Political Crossfire Forums

Eichen · Joined: 30 Dec 2005 Posts: 1045 Location: Tampa, FL

Demonic Spoon wrote: People do pretend to be gay. Just because it is illogical does not mean people don't do it.
"Pretend to be gay"? What, to pick up on f@g hags or something?
I don't get it. :think:

Sataere · Joined: 27 Jan 2006 Posts: 226 Location: Ohio

Demonic Spoon wrote: Okay. Homosexuality is being promoted as genetic...but that does not make sense.

homosexuality CANNOT be a dominant allele, since it's far too rare. It is also too common for it to be a random genetic mutation. It, therefore, must be a recessive allele. So, then, anytime in the future that a person with two recessive alleles would not reproduce (since that would mean they are gay).

Two counters to this arguement commonly are:

1) Carriers could exist and spread the gene without being gay themselves. They could, but even if two carriers mate, there is a 1/4 chance of the gay gene being elminated, and if the more likely pair of a noncarrier and a carrier occurs, then it's a 1/2 chance for the gene to be eliminated. Since there are so many chances for the gene to be eliminated, and none for the gene to become common, it would have definately been eliminated by now.

Also, you must ask how the gene originally came INTO existance. Evolution occurs when a mutation occurs (or something else that causes genetic variation, like "crossing-over") and the mutation is beneficial, causing the creature to reproduce more often. If homosexuality was once a mutation, it would not have prevailed, since it hinders-not helps-the ability of the animal to reproduce

2) Gay people can reproduce with artificial insemination. While this is technically true, artificial insemination has not existed in animal history long enough to ensure the prevailence of the gay gene.

It is physically impossible for a "Gay" gene to have been created and lasted this long in the evolutionary chain. Therefore, homosexuality comes from two places

1) Choice (which is not true homosexuality, since there is no attraction; it is just to get attention)
2) Chemical imbalances in the brain (more common), which is far more plausable than genetics, since it is hormones and chemicals in your brain, not genetics, that create sexual attraction.

Very interesting and well founded point! That was a post that I was very interested to read. My opinion is relatively unfounded on the subject of nature versus nurture in regards to gay marriage, but I am leaning towards the 'nature' viewpoint. While I think that you have a very well explained point, I would like to bring up the point of the gay penguins; unsentient organisms that have 'chosen' to be gay. So if humans choose to be gay, and penguins are unable to choose intelligently, how could they 'choose' to be gay?
Here are some articles on the penguins:

www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1275591.html

And on another point, note the fact that most children raised by gay couples end up being heterosexual. If homosexuality was based entirely on upbringing, wouldn't that make them end up gay too? It doesn't seem that way, so there must be other factors, genetics or not, at play.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6802 Location: Ohio

argh...

I am not saying humans choose to be gay. Those that 'choose' are not really gay, and are just looking for attention.

Sataere · Joined: 27 Jan 2006 Posts: 226 Location: Ohio

So how do you think that humans become gay? If it's not genetics, it must be upbringing, or something psychological.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6802 Location: Ohio

Sexual attractions are created by hormones and the brain, so it's logical to assume a chemical imbalance. It could be caused by upbringing, or other factors.

Eichen · Joined: 30 Dec 2005 Posts: 1045 Location: Tampa, FL

Demonic Spoon wrote: argh...

I am not saying humans choose to be gay. Those that 'choose' are not really gay, and are just looking for attention.
That sounds pretty arrogant. Pretty fuc!!ng douchebag, IMHO.

Of course, this is coming from the guy who brought us "pretend to be gay".

When did you become an expert? How many d!cks have you s*cked, Sir, to qualify?

George W Bush · Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:36 pm Post subject:

floridaguy wrote: George W Bush wrote: i always have thought it was not a choice, not genetic
but a way someone was raised.
NARTH.ORG

not saying ALL, but probably alot. I base this on the fact that many "gay" people had similar familial backgrounds (lack of same sex parent either emotionally distant, or never there)

many books written onthe topic. unfortunately, the pro-gay movement has successfully labeled any research as HATE.
Have catagorized anyone citing the facts as BIGOTED, or with a christian agenda.

there is nothing wrong with being gay.
there is alot wrong with accepting something you dont like being.
www.NARTH.org I went to your link, didn't read alot of it but I will. I was just wondering for argument sake, could it work the other way. I mean, could we take a guy like yourself and turn him gay?

not a guy but probably a newborn little guy, raise them a certain way.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5100

Quote: When did you become an expert? How many d!cks have you s*cked, Sir, to qualify?
:rotf:

F'losrix · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:35 am Post subject:

George W Bush wrote: not a guy but probably a newborn little guy, raise them a certain way.
And just how do you propose to go about doing such a thing? My parents raised me to be straight, but guess what - I turned out gay anyway.

Eichen · Joined: 30 Dec 2005 Posts: 1045 Location: Tampa, FL

Skeptical Mystic wrote: George W Bush wrote: not a guy but probably a newborn little guy, raise them a certain way.
And just how do you propose to go about doing such a thing? My parents raised me to be straight, but guess what - I turned out gay anyway.
Sh!t, I'm the product of a proud card-carying Republican household.
I can't come up with a name of a single Democrat among us. Honestly.

Oh, and I've been saved, and baptised. Southern Baptist style.

What to do with that?

Jesus loves me. Maybe, not so much you, if you don't meet "the criteria". Sorry.
But I'll "love" you while you burn in hell forever!

F'losrix · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:48 am Post subject:

Eichen wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: George W Bush wrote: not a guy but probably a newborn little guy, raise them a certain way.
And just how do you propose to go about doing such a thing? My parents raised me to be straight, but guess what - I turned out gay anyway.
Sh!t, I'm the product of a proud card-carying Republican household.
I can't come up with a name of a single Democrat among us. Honestly.

Oh, and I've been saved, and baptised. Southern Baptist style.

What to do with that?
Tell me about it! It's such a load of crap! My parents were not permissive nor distant, and they were and are faithful Christians (Methodists).

Eichen · Joined: 30 Dec 2005 Posts: 1045 Location: Tampa, FL

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Eichen wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: George W Bush wrote: not a guy but probably a newborn little guy, raise them a certain way.
And just how do you propose to go about doing such a thing? My parents raised me to be straight, but guess what - I turned out gay anyway.
Sh!t, I'm the product of a proud card-carying Republican household.
I can't come up with a name of a single Democrat among us. Honestly.

Oh, and I've been saved, and baptised. Southern Baptist style.

What to do with that?
Tell me about it! It's such a load of crap! My parents were not permissive nor distant, and they were and are faithful Christians (Methodists).
Here's the dish, gf:

You're Methodists? Unless you get totally saved and baptised like we do (I dunno, but the Catholics are burnin' something fierce), you're totally baked.

Other than that, it's a bunch of non-Christians (how we recognize them) talking. We'll see them in heaven...

Only we won't have as many prizes.
(Heaven is competitive corporate-capitalist... who knew?)

F'losrix · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:23 am Post subject:

Eichen wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Eichen wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: George W Bush wrote: not a guy but probably a newborn little guy, raise them a certain way.
And just how do you propose to go about doing such a thing? My parents raised me to be straight, but guess what - I turned out gay anyway.
Sh!t, I'm the product of a proud card-carying Republican household.
I can't come up with a name of a single Democrat among us. Honestly.

Oh, and I've been saved, and baptised. Southern Baptist style.

What to do with that?
Tell me about it! It's such a load of crap! My parents were not permissive nor distant, and they were and are faithful Christians (Methodists).
The dish:

You're Methodists? Unless you get saved like we do (I know the Catholics are burnin' something fierce), you're totally baked.

Other than that, it's a bunch of nonChristians talking. We'll see them in heaven...

Only we won't have as many prizes. %*
My parents are Methodists. I started out as Methodist, changed to Episcopalian (my maternal grandparents were Episcopalians), and was later a member of the Metropolitan Community Church. My family are all 'born-again' Christians - mostly Methodists or Baptists (not Southern Baptists, though). One sister and her family are Episcopalians (high church). I used to think I was born again, too. But I stopped practicing Christianity quite some time ago. My partner is an ex-Catholic.

My beliefs now are pretty minimal.

Eichen · Joined: 30 Dec 2005 Posts: 1045 Location: Tampa, FL

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
My parents are Methodists. I started out as Methodist, changed to Episcopalian (my maternal grandparents were Episcopalians), and was later a member of the Metropolitan Community Church. My family are all 'born-again' Christians - mostly Methodists or Baptists (not Southern Baptists, though). One sister and her family are Episcopalians (high church). I used to think I was born again, too. But I stopped practicing Christianity quite some time ago. My partner is an ex-Catholic.

My beliefs now are pretty minimal.
At this point I feel like a d!ck if I don't make it really obvious that I'm not with the typical Jesus crowd. I converted to Buddhism (best move ever) when I was 16, and have since become more comfortable with the Universalist Unitarian crowd (You'd love them, btw).

Regardless, I'm saved. I could've photographed (and posed, somehow, for) Maple's Piss Christ and still made the cut. It's a permanent contract. You only do that once, not everyday.

So, I live my life. However I please.

Either way, any so-called "Christian" poseur who tries to confront me on my acts, is probably going to hell anyway, if they don't understand (from what I've been taught. And hell, isn't that the whole schtick?) the basics.

I wish them eternal comfort during eternal fire; Muah!

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6802 Location: Ohio

alright, screw this thread. This has just degenerated into flaming.

F'losrix · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:04 am Post subject:

Eichen wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote:
My parents are Methodists. I started out as Methodist, changed to Episcopalian (my maternal grandparents were Episcopalians), and was later a member of the Metropolitan Community Church. My family are all 'born-again' Christians - mostly Methodists or Baptists (not Southern Baptists, though). One sister and her family are Episcopalians (high church). I used to think I was born again, too. But I stopped practicing Christianity quite some time ago. My partner is an ex-Catholic.

My beliefs now are pretty minimal.
At this point I feel like a d!ck if I don't make it really obvious that I'm not with the typical Jesus crowd. I converted to Buddhism (best move ever) when I was 16, and have since become more comfortable with the Universalist Unitarian crowd (You'd love them, btw).

Regardless, I'm saved. I could've photographed (and posed, somehow, for) Maple's Piss Christ and still made the cut. It's a permanent contract. You only do that once, not everyday.

So, I live my life. However I please.

Either way, any so-called "Christian" poseur who tries to confront me on my acts, is probably going to hell anyway, if they don't understand (from what I've been taught. And hell, isn't that the whole schtick?) the basics.

I wish them eternal comfort during eternal fire; Muah!
We've talked about finding a church, but the deeper we get into the discussion, the more we realize we'll never be satisfied. We both really enjoyed the ritual as an integral part of our worship experience, and once you've gotten used to the 'smells and bells' format, everything else seems watered down. Since we're now both very minimalist in our beliefs, we'd really be going for the social aspect, and that just doesn't strike me as a very good reason for going to church. Plus I was pretty involved in the church when I did go; I remember there being a tremendous amount of backstabbing and I don't care to put myself through that again.

We aren't actually very sociable people - neither of us likes crowds. But we feel kinda isolated, too - our friends are almost entirely heterosexual couples and though they're great people, we just don't connect strongly with any of them. My parents have always had lots of friends, some of them close enough to be thought of as family. We just don't have that.

And I'm rambling....

StarCross · Joined: 12 Jun 2005 Posts: 165

StrangerWitCandy wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: It's a lifestyle choice.

I assume you made the conscious decision to become a heterosexual at some point, not because you became actually attracted to the opposite sex right?

Being a heterosexual isn't about being attracted to the opposite sex. It is about having the characteristics necessary to engage in reproduction which is the purpose of sex in nature and since every professing "homosexual" is actually a heterosexual male or female with the ability to reproduce, it's silly to say anybody is born homosexual. This idea that there is a gay gene for determining attraction to the same sex is pure speculation based on inconclusive scientific studies. Some pro-homosexual rights activists themselves dispute that a gay gene exists:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010622202222/http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM50/LM50_Homo.html

Quote: "New research claims to prove that homosexuals are born and not made. Peter Ray thinks that idea is unscientific, irrational - and very dangerous"

Peter Ray is a gay rights supporter writing in a Marxist publication so you can't claim this as right wing propaganda.

StarCross · Joined: 12 Jun 2005 Posts: 165

Demonic Spoon wrote: alright, screw this thread. This has just degenerated into flaming.

I wish we could have an intelligent discussion without resorting to insults and the like. Something about this topic seems to encourage precisely what ought to be avoided.

F'losrix · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject:

StarCross wrote: Being a heterosexual isn't about being attracted to the opposite sex. It is about having the characteristics necessary to engage in reproduction which is the purpose of sex in nature and since every professing "homosexual" is actually a heterosexual male or female with the ability to reproduce, it's silly to say anybody is born homosexual.
You're trying to substitute the meaning of 'heterosexual reproduction' for that of 'heterosexual orientation'.

Let's clarify a few things:

Humans rely on heterosexual reproduction. That is to say, material is required from parents of differing sexes for reproduction to be possible.

Being 'a heterosexual' in one's orientation, (as defined by widely accepted usage of the term) does indeed mean being primarily attracted to members of the opposite sex. Being homosexual means being attracted to members of one's own sex. Reproduction is several steps removed from attraction. More on this below:

Reproduction is just one purpose of sex. In humans, the emotions we connect with sex also serve to strengthen the bond between a couple, and it is used more often for that purpose than as an actual attempt to reproduce.

When a person is attracted to another person, their first thoughts aren't about reproduction, they're about sexual gratification. In humans, sexual gratification is not entirely necessary for reproduction to take place, and as I noted above, most sexual gratification is not undertaken for the purpose of reproduction.

Since attraction is more closely linked to the desire for sexual gratification than to a desire to reproduce, it is silly to assert that every homosexual is really a heterosexual simply because most of them have the ability to engage in acts that would lead to sexual reproduction.

Given that most homosexuals report that they don't remember ever having a strong attraction to the opposite sex, and that they felt attracted to others of the same sex well before that attraction developed a sexual component, it is not silly to ponder if it might be something influenced by biology (and there is evidence that suggests a biological link), and in turn whether that might be arising from some genetic cause.

The bottom line is that there is no conclusive proof either way, so claiming that homosexuals are heterosexual who choose to be different does not hold more weight than claims that it might be genetic; and in light of the evidence, one could argue that it holds considerably less.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5100

Demonic Spoon wrote: alright, screw this thread. This has just degenerated into flaming.
This thread was started with the intent to flame, so you shouldn't be surprised.