For those who believe that homosexuality is genetic (1 Viewer)

[Scorch]

1) How do homosexual unions at all contribute to the facilitation of society?
We all know heterosexual unions are important, becuase well without them, there wouldn't be a society. Why bother regulating that which isn't important or relavent (i.e. civil marriage for gays)?

You clearly are at a loss to understand what I am saying. Homosexual relationships are in no way socially dangerous, unhealthy or destructive. Thus, the state should grant such people equality, as opposed to discriminating on such grounds.

2) Where do your rights come from?

... what?

Under moral relativism, his views hold exaclty as much legitimacy as yours. To him, you're probably a sick and twisted individual yourself.

You clearly don't understand the point of morality I'm trying to make. It is not so much about moral relativism (which holds truth to an extent) as about the fact that the state should not pander to the morals of people who wish to oppress a minority in any situation, not even if they have a 3000 year old book of slaughter and bigotry to back it up.

Compare someone ackowledging they have sinned, i.e. stealing a chocolate bar from 7/11 with your average homosexual. Most gays see nothing wrong with homosexuality (funnily enough) and go as far to condemn Christians as evil people etc. for telling them the error of their ways. Most gays not only sin, but take pride in their sin, and glorify it, and expecting others to encourage them to continue doing so.

Because they aren't doing anything wrong and it is your bigoted religion that takes issue with it ...

 

[Durga]

Two things.

1) How do homosexual unions at all contribute to the facilitation of society?
We all know heterosexual unions are important, becuase well without them, there wouldn't be a society. Why bother regulating that which isn't important or relavent (i.e. civil marriage for gays)?

2) Where do your rights come from?

1) They....don't....need....to... Everything we do does not have to benefit society. How do you benefit society? If anything, your kind are the chains around societies ankles, continually and unashamedly holding us from making real, unhindered progression. And no, there would be a society without heterosexual unions, people can have sex outside of official unions.

2) The law. Which in a secular society should not hold any mythical book higher than the next. When these faith-heads get out of office, hopefully we will turn into a real secular society.

Under moral relativism, his views hold exaclty as much legitimacy as yours. To him, you're probably a sick and twisted individual yourself.

Moral relativism also holds that morals change with societies progression. GTFO of the Bronze Age, we're in 2010. The idiot who posted that disgusting hate speech most probably supports the public beheading of criminals for petty crimes, as well as women being sentenced to rapings and beatings for the crimes of their brothers. The Koran is a wonderful moral guide...

Who said I'm judgeing gay people?

Telling sinners that they are sinning is not judging. If someone was to tell me, that say, swearing at my parents when I do is a sin, they would be in the right. I wouldn't have anything against you condemning my actions as sinful, and urging me to repent, if you were to notice me doing something I shouldn't be. If anything you are doing me a favour for which I should be grateful.

Compare someone ackowledging they have sinned, i.e. stealing a chocolate bar from 7/11 with your average homosexual. Most gays see nothing wrong with homosexuality (funnily enough) and go as far to condemn Christians as evil people etc. for telling them the error of their ways. Most gays not only sin, but take pride in their sin, and glorify it, and expecting others to encourage them to continue doing so.

You are judging people, dismissing their sexual attractions as a 'behaviour that needs to be reprimanded.' There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and gays wouldn't see that there's anything wrong with it, because:

1) There isn't.

2) Not everyone is a Christian. This has been explained to you numerous times.

 

[xeuyrawp]

What's the deal with identical twins, since they share the exact same genetic make up. If one is gay, would it be fair to assume that both are gay?

Wait, I usually find this discussion goes pear-shaped for the wrong reasons. From the beginning, it is likely that most people who say 'homosexuality is genetic' probably mean 'homosexuality is not a choice.' That would be my instinct, anyway. There is some good stuff about this online. This is a pretty standard outline, although the one here seems more exhaustive I guess.

From the very beginning, there is a huge problem with studying monozygotic (identical) twins and homosexuality:
1. Defining homosexuality is essentially impossible from a methodologically-scientific standpoint,
2. obtaining proper samples of MTs, of which one is homosexual, is problematic.
As far as I know, there is neither 1. a workable definition of homosexuality, nor 2. a study which uses a reliable sample, let alone a method (despite what they say).

I only know a bit about it, so I could be wrong, but there are no decent studies which show that homosexuality is caused by one element. Like most things as complicated as it, non-heterosexuality is usually seen to be a combination of factors. You always need to distinguish between sexual identity, behaviour, and orientation (whatever that is), a distinction not even made in some scientific papers. However, just because homosexuality is not entirely 'genetic', that does not mean that it is any more of a choice. When people say 'homosexuality is genetic', they usually mean 'homosexuality isn't a choice'. There is an abundance of evidence which shows that homosexuality isn't a choice.

Edit:
tl;dr:
1. Homosexuality is difficult to define,
2. samples of identical twins and point 1. means that no proper work can really be done,
3. homosexuality is not entirely genetic,
4. however, point 3. does not mean that it is a choice.

 

[Name_Taken]

You clearly are at a loss to understand what I am saying. Homosexual relationships are in no way socially dangerous, unhealthy or destructive. Thus, the state should grant such people equality, as opposed to discriminating on such grounds.

But whats the point of granting equal status to that which is not equal? (in regards to benefit to society).

... what?

Gogogo.

You clearly don't understand the point of morality I'm trying to make. It is not so much about moral relativism (which holds truth to an extent) as about the fact that the state should not pander to the morals of people who wish to oppress a minority in any situation, not even if they have a 3000 year old book of slaughter and bigotry to back it up.

But then why should the state ignore the opinions of some of its citizens (simply becuase they are religious) and pander to the morals of people who are totally unscrupulous?

Because they aren't doing anything wrong and it is your bigoted religion that takes issue with it ...

...What are they doing right?

They are abusing something which was obviously intended for a purpose which they are subverting for their selfish persuit of pleasure. Take your pic, they're committing a crime agaisnt nature, or God.

1) They....don't....need....to... Everything we do does not have to benefit society. How do you benefit society? If anything, your kind are the chains around societies ankles, continually and unashamedly holding us from making real, unhindered progression. And no, there would be a society without heterosexual unions, people can have sex outside of official unions.

Hehe

The chains around your ankles which are presently the only thing preventing your flailing body from falling unrestrained headfirst into the dark abyss below.

2) The law. Which in a secular society should not hold any mythical book higher than the next. When these faith-heads get out of office, hopefully we will turn into a real secular society.

Well the law presently says that marriage is something between a man and a women.

If you actually get your rights from the law, then there, debate over.

Furthermore, if the law said for example that public torturing of criminals were to be legalised, would that make it the morally right thing to do? Would it mean that memebers of the public have the right to torture criminals at will?

Your rights don't come from the law, because you're disagreeing with it right now. You feel a sense of entitlement, and are incorrectly trying to justify all of your desires as "rights".

Moral relativism also holds that morals change with societies progression. GTFO of the Bronze Age, we're in 2010.

So, because the Bible says that murder is also wrong, we shouldn't listen to it, because its 3000 years old right? You know, 21st century and all, we don't need those outdated laws anymore!

The idiot who posted that disgusting hate speech most probably supports the public beheading of criminals for petty crimes, as well as women being sentenced to rapings and beatings for the crimes of their brothers. The Koran is a wonderful moral guide...

...Or they were a troll and are currently laughing at you.

You are judging people, dismissing their sexual attractions as a 'behaviour that needs to be reprimanded.' There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and gays wouldn't see that there's anything wrong with it, because:

1) There isn't.

2) Not everyone is a Christian. This has been explained to you numerous times.

I never dismissed the desire as a behaviour necesarily controllable by the inidividual. I didn't even say that homosexual sex should be criminalised.

In response to above;

1) Isn't an arguement.

2) I accept this, that is why I haven't pushed for the criminalisation of homosexuality or various things like that. I do not support persecution or violence agianst gay people.

Not recognising gay unions under civil marriage, and denying gay couples the ability to adopt children, as well as making the public aware of the obscene health risks assoicated with what is an unnatural and perverse behaviour is not infringing on the rights of anyone, nor is it forcing anyone to adopt Christianity or Christian values.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Look name_taken:

noone is interferring with your rights to practice your religion, so why do you insist on interferring with other people's right to marry?

 

[Name_Taken]

Look name_taken:

noone is interferring with your rights to practice your religion, so why do you insist on interferring with other people's right to marry?

But you can marry...

You just have to face the same restrictions as everyone else does in regards to who you are allowed to marry (in regards to being accepted under civil marriage). This is fairness incarnate.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

But you can marry...

You just have to face the same restrictions as everyone else does in regards to who you are allowed to marry (in regards to being accepted under civil marriage). This is fairness incarnate.

who the hell would marry someone they're not attracted to sexually and emotionally? mate what is your malfunction!?!

 

[Durga]

Hehe

The chains around your ankles which are presently the only thing preventing your flailing body from falling unrestrained into the abyss below.

If only your religion would allow you to see far enough into the distance so you could see for yourself - there is no abyss.

Well the law presently says that marriage is something between a man and a women.

If you actually get your rights from the law, then there, debate over.

I do get my rights from the law, as does everyone else. Gays currently do not have the right to marry. It doesn't mean it can't change. That's what we're fighting for.

Furthermore, if the law said for example that public torturing of criminals were to be legalised, would that make it the morally right thing to do? Would it mean that memebers of the public have the right to torture criminals at will?

The law does not necessarily reflect the current moral zeitgeist. Furthermore, if the law said for example that homosexuals right to marriage were to be barred, would that make it the morally right thing to do?

Your rights don't come from the law, because you're disagreeing with it right now. You feel a sense of entitlement, and are incorrectly trying to justify all of your desires as "rights"

.

I can disagree with my rights. You seem to think you can't.

So, because the Bible says that murder is also wrong, we shouldn't listen to it, because its 3000 years old right? You know, 21st century and all, we don't need those outdated laws anymore!

The majority of society is in favour of murder being illegal, because they see it as wrong. Even before the Bible, murder was deemed as wrong. It infringes upon others liberty for no good reason. It is not a happening between two consenting adults. If they were consenting adults, that's euthanasia, and that should be legal.

...Or they were a troll and are currently laughing at you.

Mainly you, for attempting to defend such a viewpoint.

I never dismissed the desire as a behaviour necesarily controllable by the inidividual. I didn't even say that homosexual sex should be criminalised.

In response to above;

1) Isn't an arguement.

2) I accept this, that is why I haven't pushed for the criminalisation of homosexuality or various things like that. I do not support persecution or violence agianst gay people.

Not recognising gay unions under civil marriage, and denying gay couples the ability to adopt children, as well as making the public aware of the obscene health risks assoicated with what is an unnatural and perverse behaviour is not infringing on the rights of anyone, nor is it forcing anyone to adopt Christianity or Christian values.

Oh fuck, here we go again. Can you please adjust your argument to reflect the parts that have been refuted? Instead of us having to continually and arduously refute most of the same crap? You in fact do support the persecution of gays, as you are currently fighting for the denial of homosexual unions...

PLEASE GIVE EVIDENCE (from a peer reviewed scientific journal) TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT OBSCENE HEALTH RISKS RESULTING FROM HOMOSEXUAL SEX!!!

You are in fact infringing upon peoples liberties when you achieve your goal of denying the gays' ability to marry and adopt children. The do not have the liberty to do so.

 

[Name_Taken]

who the hell would marry someone they're not attracted to sexually and emotionally? mate what is your malfunction!?!

If you're not attracted to someone, then OFC you wouldn't marry them.

You have no need to get married if you don't want to.

 

[Scorch]

But whats the point of granting equal status to that which is not equal? (in regards to benefit to society).

You're a fucking idiot. There genuinely is no other response to this. You don't understand anything to do with this subject. At all.

But then why should the state ignore the opinions of some of its citizens (simply becuase they are religious) and pander to the morals of people who are totally unscrupulous?

They should ignore them because they're not based on any scientific evidence or proper understanding of reality and involve pushing their morality on a bunch of harmless people that don't affect them in the slightest simply because they're bigoted, intolerant assholes.

They are abusing something which was obviously intended for a purpose which they are subverting for their selfish persuit of pleasure. Take your pic, they're committing a crime agaisnt nature, or God.

There is no crime against nature involved. There is no danger. There is no health risk. There is no obvious purpose as we have evolved without the influence of a higher power. There is no abuse. There is no selfish pursuit of pleasure.

There is simply you and your disgusting bigotry.

Not recognising gay unions under civil marriage, and denying gay couples the ability to adopt children, as well as making the public aware of the obscene health risks assoicated with what is an unnatural and perverse behaviour is not infringing on the rights of anyone, nor is it forcing anyone to adopt Christianity or Christian values.

There are no obscene health risks and it is only perverse in the eyes of your bigoted church. End of story.

 

[boganxcore]

ITT: scorch accuses people of being bigots when he is the biggest bigot here

jus' sayin'

 

[Scorch]

ITT: scorch accuses people of being bigots when he is the biggest bigot here

jus' sayin'

How is that? Believing in tolerance and morality as opposed to hatred based on blind faith? Shocking.

 

[Name_Taken]

If only your religion would allow you to see far enough into the distance so you could see for yourself - there is no abyss.

Well yeah, it stops eventually, with that array of sharp rock spires at the bottom. Once you reach them, then you're in trouble.

I do get my rights from the law, as does everyone else. Gays currently do not have the right to marry. It doesn't mean it can't change. That's what we're fighting for.

So your rights can change?

One day, you have the right to, lets say, ...life, the next day the majority of the population desides for a totally arbitrary reason that you don't, and this right is revoked?

Wait, if it is a right, how can it be revoked in the first place? That sounds more like a privledge.

The law does not necessarily reflect the current moral zeitgeist. Furthermore, if the law said for example that homosexuals right to marriage were to be barred, would that make it the morally right thing to do?

In that example yes it would.

But it can't be a right, if its not in law, if as you say rights come from the law and can be revoked at any time, so no rights are actually being infringed...

The majority of society is in favour of murder being illegal, because they see it as wrong. Even before the Bible, murder was deemed as wrong. It infringes upon others liberty for no good reason. It is not a happening between two consenting adults. If they were consenting adults, that's euthanasia, and that should be legal.

So... if the majority of society say tomorrow became fundamentalist, literalist Christian, and started stoning gays on the streets, this is perfect acceptable?

Gays have lost the right to life, and killing them would be perfectly acceptable, even a righteous thing to do.

Mainly you, for attempting to defend such a viewpoint.

Except I don't agree with him.

You in fact do support the persecution of gays, as you are currently fighting for the denial of homosexual unions...

No I am not. I have never supported the notion of outlawing homosexual unions. Refusing to accept them as equal to marriage and putting them on the marriage register, is not the same as refusing to accept them.

They are offered legal protection as de facto couples anyway.

PLEASE GIVE EVIDENCE (from a peer reviewed scientific journal) TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT OBSCENE HEALTH RISKS RESULTING FROM HOMOSEXUAL SEX!!!

I have though, and a lot of it, in the homosexuality thread.

Please just research it yourself though. Its not a secret or anything that gays are overrepresented in every STI infection rate when compared to heterosexuals or are more promiscious etc etc etc.

You are in fact infringing upon peoples liberties when you achieve your goal of denying the gays' ability to marry and adopt children. The do not have the liberty to do so.

What liberties are being denied here?

Soceity (as in ours and every other one in history) has never allowed individuals to marry whomever they want.

Nor has it allowed any union of two (or more people) the ability to care for children.

Gay people can marry (both in the private sense and public/civil marriage sense). They can also adopt children.

The law doesn't state, every Australian can marry aside form those who are attracted to the same sex, in which case they can't etc etc.

Instead it says, every Australian can marry. The definition of marriage is X.

This is not descrimination at all >.>

 

[Durga]

ITT: scorch accuses people of being bigots when he is the biggest bigot here

jus' sayin'

Thanks Kanye.

After reading Scorch's arguments, I can largely attest to the fact that he is guided by evidence. If someone has a position that is in opposition to his and presents evidence to support their case, I believe Scorch would side with the evidence.

Name_Taken, on the other hand, simply ignores any false logic or evidence.

 

[Scorch]

No one can be bothered reading your CRAP!!, seriously shut the hell up and get a life, instead of getting picked on by everyone. Your just sitting at home defending Gays, you are useless shut up.

You are just as much an insignificant piece of cosmic dust in an endless universe as I am, but at least I can understand that. The fact that you think I am 'defending gays' betrays the fact that you think there is something inherently offensive about them. I am merely defending rationality.

Please just research it yourself though. Its not a secret or anything that gays are overrepresented in every STI infection rate when compared to heterosexuals or are more promiscious etc etc etc.

It is no secret that this is wrong.

I am fine to oppose your bigotry and hatred on a moral level, but please don't go trying to force it to masquerade as science.

After reading Scorch's arguments, I can largely attest to the fact that he is guided by evidence. If someone has a position that is in opposition to his and presents evidence to support their case, I believe Scorch would side with the evidence.

Kind words.

 

[Durga]

Shut the hell up, Go finish that FAIL Arts degree LOL, where the hell is that going to take u?

Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated. Try argue like a grown-up, and attempt to spell thanks.

 

[boganxcore]

yeah umm i dont care lol
these arguments go nowhere because everyone in here is a bigot

enjoy your useless arguing laters <3

 

[Scorch]

WHAT the hell is 'Ad Hominem', God the irony burns, shut up and go to sleep

It's a phrase that grown-ups use. Run along now.

 

[Name_Taken]

Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated. Try argue like a grown-up, and attempt to spell thanks.

Lol... you didn't say that to Scorch when he insulted me.

Double standards much? Though I'm not going to cry about it.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

no one can be bothered reading your crap!!, seriously shut the hell up and get a life, instead of getting picked on by everyone. Your just sitting at home defending gays, you are useless shut up.

-1