what they find attractive. That's all it is.
Heterosexuals are the same way, they want sex with what they're attracted to.
Classifying people by their personnal tastes is just ridiculous to me. Hence the bicakal . People who prefer the color blue are not a different type of people than the people who prefer the color red.
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -7/+4Yeah, because everyone knows that being a jerk is going to convince them they're thinking with their eyes and mind closed. Instead of insulting them, try simply conversing.
- leatherscot, on 12/11/2007, -4/+13Well, I dont think there is a record of bulls shagging - but plenty of other same sex mammals do! Maybe Mother Nature is a lesbian?
- dynacrylic, on 12/11/2007, -17/+24This somewhat reminds me of the LGBT parallel within X-Man movie series:
In the first movie, it's about people trying not to be themselves and having to accept who they are. The quote that sticks out is "Bobby, have you tried not being a mutant?" which parallels to "Bobby, have you tried not being gay?"
In X3 there was the controversial "mutant cure"; just as many believe their is a "gay cure".- ApokalypseNow, on 12/11/2007, -1/+23And just as in X3, I can see the questions arising that, were a Gay Cure to be developed, would it be forced on all gays? I don't see that happening - too many people love their lesbian porn.
- subliminalurge, on 12/11/2007, -3/+8And while we're at it, can we also have a pill that will turn a straight woman into a bisexual?
Would make those threesomes so much easier to come by. - jrowny, on 12/11/2007, -1/+15I don't think lesbian porn is made for lesbians... nor do I think the performers are always lesbians. So regardless of any gay cures... I'm sure we'll always have lesbian porn.
- subliminalurge, on 12/11/2007, -3/+8And while we're at it, can we also have a pill that will turn a straight woman into a bisexual?
- jbhelms, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2And just like in the movie, I am sure some gay people will take it so that they can "be normal".
If they did find a way in humans to turn people straight then I would hope that it comes with tons of counseling beforehand so that they are really sure. - mwalker05, on 12/11/2007, -3/+5and just like in the movie, the gays in real life would single handedly take out our nations entire military and all the gays who were in favor of keeping the cure. and in fact the gays would have won, if not for a single determined gay man, who was able to withstand the attacks of the other gays and kill his love partner just in time to save mankind from all the gays.
or you know, you could just think that the movie is about mutants and derived the idea from the cartoons. on that note, go back and watch some of the old x-men cartoons, they are ten times more though provoking than the movies ever dreamed of. - KipBond, on 12/11/2007, -0/+11Another dialog from X2:
NightCrawler (the blue teleporting guy with a tail), who has had to live his life either in the circus or hiding in an abandoned church because of the way he looks, approaches Mystique (the blue shape-shifting lady) to ask her some questions:
NightCrawler: “Excuse me. They say you can imitate anybody. Even their voice.”
Mystique: (echoing NightCrawler’s voice) “Even their voice.”
NightCrawler: “Then why not stay in disguise all the time? You know, look like everyone else?”
Mystique: “Because we shouldn’t have to.” - modusop, on 12/11/2007, -2/+4Um...X-Men was trying to parallel with black civil rights (remember the 1960s?) not gay issues.
- velozie, on 12/11/2007, -1/+11And there are lots of parallels with gay issues and black civil rights, to this day.
- mwalker05, on 12/11/2007, -14/+1please dont insult dr. king's and malcom x's sacrifices or bayard rustin's initiatives by comparing them to what homosexuals have done for their rights. they held a few gay pride parades and politicians have pandered to them for about a decade with the exception of gay marriage. and thats because marriage is a religious institution. gay people have civil unions, which grants the legal benefits of marriage. meanwhile politicians are still ignoring black people.
- Mononuclear, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4he said there were many parallels he didn't say they all went through the exact same struggles.. easy there chief..
- snarfyboy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5What makes you think MLK would be offended? The woman who shared pillow talk with him knew him a lot better and she said it was a perfectly valid comparison. MLK himself was pressured to remove the primary organizer of the March on Washington from the stage, presumably because he was a known homosexual, and MLK steadfastly refused.
- mwalker05, on 12/11/2007, -14/+1please dont insult dr. king's and malcom x's sacrifices or bayard rustin's initiatives by comparing them to what homosexuals have done for their rights. they held a few gay pride parades and politicians have pandered to them for about a decade with the exception of gay marriage. and thats because marriage is a religious institution. gay people have civil unions, which grants the legal benefits of marriage. meanwhile politicians are still ignoring black people.
- pintomp3, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7the beauty of x-men was that it paralleled a lot of issues: black civil rights, gay rights, islamophobia, etc. that's because a lot of these issues parallel each other.
- velozie, on 12/11/2007, -1/+11And there are lots of parallels with gay issues and black civil rights, to this day.
- ApokalypseNow, on 12/11/2007, -1/+23And just as in X3, I can see the questions arising that, were a Gay Cure to be developed, would it be forced on all gays? I don't see that happening - too many people love their lesbian porn.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -23/+92Well, you're going to have to decide...
Either there's a gay gene or homosexuality is volountary. It's one or the other.
Personnaly, I think there's no such thing as heterosexual and homosexuals. That idea has only existed for about 500 years, ever since the act of homosexual sex has become to be perceived as "vile" or a "sin".
I think it's just a state of mind that is ingrained at a very young age and the people who are more attracted to the same sex than others become strictly "homosexuals" only out of social stigmatisation. The ones that aren't brought up with social stigma and a systematic separation of roles become bisexuals. All the bisexuals I've ever known fit this description. They just don't give a ***** and do what they feel like (which I find admirable).
I'd be more interested in finding a "religious nutcase" gene. Because if it weren't for those idiots, we wouldn't even have to question ourselves about this. In a strictly moral point of view, consensual sex is consensual sex.
And if you want to make the argument that gay sex is a sin, well, God made everything. Calling one of God's creations an error constitutes blasphemy. And if you're the "old testament type", that means God hates you and will probably kill your son.- ariez84, on 12/11/2007, -2/+26Homosexuality existed since life evolved into two sexes.
- RadicalEdward, on 12/11/2007, -16/+1"consensual sex is consensual sex" well, not always. but i digg ya.
- Fortuna, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1ah so my theory that x does not always = x may hold some truth after all
- BoneheadFarker, on 12/11/2007, -11/+2Dear god...DON'T give them a choice like that. If it's a choice, then they will want to put everyone who might be gay through counselling. If it's not a choice, if it's biological...they'll want to "fix" it while still in the womb.
http://mondaymorninginsight.com/index.php/site/com ... - bjs3171, on 12/11/2007, -10/+24yeah. homosexuality is voluntary. every gay person, especially ones that have been beaten and/or killed because of it, has chosen to lead that lifestyle. brilliant.
- SwissCamel, on 12/11/2007, -7/+13Yeah. Following a religion is voluntary. Every religious person who has been beaten or killed because of it, has chosen to follow that religion. Brilliant.
People might still choose to do something despite facing persecution from others.- kelt65, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2There's no comparison to homosexuality there. Religion, or more simply the values one is taught growing up, can be rejected by critical thinking, or just thinking at all. Religion is no different from ideology and there is no comparison whatsoever with sexuality, your comment is utterly ludicrous.
- kelt65, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1uh, I guess I misread your comment there ... uh, disregard
- kelt65, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2There's no comparison to homosexuality there. Religion, or more simply the values one is taught growing up, can be rejected by critical thinking, or just thinking at all. Religion is no different from ideology and there is no comparison whatsoever with sexuality, your comment is utterly ludicrous.
- SwissCamel, on 12/11/2007, -7/+13Yeah. Following a religion is voluntary. Every religious person who has been beaten or killed because of it, has chosen to follow that religion. Brilliant.
- capiCrimm, on 12/11/2007, -3/+20"Either there's a gay gene or homosexuality is [voluntary]. It's one or the other. "
as you prove with your own explanation that's a false dichotomy. Plenty of in between.- cfuse, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3We have both kinds, country and western.
- foxhaze, on 12/11/2007, -2/+7I agree with you. Hedonism and sluttery are things that this world needs.
- Devrdander, on 12/11/2007, -3/+31They did a study that showed that most religious nuts that hear god have the same brain activity of schizophrenics that hear voices.
- betterth, on 12/11/2007, -10/+3I'm sure they've also done studies that linked atheists to serial killers. You can "study" anything.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+5Except this study measured brain activity with MRI and brain imagery recorded factual data and direct causal relations between schizophrenic brain activity and religious fervour.
The atheism and serial killers or fascists or any link between the two is just a fallacious argument: guilt by association.- betterth, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1Thank you for totally missing my point. I was giving an outlandish examples.
You are not a neurologist. Do not pretend that just because there is a correlation in brain activity means that magically there is some link. What if there was a link to how the brain acts during sex and murder? Or debating and masturbating?
Without a full understanding of how our brain operates one single correlation is nothing but FUD.
But hey, go ahead and hate religion all you want, nothing like a little closed mindedness to fight closed mindedness. - ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, I am a neurologist.
- betterth, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1Thank you for totally missing my point. I was giving an outlandish examples.
- Devrdander, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1You can draw your own conclusions from the factual data found. No one said that all religious nuts are schizo's, who's not to say that most schizo's aren't just hearing god or the devil?
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+5Except this study measured brain activity with MRI and brain imagery recorded factual data and direct causal relations between schizophrenic brain activity and religious fervour.
- cfuse, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3It would be curious to see if the administration of anti-psychotics reduced their religious fervour.
- betterth, on 12/11/2007, -10/+3I'm sure they've also done studies that linked atheists to serial killers. You can "study" anything.
- tubalcane, on 12/11/2007, -2/+10It's not quite that simple. There are cases of identical twins where one is gay and one is straight. They have identical DNA meaning identical genes. Some researchers are looking at environmental causes. I think something didn't quite develop right in their endocrine system. Even with identical DNA nature still makes copying mistakes leading to possible differences in twins.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+6There are cases of identical twins where one prefers chocolate cake and the other prefers cheese cake. It's just a matter of attraction.
- Mononuclear, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8there are cases of identical twins with different genetic diseases. A lot can happen from the same dna.
- gotterdammerung, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4It doesn't even have to be mistakes in DNA replication. There's a whole field called epigenetics that basically focuses on the way the same genes can be expressed differently in different individuals (i.e. identical twins), or at different time points in the same individual's life; this is largely through stress hormones and environmental factors. I guess you could say the field comprises the "nurture" part in the nature vs. nurture debate.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+6There are cases of identical twins where one prefers chocolate cake and the other prefers cheese cake. It's just a matter of attraction.
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -3/+6That's the most intelligent comment here. It really does make sense, it was normal to be both ways in Ancient Greece.
At least it's now slowly changing, namely to the newest generation being bi-curious or at the very least open-minded to other people's choices. Being gay or bi is only still a 'bad' thing to the general population because of older people remaining closed to the changes. - lacronicus, on 12/11/2007, -2/+16Actually, that is not correct. I have studied Roman culture for some time, and there was definite evidence that homexuality did exist. I'd be willing to bet that it went along far before that as well, so the idea that it was created in the last 500 years is far from accurate.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+9Homosexual activity existed. There was no such thing as an homosexual and a heterosexual. That is very recent. The entire Spartan army had gay sex. They also had wives and children.
- joegibes, on 12/11/2007, -9/+1Homosexuality has existed pretty much forever, but not as a gene -- it's still a choice. If it were genetic, I'm pretty sure that homosexuals would have been eliminated by now (after all the "ethnic cleansings" all that throughout history).
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6How do you explain that homosexual behaviour exists in species that are incapable of making a choice?
- evil-doer, on 12/11/2007, -13/+2dude. how come 9 times out of 10 you can spot a homosexual just by how they walk or talk or act? theres gotta be a difference in their brains. this isnt just someone deciding who they like better. you think just because someone has a different taste in something they are gonna all of a sudden learn how to walk and talk differently? no. thats a part of the differences in their brain. theres also a lot of homosexuals who DO NOT WANT to be homosexual, but cant change. they were born that way. its genetic.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -1/+9"how come 9 times out of 10 you can spot a homosexual just by how they walk or talk or act?"
Because you can't. - joegibes, on 12/11/2007, -7/+1How come 9 times out of 10 you can spot a drunk by the way he walks and talks? It's a choice (not necessarily brought on by the consumption of beverages, but a choice nonetheless).
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1If they walk or talk differently, that is due to society's influence. If they like the guy's back door more than the girl's front and vise-versa, that is genetic.
- Darkhacker, on 12/11/2007, -0/+10As a bisexual male, I want to make this very clear. Will and Grace is NOT an accurate depiction of the LGBT community, nor are the overly colorful pride parades. Nobody would have a ***** clue that I am bi unless I told them and I don't live some special "lifestyle". I get up and go to school, come home, and live just like everyone else. I dress normally and I don't have a lisp.
- BoneheadFarker, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4"theres also a lot of homosexuals who DO NOT WANT to be homosexual"
...because of pressure from the people around them to be "normal". Many more have honed their "straight act" because of all the ***** they know they'll have to endure. If more people were willing to accept others as they are, then more people would be willing to accept themselves as they are. - lydecker, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4There are a lot of homosexuals who do walk, talk, or act differently. I believe that being gay happens in the brain, where some parts can develop male and some parts can develop female. Everyone has degrees of masculinity and femininity in areas of their life, behaviors, and psychology, which can be done in the brain.
As a bisexual male, I see some people who do exemplify a group of characteristics commonly associated with their sexual orientation stereotype, and some people who don't. More often, I see people picking and choosing, saying either "He's gay because of traits A, B, and C" or "Straight because of D, E, and F."
Not everyone has all the traits associated with their stereotype, and some do. 9 out of 10 you can recognize? That's false.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -1/+9"how come 9 times out of 10 you can spot a homosexual just by how they walk or talk or act?"
- AegisC, on 12/11/2007, -8/+1If this is the case, then you have to start asking whether there is a gene for every kind of behavior. Is there a pedophile gene? Is there a racist gene? Is there an alcoholic gene? The issue gets pretty complicated at that point
- starvo, on 12/11/2007, -0/+9There is an addiction gene, which leads certain peoples to become more easily entrenched in substance/alcohol abuse.
- AegisC, on 12/11/2007, -3/+0Are you sure? I Googled "addiction gene" and all I got was speculation on the search for an addiction gene and inferences that it is a complex combination of biological and environmental factors.
- joegibes, on 12/11/2007, -5/+2People don't wanna take responsibility for their actions -- "I'm not fat, it's genetic! I'm not a drunk, it's genetic!"
- Darkhacker, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Our behavior is controlled by the brain which is largely controlled by genetics. So most behaviors do have some sort of genetic link. Some are learned, but scientist are now finding that our behaviors and personality have a stronger link to genetics than previously thought.
- starvo, on 12/11/2007, -0/+9There is an addiction gene, which leads certain peoples to become more easily entrenched in substance/alcohol abuse.
- PresidentSoup, on 12/11/2007, -0/+31This reminds one of Mr. Rogers. Fred Rogers was christian, and was always approached by anti-gay ministers to speak out against homosexuality. He would always refuse them because he believed something along the lines of 'God loves everyone just they way they are'. Now, I don't exactly believe in a God, but this still is a mindset I like to see. If you're going to believe in a creator/higher power then at least please logically follow your belief to the same conclusion.
- cfuse, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Within the context of mainstream religion that attitude is an abberation. Religion is almost always about god hating the same people you do.
- pintomp3, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6but jesus died for my sins, not yours.
- rootneg2, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2dugg for Mr. Rogers
he was always a little creepy, but he sure did have his heart in the right place.
- Mononuclear, on 12/11/2007, -0/+9There are many things in human behavior that can be both genetic and/or learned. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
- tacroy, on 12/11/2007, -8/+2Sorry, its not anywhere NEAR that easy. Just because something is natural, that doesn't mean that it is beneficial or good. I'm not talking about homosexuality here, just your argument. For example: certain people are born with the propensity towards being alcoholic or have a genetic disposition towards thievery. Would you also argue that since these are "natural" that they should be embraced and encouraged? As someone that knows how genetics can mess with you, I can say that you are completely WRONG in saying that it is either genetic or its voluntary. Because I certainly can overcome my "natural" weaknesses that genetics choose to give me.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6So you're saying that homosexuality is a "natural weakness"?
- BoneheadFarker, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7If it doesn't hurt anyone else, and the people involved consent, what business do you have deciding what other people can or cannot do? Stealing affects other people. Alcohol can affect other people, but is also used responsibly by many more. If 2 people want to get freaky with each other, it's no one else's business...
- tacroy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1I am NOT discussing homosexuality, look at the second line of my comment: here, I'll quote it :"I'm not talking about homosexuality here, just your argument." I was pointing out how his logic was flawed, not supporting or attacking homosexuality.
- BoneheadFarker, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1And I was pointing out how your logic was flawed. There are many things that people are born with a propensity for. That doesn't mean they have a weakness to overcome. It just means they like things that are different from the things you like...that's all...
- tacroy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1I agree with you, just because something is natural that does not make it good or bad, we agree on that. Just like how some people are born liking or disliking chocolate, just preference. The ONLY point I was making was to disagree with "Either there's a gay gene or homosexuality is volountary" because I think its clear that you can BOTH have a gene for something AND choose to not do what that gene naturally lends you too. I am not saying anything pro or con about the topic of homosexuality. I just hate when people make black and white arguments that are fundamentally flawed.
- BoneheadFarker, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1And I was pointing out how your logic was flawed. There are many things that people are born with a propensity for. That doesn't mean they have a weakness to overcome. It just means they like things that are different from the things you like...that's all...
- stanleyford, on 12/11/2007, -5/+1"In a strictly moral point of view, consensual sex is consensual sex." -- There are many ways in which a person might have consensual sex which are immoral. If a man cheats on his wife with a consenting partner, he is still behaving immorally. If a woman has consensual, unprotected sex with many partners, knowing that she might get pregnant and will be unable to care for the resulting child, I believe she is behaving immorally.
As a society, we choose to tolerate immoral behavior if it does not directly harm another person, so it's not a crime for a man to be unfaithful or for a woman to be promiscuous. Societal tolerance, however, should not be mistaken for moral sanction.- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Adultery is not immoral. It's a religious stigma. In many cultures, you can not "own" your wife or husband.
If it does not harm a person, it is not immoral.
The sex isn't immoral. The treason is immoral.- lydecker, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Adultery hurts the trust and bond you've made with your partner because of the treason. Jealousy is a NORMAL reaction to things such as this. Adultery as in "cheating" is lying to your partner. Open relationships with extra-marital affairs agreed upon aren't immoral to the husband, the wife, or the partner.
- stanleyford, on 12/11/2007, -5/+1"If it does not harm a person, it is not immoral." -- All systems of morality are based on the belief that immoral actions are those which cause harm: they merely differ in what they define as harmful. So that statement, while strictly true, is useless unless you quantify what's harmful. I would say that adultery is immoral because it harms the partner who has been cheated on.
"The sex isn't immoral. The treason is immoral." -- Now you're just splitting hairs. If I throw a brick off the top of a building, knowing full well that it's going to hit someone in the face, I can't say, "The brick-throwing wasn't immoral. The hitting of the face was immoral." If I engage in an act knowing that it will harm another person or cause me to break a promise (the vow of fidelity), then the act itself is immoral.- HerbSolo, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2Nitpicking. As far as i remember, the original assumption that lead to this long, pointless but somehow strangely entertaining discussion was "consensual sex can't be immoral"
Now of course you could construct many situations where the whole thing would be immoral, like in your example "cheating", but you could make up others like
"having unprotected consensual sex without telling your sex partner about your STD"
"having consensual sex in front of a churchfull of nuns"
"having consensual sex on the trigger of a nuclear bomb"
There's lots of things you could come up with, but the having sex part isn't the problem, it's your cheating / not using a condom / forcing your performance upon an involuntary audience / vaporizing yourself and your immediate environment without any apparent reason. - stanleyford, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1"but the having sex part isn't the problem, it's your cheating / not using a condom / forcing your performance upon an involuntary audience / vaporizing yourself and your immediate environment without any apparent reason."
When you cheat by having sex outside of marriage, there's no meaningful distinction to be made between the act of cheating and the act of having sex. You cheat at the same instant you begin having sex. They are the same action. In contrast, having sex on top of a bomb is not the same action as triggering the bomb, though the former may lead to the latter.
And even if you can argue that they are not the same action,what possible insight could that yield? If the cheating is inseparable from the adulterous sex, what is the point of drawing some sort of distinction between the two? I would love to lay this debate to rest, but I am mystified--utterly mystified--as to why others insist on drawing boundaries between adulterous sex and cheating when there is no possible profit from doing so.
So my challenge to you, ElAssoWipo, and whoever else wants to pick up the gauntlet is this: if you can explain to me how drawing a distinction between adulterous sex and the cheating which goes along with it makes any practical difference at all, then I will concede that you are right about every point of contention raised during the debate. If not, however, you must concede that you were just splitting hairs over nothing. Up to it?
- HerbSolo, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2Nitpicking. As far as i remember, the original assumption that lead to this long, pointless but somehow strangely entertaining discussion was "consensual sex can't be immoral"
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Actually, a proper analogy would be
"the brick isn't immoral, the thrower is".
Sex can not be immoral. Cooking can't be immoral, guns can't be immoral, the chair your sitting on can't be immoral, only people can be immoral.
The only difference between adultery and regular sex is the treason. Which is why it is immoral. It is more moral to dump your wife of 16 years to have sex with others than it is to cheat on your wife. The only difference is treason.
Consensual sex is not immoral. Cheating is immoral.- stanleyford, on 12/11/2007, -4/+1"Sex can not be immoral." -- Again, you're splitting hairs, and you're not even doing so in a consistent fashion. No, guns and chairs can't be immoral, because they are inanimate objects and are separate from the agents who use them. However, an act is not an object: brick-throwing, cooking, and sex aren't things, but actions, and it is certainly appropriate to speak of the morality of an action. In fact, that is the only way we can speak of morality--through actions. Yes, "only people can be immoral," as you say, but they can only be immoral through committing immoral acts. The immoral action is inseparable from the immoral agent, and trying to muddy the issue through semantic maneuvers--claiming that there is no such thing as an immoral action while admitting that actions can be committed immorally--yields no insight. In real terms, what is the difference between saying that adultery is immoral (as I phrase it) and saying that the sex is amoral but the cheating is immoral?
- Lilitou, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4@stanleyford:
Brick-throwing is not immoral. Throwing a brick at someone is.
Sex is not immoral. Cheating on your spouse is.
It's the context that makes it immoral. He's consistent and he's right. - stanleyford, on 12/11/2007, -4/+1@Lilitou: He is inconsistent because he equates objects with actions. Saying an object cannot be immoral yields no insight on whether an action can be immoral.
That aside, at this point, aren't you basically agreeing with my original point, which is that it's possible to have consensual sex in an immoral way? When you say cheating on your spouse is immoral (even if the sex is consensual, I assume), aren't you just making the same point I was originally making? - Lilitou, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3@stanelyford: No, because your argument was that the sexual act was immoral. I'm saying that it's not. Sex itself cannot be immoral. It's not the sex in an adulterous affair that's the immoral part; it's the cheating--the treason, to use his term--that causes the immorality. The sex is simply the method by which immorality is committed. Likewise with the brick-throwing. The brick itself is fine, and throwing it is fine; it's the injury you do to someone else with that brick that is immoral.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4In any case, this entire argument is besides the point. This has absolutely nothing to do with homosexual behaviour.
And gay sex isn't immoral. A gay man that cheats on his partner is immoral. There. - stanleyford, on 12/11/2007, -4/+1@Lilitou: "It's not the sex in an adulterous affair that's the immoral part; it's the cheating" -- If you say that the cheating is immoral, then you are conceding the point that it's possible for an action to be immoral, because cheating is certainly an action. You keep saying you disagree with me, but all your comments just reiterate what I've previously said.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3You're just not getting it dude. Sorry to say it like that, but that's what it is. Cheating is not action. Because the same actions can be called cheating in different situations. Cheating is the principle of secretly having extra-marital affairs. It can involve sex, but does not have to.
- stanleyford, on 12/11/2007, -4/+1"Cheating is not action." -- Really? Because the English language disagrees with you. Here's an example: Bob is cheating. Does this sentence mean that Bob is the principle of having an extramarital affair, or does this sentence mean that Bob is engaged in the action of cheating? I'll give you a while to think that one over--if you're having a hard time with it, I'm sure you can find a grammar school student to help you parse it out.
"Because the same actions can be called cheating in different situations." -- So if an action can be cheating, then cheating can be an action. I'm afraid logic disagrees with you too. Here's some more examples: "Cheating is extramarital sex. Cheating is kissing someone besides your spouse." In these examples, am I not saying that these actions are equivalent to cheating? If the actions are equivalent to cheating, mustn't it follow that cheating is also an action, regardless of the way in which the action is carried out? Again, if you're having trouble figuring it out, I'll let you consult a grammar school student.
Not only is your argument wrong in this case, it's not even internally consistent. Let's use a different example (taken from your own words): "Playing baseball is not action. Because the same actions can be called playing baseball in different situations. Playing baseball is the principle of {whatever you want to call baseball here}. It can involve hitting a home run, but does not have to." In this example, as in your comment, part of what what's being said right. Playing baseball can indeed involve different actions: catching; pitching; fielding, etc.. Anyone who engages in these actions can be said to be engaged in playing baseball, but only a fool would say that playing baseball is not an action because it involves many different actions: whether I am pitching, fielding, catching, or batting, I am involved in the action of playing baseball. Similarly, cheating can involve many actions, but regardless of which action the adulterer does, he is still involved in the act of cheating. Cheating need not involve extramarital sex, just as you can play an entire game of baseball without once hitting a home run, but the fact that cheating is only sometimes sex doesn't change the fact that cheating is essentially an action, just as failing to hit a home run doesn't change the fact that the batter is engaged in the act of playing baseball.
"You're just not getting it dude." -- Well, someone clearly doesn't get it, but I'm afraid it's not me. - ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4You have completely misinterpreted what I wrote because you're angry. You've also completely lost you train of thought.
You're original argument was that consensual sex could be considered immoral if it was performed in the circumstance of cheating.
Your original argument is that cheating makes sex immoral. You made the argument that a perfectly moral act (consensual sex) becomes immoral when it is done inside an immoral context (adultery). You made the argument that an immoral context makes a moral act immoral. The act is therefore moral and adultery is therefore a abstract concept which can or can not involve the act of consensual sex.
Your entire argumentation has therefore been flawed from the beginning. - lydecker, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2I assume what he meant to say is cheating is not as specific an action as sex is. Cheating is an umbrella action that can overlap with many different behaviors, but cheating isn't defined by some specific physical act, but by some specific intent. Adulterous cheating is betraying your partner, which is more a motive than a set of physical actions.
People are immoral by committing immoral acts. The standalone acts they commit aren't immoral until you apply the context. Sex, brick throwing, all are not immoral acts. However, "They cannot be immoral acts" and "They can be immoral acts when done immorally" have little distinction, but it is sometimes necessary when people mistake the action as immoral without context.
In the context of the stanlyford's first post, adultery (as defined by extramarital affair) is used morally AND the intent is not immoral if it's an open relationship and all involved parties are aware. Adultery is used immorally and the intent is immoral if a marriage partner doesn't know or disapproves about the affair, or vice versa. - stanleyford, on 12/12/2007, -4/+1"You have completely misinterpreted what I wrote because you're angry." -- I'm not angry at all. In fact, I'm quite enjoying making fun of you. If I was angry, I wouldn't bother to reply.
"Your original argument is that cheating makes sex immoral." -- Yes.
"You made the argument that a perfectly moral act (consensual sex) becomes immoral when it is done inside an immoral context (adultery)." -- Wait a second. Aren't you the one claiming that an act cannot be immoral? Now you're claiming that consensual sex is moral? Well, which is it? If you claim that an act can be moral, you must also concede that an act can be immoral.
I know you're trying really hard to argue with me even though you know I'm right, but try a little harder, or else this stops being fun. Proofread your comments first so you don't accidentally agree with me when you intend to disagree with me.
"You made the argument that an immoral context makes a moral act immoral." -- Not all. I claimed that the context of adultery makes the act of consensual sex immoral. I never claimed that the act itself--absent of any context--was either immoral or moral. When sex occurs as the act of adultery, then it is immoral.
"The act is therefore moral and adultery is therefore a abstract concept which can or can not involve the act of consensual sex." -- Hold on. Take a step back and tell me how the previous statements lead to this conclusion. When did I claim that the act itself was moral? (I'll give you a second while you re-read the comments.) And are you still claiming that cheating (now referred to as adultery) is not an action? Do I really have to explain that to you again? - HerbSolo, on 12/12/2007, -0/+4I think this discussion should have ended after "gay sex isn't immoral. A gay man that cheats on his partner is immoral. There." - Because it pretty much sums it up, and everything else is just pointless nitpicking.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Adultery is not immoral. It's a religious stigma. In many cultures, you can not "own" your wife or husband.
- hughesj919, on 12/11/2007, -1/+10500 years? Are you making history up? There's all kinds of references to homosexuality long before that. It was rampant in pre-Biblical Greece, and Plato is quite outpsoken against in his in several of his works. And I quote:
"Whether these matters are to be regarded as sport, or as earnest, we must not forget that this pleasure is held to have been granted by nature to male and female when conjoined for the work of procreation; the crime of male with male, or female with female, is an outrage on nature and a capital surrender to lust of pleasure"
-Plato The Laws I,636, written around 400 BC - crawfishDigger, on 12/11/2007, -1/+5Why does it either have to be hard-wired or voluntary? That doesn't even remotely include all the possibilities. Everything I've seen indicates that physiological factors cannot explain completely explain the phenomenon. As mentioned above, there have been instances of identical twins where one is gay and the other isn't. There is little question that environment has something to do with it.
The best I've heard it explained is that there is a sliding scale between "hard-wired" and "learned" components of homosexuality. Some are very strong in the former and are almost certain to become homosexual no matter what the environment. Some are very weak in the former, but elements of their environment lead them down that same path. Neither one, though, is a "choice".- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -2/+6There are absolutely no causal links that have been demonstrated between the environment and homosexuality.
Not a single one. And they've been looking for the last 400 years. People from all countries, ethnicity, backgrounds, social class, cultures, etc. can be homosexual.- MacEnvy, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3Unless they live in Iran. Mahmoud told me so.
- crawfishDigger, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2The effort to show an overwhelming causal relation between environment and homosexuality has failed, true. However, there is plenty of evidence to indicate that environment plays a PART in most cases. This does not mean that there is not a physiological element as well - only that the physiological element may not be strong enough on its own to produce homosexuality.
Homosexuality is more akin to psychological tendencies towards depression, shyness and other like traits than it is to skin color and gender.- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4"Homosexuality is more akin to psychological tendencies towards depression, shyness"
If you were labelled as an error by society, wouldn't you be depressed and shy?
There is no evidence that envrionment plays a part in homosexuality. You'll have to show me a factual demonstration of this in order to convince me. - lydecker, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2Homosexuality in Iran is more akin to being murdered.
Depression and shyness are mostly due to environmental factors. - crawfishDigger, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2Certain people have a genetic predisposition that make them more likely to become depressed or shy. Environment plays a role in how the predisposition eventually plays out. Some people have stronger dispositions than others, and thus, environmental factors have less of a say.
As far as proving environment has something to do with it, I say: science has shown that genetics ALONE cannot account for homosexuality. Twin studies suggest a correlation, but there are enough that differ in this area to disprove that an ultimate "gay gene" is the cause. If you want proof, just do an internet search and find a source acceptable to you - there are many gay-friendly sources that will tell essentially what I just said.
Homosexuality is a predisposition. Therefore, it is unlike skin color or gender.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4"Homosexuality is more akin to psychological tendencies towards depression, shyness"
- rootneg2, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2Testing whether there are environmental influences on homosexual tendancies is essentially impossible. It is the essence of a "forbidden experiment" since there is no way to control *all* environmental aspects of a child's upbringing, and to even try to do so would be very immoral.
I agree with CrawfishDigger, *****/hetero-sexuality is no different from any other psychological trait such as intelligence, humor, depression, shyness, assertiveness, aggression, musical ability, etc. Already it is fairly clear that intelligence, musical ability, and depression may have some genetic component, but yet at the same time all of these can be effected by environmental factors (extreme trauma may cause depression, a rich environment can help develop intelligence and musical ability); this is in spite of the fact that there has been no "definitive" study with some control group of children and a test group of children raised under identical circumstances with identical genetics.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -2/+6There are absolutely no causal links that have been demonstrated between the environment and homosexuality.
- mwalker05, on 12/11/2007, -3/+1or its a disfunction. a corruption of the genes. in fact it is most likely caused by exposure to certain hormones during prenatal development, similar to transgendered people.
- KipBond, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1My guess is that it will be found to be mostly biological, which is influenced by genes, and perhaps some early childhood development. Perhaps a combination of the things similar to what causes left-handedness and determines height. Note that people that are left handed can choose to learn to write with their right hand, but it won't feel (as) natural to them.
- HerbSolo, on 12/11/2007, -3/+2No, just because it's not genetical doesn't mean it's choice. That's just dumb oversimplifying.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1You should've read the rest.
- HerbSolo, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1I read the rest, and i should have made myself more clear: Not genetic doesn't mean not physical, that's what i meant, and i should have said so, i had already wrote something, but i deleted it again, because i thought my example might be interpreted as an insult.
Here it is: There's brain malfunctions leading to an aggressive personality that are linked to an overdose of testosterone in an early fetal state.
Now this isn't meant as an insult, it's just an example that the brain's function isn't only determined by genes, or social factors, but also by other somatic influences like hormones. No Homophobo.
Now i won't argue that social "ingraining" in early childhood or puberty is also a valid theory that shouldn't be ruled out. But the fact that identical twins don't necessary have the same sexual orientation doesn't only speak against the gene-theory, the fact that they are are raised by the same parents in the same social environment also debilitates the socialization-theory, imho. - ElAssoWipo, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1"the fact that they are are raised by the same parents in the same social environment also debilitates the socialization-theory, imho."
Then you have to make the argument that all divergences between twins are genetic. Including personnal preferences of colours, tastes, etc.
I see it like this: genes are not as decisive as we think and like all things in life, they come in a variety of degrees and have a positive and negative. I'm being ridiculed for thinking like this in my particular sector btw.
Same people, same genes, differences in instinct. This requires that the same genes can have more than one consequence. These "consequences" are determined by the ealry childhood. They have to be because that's where the differences start to appear.
I believe our genetic make-up is only truly "finished" around the age of 6.
I also think that many attributes that are learned can only be learned and can only become instinctual if a gene allows this learned behaviour.
This also explains why there was no distinction between sexual orientation for thousands of years, but suddenly, because of social stigmatisation, there are different and mutually exclusive sexual orientations.
It also explains how siblings can differ in intelligence.
But anything that is learned, by definition, can be unlearned. Which explains how some have sudden changes in lifestyle. So the only permanent variable in all of this, is a gene that makes you attracted to the same sex dominating a gene that makes you attracted to a different sex.
But a dominating gene still doesn't mean that the learn behaviour will not contradict this dominant gene: repressed homosexuals.
- HerbSolo, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1I read the rest, and i should have made myself more clear: Not genetic doesn't mean not physical, that's what i meant, and i should have said so, i had already wrote something, but i deleted it again, because i thought my example might be interpreted as an insult.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1You should've read the rest.
- ExGhost, on 12/11/2007, -5/+2And if you want to make the argument that gay sex is a sin, well, God made everything. Calling one of God's creations an error constitutes blasphemy. And if you're the "old testament type", that means God hates you and will probably kill your son.
Your logic is all screwy. Yes God made everything, INCLUDING THE RULES, and He says that gay sex is a sin. So, how then is that blasphemy? And have you ever even read the old testament?
As for turning Fruit Flys gay and straight, try doing that with a human being who is the only animal on this planet that excercises free choice. So, why are we saying that a Fruit Fly is gay because we altered its genes? Of course, because it can't choose not to be! Is ANYONE following this? Even if there was a gay gene in humans, we could still choose to deny the impulse. Doesn't that make sense?- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -4/+1HAHAHAHAHAHA. I laugh at your pathetic brain. I'm dismissing you as an idiot.
- ExGhost, on 12/11/2007, -5/+1So I'm right then? Thanks very much. If all you can do is insult me, then I know I've made my point and you have nothing to argue against it.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2Oh I could take the time and prove you wrong, starting with the fact that your entire comment is one giant fallacy, then I could go on and cite 871 passages from the bible in which God threatens to kill all blasphemers, then point out that you've commited more fallacies inside a fallacious argument, stated that God contradicted himself by setting up rules that contradict his prior "creations", then laugh at your "they could deny the impulse" which is like saying that you could commit suicide by holding your breath and don't even give a reason as to why they should deny their own nature.
But I choose to dismiss you as an idiot because your argument is based on religion. Which is in itself a fallacy. You are an idiot.
IF reason, logic and abstraction distinguishes us from the rest of great apes, you are an ape. And I don't think that your "opinions" deserve to even be discussed because they are the equivalent of shovelling a giant pile of *****.
- BoneheadFarker, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3Why would we have free choice if we're only allowed to make one choice? Free choice implies that I'm free to choose what I want without retaliation. Therefore, we either don't have free choice, or it's all a bunch of ***** and no choices made will make a difference. "The Rules", as far as I can tell, were written by regular people with their own bias. What's that?? These people were spoken to by God? And you only know that because they told you God spoke to them? Well, God spoke to me personally and told me it was all *****, and you are free to do as you wish as long as you don't hurt anyone. You are going to contradict God now, are you?
- Ricky8765, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4"Even if there was a gay gene in humans, we could still choose to deny the impulse. Doesn't that make sense?"
So you're saying a person who has the gay gene should deny it and get married and have kids because religion says the genetic make up, his DNA that defines who he is, is flat out wrong. You disgust me - veter, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2Free choice doesn't REALLY exist in humans or animals. We are all under the illusion that we have a choice, when, in actuality, much of our decisions are just reactions. From birth until death, we are simply a chain of chemical reactions bouncing off other reactions.
EITHER THAT, or animals do have free will, because there are many behaviors that could be explained by one innovative animal in that species doing something clever and all others following along (off the top of my head: whales coming together and spiraling around blowing air out of their blow holes in order to create a bubble net to catch Krill).
Much of what you believe to be choice is simply chemical reactions in your brain. Don't believe me? Just try thinking about death and I guarantee you will begin to feel better about your life. You may think you're using a certain rationale to get yourself happy, but if that were true, then you'd be able to make yourself supremely depressed from an opposite rationale.
Free will is as imaginary as the concept that humans are more evolved than any other living being on this planet.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -4/+1HAHAHAHAHAHA. I laugh at your pathetic brain. I'm dismissing you as an idiot.
- joessandwich, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2I think a lot of people missed one of your points, that there really is no definite homosexuals or heterosexuals. I classify myself as gay, but in reality I would say that I'm bi but strongly prefer men. I'm not ruling out the possibility of being with a woman, it's just extraordinarly unlikely. However, because in our society we have to be one way or the other, I am gay. I dream of a day when people could grow up without there having to be any stigmas so people needn't identify either way.
- jibbybonk, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1look, homosexuality is not something your BORN with, nor is it a voluntary choice. Sure some people may choose to be gay, but there are many who don't. I believe there are certain biological factors which may encourage homosexuality in people. An example could be a man who is born with lower testosterone levels, he may be more effeminate and have a greater empathy. Does this mean he is going to be gay? no of course it doesnt, but it certainly can help.
One example comes to mind. i have a friend who was born with an identical twin brother. One is gay, the other isnt. They have the EXACT same genes and they are both married. One is married to a girl and the other to a guy. Both of the brothers are highly effeminate guys too and if i didn't know any better i would swear they would both be gay. But this isnt the case. Social conditioning was different for these two brothers, they went to different schools and had different childhoods.
I dont believe there is a 'gay gene'. Perhaps there are ways to encourage homosexuality through biological factors, but that isnt the only side of the equation. What kinda news is this when its reported on a blog journal and then backed up with 'science' done by fox news? Common people, dont be stupid.
- whataboutdave, on 12/11/2007, -3/+20I really hope not. If so, it would mean a new eugenics movement is just over the horizon.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+33That will happen anyway. Eventually (maybe in 10 years, maybe in 100), we will be able to remove all genetic defects from the embryo. There will be a debate on what constitutes a defect. It won't be pretty.
- whataboutdave, on 12/11/2007, -1/+13In my heart of hearts I know you're right. I was just hoping it would hold off a little bit longer.
- capiCrimm, on 12/11/2007, -1/+9I say we get rid of empathy first. Puny humans.
- techweenie1, on 12/11/2007, -2/+2I really don't think eugenics is such a bad thing...Huntington Disease runs in my family, My father was fortunate enough not to inherit the disease, but my aunt was not...she had two children and they both have it. My Cousin who has it, had two children, and they most likely both have it.
- whataboutdave, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4Homosexuality is not a disease.
- techweenie1, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1(response to whataboutdave2) because my session has apparently expired...fix this ***** digg!
To some people it is a disease...even to some people who are gay...why deny them that if they want it?
- EricG, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1you'd end up with something like they had in the movie Gattaca http://imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
- rabidbob, on 12/11/2007, -0/+9It won't be pretty but some parts of it will be amusing. The right wing conservative religious nutters will say that tampering with God's work is sinful, so you shouldn't alter an embryo or harm it, but at the same time they'll be all for a "fix" for homosexuality. Personally I'm looking forward to seeing some people's heads explode as they try and justify both points at once.
- Ellipsys, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Personally I hope the research to modify grown human beings is invested in first. Quite simply, nobody wants to be outmoded by the next generation of superkids.
- Stevethegreat, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1It would be funny -if embryonic modification in such a scale become a trend- cause it will prove all you people believing that intelligence is on genes wrong (sure the basis of intelligence is there, that's why great apes are also moderately intelligent, but it's civilization what doubled or even triple our IQ against them in the last thousand years). In fact we'll probably have superathletes running around (a jocks society?) where the "unmodified" ones looking that they won't propel in society by using their defective bodies alone will do all the thinking leading eventually them to be the leaders (breeding their mind, instead of ***** around). Napoleon was short and lame and Philip half blind (not good soldiers, great generals). Aesop was a slave (baring him from soldier's training) and Homer entirely blind. Socrates and Alcibiades were gay (and Socrates was extremely ugly), Newton and Einstein had disorders on the autistic spectrum and and and...... All of them far from the ideal, all of them geniuses in one way or another. Where you see genius I can see hard mind-work and where you see mind-work I see social outcasts in one form or another, there is no short way to heaven (until -of course- we master intelligence, but this may not come for centuries to come).
- parasitewasp, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, there will be a new class of "haves" and "have nots" and I think that the future will be similar to the movie "Gattaga". Society just will stop investing in inferior humans as resources become more scarce. I hope these things don't happen but I think they will....It won't be pretty....except for the enhanced chicks.
- whataboutdave, on 12/11/2007, -1/+13In my heart of hearts I know you're right. I was just hoping it would hold off a little bit longer.
- shcon, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Eugenics ftw!! For a more beautiful, intellectual, and humorless society.
- Stevethegreat, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3Eugenics are silly I don't see us -the human species- falling for them again. They are a disruption of natural selection's meaning. While eugenics maybe are good for animals which only care how to eat, sleep and reproduce, they certainly don't work on us since we're mostly walking brains. Most influential and brilliant minds would most probably be viewed as defects compared to the "ideal" human, but even so that was what granted their unique view of things and the world, of whom " harvest" we all enjoy. Many of the artists and philosophers were gay and many of our most brilliant scientists would be characterized as autistics or schizophrenics by today's medical terms.
If there were Gattaca-style gene therapies which would bare those people from their "defects" our civilization would now be at great loss of its greatest achievements. It's not an accident that tolerable societies thrived on economical and social terms, while the autocratic ones died off or produced sth of very inferior importance. So, don't worry for eugenics taking root in the future, even if they do the natural selection of ideas would strike it down propelling tolerable societies with their wacko scientists and gay artists towards the starts and confining the societies of uniformity to the mud.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+33That will happen anyway. Eventually (maybe in 10 years, maybe in 100), we will be able to remove all genetic defects from the embryo. There will be a debate on what constitutes a defect. It won't be pretty.
- Carsonauto, on 12/11/2007, -15/+18The gay vaccine is almost here...
- epicstruggle, on 12/11/2007, -2/+4Cant stop science right?
- WalesAlex, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Sadly not.
- pintomp3, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1science is fine, it's the rest of our culture that needs to catch up. that's why science is used for horrible things like building bombs and killing people.
- joegibes, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2Personally, I'd prefer they worked on the zombie vaccine first...
- epicstruggle, on 12/11/2007, -2/+4Cant stop science right?
- johnlandes, on 12/11/2007, -6/+14Maybe the republican party can start using this to recruit new members
- ariez84, on 12/11/2007, -15/+6Finally a cure!!!!@!#!@!
- tesuji05, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1I'd digg you because I think you're joking, but then again I might have to digg you down on principle...
- RadicalEdward, on 12/11/2007, -10/+59Idk, i kinda like having gay people around.
More gay guys=less competition for straight women
more gay girls=more lesbo porn
it's like a win-win right?- tizz66, on 12/11/2007, -1/+26You know the girls in lesbo porn aren't actually lesbo, right? I hope I haven't just shattered an illusion. You wouldn't want to see real lesbo porn.
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -8/+3Real lesbo porn looks too much like gay porn since they usually are butch.
- tesuji05, on 12/11/2007, -2/+13Somehow, the fact they're not really lesbian makes it so much hotter.
- KingGorilla, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2I do enjoy that twinkle of hope
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -2/+3Many are. Or bisexual.
- cfuse, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2Or dirty scrags that would ***** anything at all. Bisexual isn't necessarily the same as 'insatiable *****'.
- minoss, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2I'm pretty sure you just made it better.
- eaterofpies, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8riiiiight... because the "lesbians" you see in porn are real lesbians.
- bellevuegeek, on 12/11/2007, -1/+11more gay guys=more happy gay guys
total win=win- defectDS, on 12/11/2007, -4/+2I, for one, am sick of this whole "happy gay guy" stereotype. Just because we c... OOH CUPCAKES TEHEHEH!
- offspring06, on 12/11/2007, -12/+1Yeah but you don't dare bend over in front of them.
- robberry, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8Why should I be afraid of bending over in front of a lesbian?
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -3/+2Frighten' 'em with your dingleberries.
- robberry, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8Why should I be afraid of bending over in front of a lesbian?
- tizz66, on 12/11/2007, -1/+26You know the girls in lesbo porn aren't actually lesbo, right? I hope I haven't just shattered an illusion. You wouldn't want to see real lesbo porn.
- tapeworm77, on 12/11/2007, -2/+64FRUIT flies?
- Morky, on 12/11/2007, -3/+15Best. Two word. Joke. Ever.
- tapeworm77, on 12/11/2007, -3/+10btw I'm gay so I can get away with that :)
- bytor4232, on 12/11/2007, -2/+4heh... Fruit Fly. Priceless.
- hayzeus, on 12/11/2007, -2/+26Hmmm -- gay fruit fly? Seems redundant.
- choreanz, on 12/11/2007, -6/+16Like I'm going to trust Fox.
- jon30041, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2I was wondering when I'd see that pop up.
A few comments up they talked about eugenics. I agree with the guy who said it'll be fun watching religious zealots work through whether to condemn it tampering with babies in the womb and God's work or to embrace it for "fixing" homosexuality.
And yes, it does seem like something FOX would contend. It's science! Let's fix it! Though we don't like science anywhere else...- betterth, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Contrary, Fox would have you believe it's a choice, so they can appease their Christian base that wants to believe that homosexuality is a choice therefore is a sin. Inherent nature can't be a sin, so this study is seemingly anti-Fox.
- SSUK, on 12/11/2007, -0/+0I agree with betterth, it would mean that nature was the result cause of people being homosexual, which means god made people gay. Thus, Christians would have to accept that homosexuality isn't a sin because god made them that way. Oh *****, huh?
- jon30041, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2I was wondering when I'd see that pop up.
- Bullsnot, on 12/11/2007, -0/+10Your all seeing it wrong. Its not the poetential for the cure, its the potential for a weapon. This is what the military has been looking for. find out what that gene turns on and bomb it all over the enemy.
- Mononuclear, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3do you really want to turn your enemies into a country full of gay people? How is this supposed to be a weapon exactly?
- Sornos, on 12/11/2007, -4/+4Have you seen a gay man fight?
- technoredneck, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2You haven't, apparently.
A gay man fighting is about as relevant as a redheaded man fighting. - JohnnyRC36, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1You're right! They do fight like a retarded, redheaded stepchild does!
- technoredneck, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2You haven't, apparently.
- Sornos, on 12/11/2007, -4/+4Have you seen a gay man fight?
- drakenlot, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2Brings a new twist to the trench fighting huh?
- Mononuclear, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3do you really want to turn your enemies into a country full of gay people? How is this supposed to be a weapon exactly?
- Morky, on 12/11/2007, -3/+33This is outrageous. It should be a lifestyle choice for flies, not forced upon them by some mad scientists.
- zdislaw, on 12/11/2007, -9/+43Finally, we can fix all those irritating straight people!
- robberry, on 12/11/2007, -1/+17Now, be nice. Straight people are fine, as long as they act gay in public.
- cfuse, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1Straight people aren't irritating because they are straight, they are irritating because 95% of the population is dumb as stone. Call me when they have a cure for idiot.
- rootneg2, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1***** breeders...
- robberry, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Well, you couldn't really have "non-***** breeders", now could you?
- robberry, on 12/11/2007, -1/+17Now, be nice. Straight people are fine, as long as they act gay in public.
- hitkaiser, on 12/11/2007, -4/+8There was a time in the Roman empire when no gentleman would be caught without a male concubine - which kind of makes it a social thing
- jbhelms, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7That is because women were a commodity. You traded your daughter for land and social status, so it was thought that women couldnt be trusted, but there was a certian trust and bond between soldiers.
- slashbot, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6What about a fat gene?
- Ellipsys, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Most likely. There are also "fat viruses", for that matter.
- Sornos, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3Definitely. Ever thing that the body does is governed by genes. Every thing. In fact, a fat gene would be very helpful for ancient man. Just out of curiosity, I wonder if populations with highest ratio of fat people descended from ancestors who had access to an uneven supply of food...
Having said that, if you eat like a pig, you will become fat. A "fat gene" would just make it easier. If you don't have it, you can still become a lard ass. - rootneg2, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1and yet at the same time, regardless of whether you have a "fat gene" or not, if you eat twinkies and sit on the couch all day, you will probably be fatter than if you exercise and eat right. You may be very "pinned down" in your weight, little that you do will change it in either direction; others can gain 20 pounds one week, and loose in the next, just like nothing happened at all. You may have suffered a traumatic childhood and developed an clinical eating disorder, maybe you "got over" it and it "was just a phase" or maybe you're still struggling with it in therapy. There are many, many factors, both genetic and environmental, psychological and physiological, conscious and unconscious, external and internal, in "fat expression". The only thing that really matters is that you are healthy and happy with your weight (*whatever* weight that may be)
It is my belief that much the same is true for sexuality, gender identity, intelligence, etc.
- Pitofdoom, on 12/11/2007, -17/+3If scientifically homosexuality (sin) is not a psychological disorder, then it must be a DNA parasite or genetic dent.
- Myonosken, on 12/11/2007, -1/+7You're a genetic dent in my eyes.
- Pitofdoom, on 12/11/2007, -5/+2At least I don't have a dent in my ass !
- amoirae, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3Now we knpow Pitofdoom doesn't have an ***** even though he IS an *****.
- Pitofdoom, on 12/11/2007, -5/+2At least I don't have a dent in my ass !
- Myonosken, on 12/11/2007, -1/+7You're a genetic dent in my eyes.
- apologeticus, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3Gaybee? What's a gaybee?
- betterth, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Gaybies, they're like rabies. Read: Immature joke.
E
- betterth, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Gaybies, they're like rabies. Read: Immature joke.