| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
Roqua (and others)
This is NOT a question of freedom. Homosexuals are ALREADY FREE to live the homosexual lifestyle. I am not saying that they should not be free to live that lifestyle if they choose it. They should be AND ARE free to make that choice. But like everyone else, people who make that choice should be prepared to live the consequences. They can not live in a homosexual relationship and a traditional family.
This IS a moral question. People who support same-sex marriage want everyone who does not think that this lifestyle is proper to support it by calling them "married" They will gain no rights that they can not convey already by contract if they choose, with the exception of saving money on insurance.
Nature will not place a child in a homosexual relationship, which is what I was talking about in regards to adoption.
I believe my argument on the superiority of the nuclear family was attacked on five points (that I saw anyway).
From Roqua
A. Japanese married men were allowed to have affairs.
We still forget the obvious realities of life.
1. The object of sex is to GET YOUR GENES INTO THE NEXT GENERATION.
When a married man has an outside affair it is different and not as destructive to the family as when a married woman has an outside affair. Simply put, it casts doubt on who the father is. The husband is uncertain as to whether his genes are in the next generation; she is certain that hers are. That is why men are instinctively less forgiving of infidelity than are women. That is why we have hundreds of words to describe a promiscuous woman and all of them are derogatoy. Conversely, we have few words to describe promiscuous men and almost none of them are derogatory. But a man who has a child by a woman down the street still has a nuclear family at home. See my definition.
quote:
Marriage is a necessary institution to facilitate a nuclear family. The term "Nuclear family" here is defined as a Father, Mother and children who are the offspring of BOTH parents.
This is only broken if his wife has a child by the man down the street.
Besides, the men as a group, were just plan stronger and therefore FREE to do what they want.
B. Polyandry is currently practiced in Tibet and will be practiced in China in the future.
Polyandry in Tibet.
This is a debators trick. You point to one obscure example and say it is proof that it works. When you know that in the overwhelming majority of cases this is not the case. You say polyandry is currently being practiced in Tibet. I am curious. Are the men allowed to take more that one wife? Are the men allowed to have sex outside of their marriage? Do you mean the Tibet that is currently RULED OVER BY CHINA? The men in Tibet do not sound that strong to me. Men who grew up in TRADITIONAL NUCLEAR FAMILIES do not share their wives (not while they know it anyway).
As for China being forced to practice polyandry in the future. That will not happen in any significant scale because the will make at least one of several adjustments before it happens
1. They will begin to export men to other places by migration.
2. They will begin importing women by migration or invasions (they are toying with the idea of invading a few countries now.)
3. The age and wealth of men who mary will increase.
4. The economics will shift and they will mysteriously start to give birth to as many girls as boys.
The Communist Party in China is also strong and therefore FREE to do what they want. (But it does suck, if you don't like the Government)
C. Homosexuality in Greece and Japan
Are you saying that Homosexual families in Greece and Japan did better than nuclear families did there?
From Hexy
D. Overpopulation
Overpopulation is an economic problem, not a family problem.
E. Same-sex marriage have been done in places without causing mass suffering.
If you check my post I did not say mass suffering, I said much suffering. Even though the percentage affected will grow over time, I do not mean that everyone will be immediately affected, but those who are affected will suffer in the short run (one or two generations away from the deviance). The more marriage becomes a farce, the more single parents the society will make. Single parents more often breed deliquent children and suffer poverty than intact families. Crime and poverty can lead to a host problems only one generation away from the broken marriage.
Also Hexy
Marriage is an institution that creates family. It is a joining of two people so that they will subsequently be regared as family. If that is not what marriage is then why are we talking about it.
In all this I still did not get an example of another form of family working better the the nuclear family.
Also Hexy I do agree with something you said.
quote:
Oh no, don't try that trick. Either you're ALL for freedom or not. There is no between. Remember, everything is black or white. Either the strong do as they please, or you want rules. Rights are human concepts and rules.
There is no option, the strong do as they please. It just pleases them to make rules. |
Thu May 13, 2004 11:37 pm |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
Hexy and SCribulous, I do not know all the facts about incest and mixed breeding but from what a biology prof taught me a couple semesters ago what I'm saying is correct. If the royal family you talk about is the russian family with the blood problem then that is just a dominant flaw that showedn up due to no outside genes ebtering the mix. Mixing genes brings outside genes into the pool and increases the chance of gene flaws not showing up. He said there is no scientific proof inbreeding causes genetic flaws, it just makes the existing ones dominant.
The haemophilia that the royal families of Europe suffered from (including the Romanovs) was because of a defective copy of a gene on the X chromosome. Women have two X chromosomes. Men of course have one. In the case of Queen Victoria's daughters, they served as carriers for the defective version while appearing normal, because they also carried a normal, functional copy from their father (picture it as X(h) and X, with X(h) = defective and X = normal; thus, their genotypes were X(h)/X). But this is not true for men. Men cannot be silent, unaffected carriers, because of the single copy of the X chromosome. If the male royalty inherited a defective X chromosome from their mothers, there was no compensation through a second normal X chromosome, and thus the unfortunate men who had the defective X chromosome were afflicted with haemophilia. (So men would be X(h)/Y, and Y doesn't cover up for the defective X(h).)
The haemophilia of the royal families of Europe isn't a very good example of why incest in humans is bad.
Better examples include:
--Documented cases of the higher rates of genetic diseases and mentally handicapped children from people who marry within their families (such as in my state, there are higher rates of Huntington's disease found in polygamist families that intermarry among their own when compared to the nation).
--Disturbing trends of madness, weak health, and physical abnormalities seen in many Egyptian dynasties (where the only people to marry were within the immediate family, such as fathers to daughters, mothers to sons, or brothers and sisters to each other); for example, the pharaoh Akhenaten was described as having skeletal abnormalities, an oddly shaped body, etc. ( http://www.heptune.com/Marfans.html ), his brother King Tut (Tuthmose) died from some kind of inherited disease, and one dynasty was plagued by elongated, bean-shaped heads, almost as if they had hydroencephaly, affecting both men and women. This can be seen in certain Egyptian statuettes.
--Most people are estimated to have somewhere between 7-9 lethal, defective copies of genes. These are covered up because we also have normal copies of these genes. The first or second generation of inbreeding may not reveal genetic flaws, but each generation of inbreeding concentrates these lethal copies while reducing diversity. A lot of inbreeding never makes it far because most of the fetuses are spontaneously aborted through miscarriage because of their genetic flaws, fertility decreases (sperm or eggs can't function and the people are sterile), they are mentally retarded or have a disease or condition that prevents them from reproducing, spontaneous mutations are also inherited and create more lethality, etc.
quote:
As to races. There are three divisions that have evolved differently. Caucasiod, mongaloid, and negroid. The skull shape is distinctly different for each group. All three are subject to different ailments due to genetics and not lifestyle culture. We all started off black, loosing melanin to adapt to colder environments is not adaptation? Black people have a different lung capacity than white people. The genes are different and removed.
No, the genes are actually very close. There is more genetic diversity in Africa between the various ethnic groups than there are between whites and Asians. This has been shown by mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) studies. And it agrees with the theory that Africa is the "primordial homeland" for the human species.
quote:
The farther removed the genes, the better.
Not necessarily. There is something called "hybrid vigor" that often happens when one crosses two highly inbred lines, where the resultant progeny have qualities that exceed both of the parents. However, I doubt that certain groups have become so inbred that crosses between two groups will result in "superior" children. The 50/50 people I've met don't seem any smarter or dumber than other people.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Fri May 14, 2004 9:11 am |
|
|
Scribelus
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 46
|
I can't really be bothered arguing about homosexuality here since I'm sure no-one's opinion is going to change. However, my girlfriend has a friend (since high school) who came out as a lesbian a few years ago after much anguish. This friend is a devout Christian so she is celibate - she has never had sex, and she thinks homosexual sex is a sin. She is really thin, looks just like a guy. When she got her hair cut short, and I met her for the first time in a while, I thought she was a teenage boy, literally - didn't recognize her. She hates being a lesbian and is really torn up about it with her faith and all, but it's just a fact - she can't stand guys. There's no point pretending. From my point of view, it's pretty obvious that there is quite a continuity between "man" and "woman", and just 'cos someone has the physical bits doesn't mean everything about them is male/female. I see quite a difference between that and incest. Homosexuality is much more of a physical fact about who someone is. However being "camp" is a different story - that is a choice that comes from being an outsider.
Try thinking about gay people as though they were disabled people. It's not something they chose (this friend of my girlfriend would do anything not to be gay), but it's something they have to live with. They face a lot of difficulties. Is it better to be ashamed of being disabled or try to live with it? Sure, disabled people might have trouble if two of them decide to get married and have kids, but do we want to deny them the right? In terms of love they may be just the same. Gotta look at it case by case, same as for straight people who may or may not have love for their spouse and kids.
But of course your own disgust thinking about "guys hairy asses" will stop you from taking the compassionate view. Glad my girlfriend don't mind my hairy ass (and back - ew!)
Regarding genetics, if you just go look up the difference between "dominant" and "recessive" it will tell you all that you need to know. There are lots of fatal conditions that many people carry, but usually they aren't expressed in the phenotype (actual person) because you only have it from one side of the family, and it has to come from both sides to be expressed. That's basically what "recessive" means. If family members with similar genetic makeup have kids, these recessive characteristics are more likely to be expressed.
While there are some few recessive characteristics within racial groups that would be lost by breeding outside the group, they are rarely damaging, since evolution takes care of that sort of thing naturally in the wider population. This is why we have such strong instincts against incest, because it leads to genetic problems due to recessive characteristics being expressed.
Not all recessive things are bad, though - blue eyes are recessive. Sometimes a kid will have blue eyes though neither of their parents do, because each parent had blue eyes recessively, not expressed, and it just happened to come out in the kid.
EDIT - Oh yeah, in genetics, "mutation" doesn't mean anything bad, it just means a random change as genes are passed down (though more changes are bad than good).
"Don't talk to that weirdo - apparently he's got a mother and a father" |
|
Sat May 15, 2004 3:56 am |
|
|
Kendrik
Thin Blue Line
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 550
Location: England |
quote:
Originally posted by Scribelus
Try thinking about gay people as though they were disabled people. It's not something they chose (this friend of my girlfriend would do anything not to be gay), but it's something they have to live with. They face a lot of difficulties.
Wow - I kinda can't work out if you are being very practical or highly insulting to homosexuals - either way it seems a bit insensative.
People argue that being Homosexual is not natural but I have a theory which I will share with you (that's everyone not just Scribelus  ). I. like most scientists believe in evolution - natural selection - random mutations leading to a distinct advantage being expressed (from genotype to phonetype). Now we look at the world we live in today there is no question that there are more of us - overcrowding will become a problem as will food shortage. Now look to other members of the animal kingdom where overcrowding is controlled by starving and sometimes even sex switching (some frogs can actually switch there sex). Now look at humans we can combat food shortage by growing crops and having an "efficient" health care system. So how does nature respond to try to combat overpopulation? May I suggest that more people are born homosexual - this fulfills the basic human need for company but removes the whole producing babies aspect - so therefore homosexual relationships are as "normal" as hetrosexual ones as they are both a product of natural evolution.
Bah it's just a theory and I probibly could have written it out better but I have to go to work soon so I didn't have time to form the words properly
quote:
Originally posted by Scribelus
EDIT - Oh yeah, in genetics, "mutation" doesn't mean anything bad, it just means a random change as genes are passed down (though more changes are bad than good).
To be far most changes are silent rather than good or bad and most mutations occur in vivo - our cells are subjected to thousands of mutations every day from sources such as chemicals and radiation but our bodies have developed systems to combat these mutations (such as p52). The largest effect of mutation is, again in vivo, Cancer rather than inherited diseases. Sorry to get all techincal Scrib, I'm sure you knew all that but I just wanted to clear up any ambiguities that may have sneeked in for other readers
_________________
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true."
JAMES BRANCH CABELL
~Member of The Nonflamers' Guild~
~~Champion of the (Unofficial) RPGdot Text Signature Contest 2002~~ |
|
Sat May 15, 2004 11:47 am |
|
|
Scribelus
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 46
|
Thanks Kendrik.
I don't consider it an insult to make a comparison with disabled people since it's not like being disabled is evil. It's just a congenital thing that makes you different from normal and makes life more difficult. (Yes, I know not all disability is congenital.) |
|
Sat May 15, 2004 12:11 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
Kendrik, you are obviously assuming that people are born gay. I do not know for certain whether some people are born gay or not. They say they are born that way, some other people say they are not born that way; I am not gay so I just do not know. Although, I do know for certain that some people who are now gay were not born gay.
Are you saying that people who are born gay have been selected by nature not to reproduce?
I don't think I agree with that. From what I can tell, gay people still have the inate desire to reproduce. Even though they only desire a form of sex that can not result in childbirth, they still want children and pursue other methods of getting children, most often but not limited to adoption. How do you reconcile your theory with that reality? |
|
Mon May 17, 2004 8:46 pm |
|
|
Kendrik
Thin Blue Line
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 550
Location: England |
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
Kendrik, you are obviously assuming that people are born gay. I do not know for certain whether some people are born gay or not. They say they are born that way, some other people say they are not born that way; I am not gay so I just do not know. Although, I do know for certain that some people who are now gay were not born gay.
Are you saying that people who are born gay have been selected by nature not to reproduce?
I don't think I agree with that. From what I can tell, gay people still have the inate desire to reproduce. Even though they only desire a form of sex that can not result in childbirth, they still want children and pursue other methods of getting children, most often but not limited to adoption. How do you reconcile your theory with that reality?
Interesting point Darrius, like I sadi it is just the birth of a theory - I personally do think people are born gay - however that is not to say they will lead a gay lifestyle as there is still the argument of Nature v's Nurture. This leads to the phenomenon of "Closet Homosexuals". As for your other point I see what you are saying but I would really need to look in depth at the figures to support either my or your theory. I would suggest (wildly guess) that although many gay couples do have children most do not. By have children I mean give birth - adoption doesn't count against my theory as it means a couple can have children without increasing the population. Sorry that sound a bit clumsey basically what I mean is the child is born via hetrosexual sex (normally) and therefore is not a product of the gay relationship. I realise that some gay couples do use surrogates but I would suggest (again re: wildly guess) that this is a minority meaning that gay couples overall produce less babies thus help reduce over population.
I'm sure there is large holes in my theory but I don't really have the spare time to work it all out at the minute - perhaps I'll write a book one day
(Oh and I'm tired so please excuse the spelling or any mistypes that insult anybody - if I notice anything offensive I'll try to edit )
_________________
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true."
JAMES BRANCH CABELL
~Member of The Nonflamers' Guild~
~~Champion of the (Unofficial) RPGdot Text Signature Contest 2002~~ |
|
Tue May 18, 2004 8:53 pm |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
quote:
Originally posted by Kendrik
So how does nature respond to try to combat overpopulation? May I suggest that more people are born homosexual - this fulfills the basic human need for company but removes the whole producing babies aspect - so therefore homosexual relationships are as "normal" as hetrosexual ones as they are both a product of natural evolution.
This would imply that homosexuals often produce children and pass on traits that can be acted on by natural selection. In most animals and people who are homosexual, this probably isn't the case. Evolution doesn't happen without reproduction and natural selection (or selective pressures). Not only that, if it were favored by natural selection, it would be expressed more often in the population than it currently is (I believe 1-3% of the US population is considered homosexual). So I don't see much basis for an evolutionary mechanism at work to create or favor homosexuality, other than the other standard genetic mechanisms, including mutation and natural genetic diversity, or human-influenced factors such as culture or religion.
But I don't mean for this to be taken as a scientific justification for why homosexuality is bad. I believe it is like many other genetic traits which do not fit neatly into human perceptions. Nature doesn't define certain traits "good" or "bad" as we do--instead, IMO, it defines them by how they affect an organism, which is an entirely different matter. If one wishes to use the terms, it is changing conditions that determine what is "good" today but might "bad" tomorrow, when different conditions and pressures favor different traits. (So I hope this shows why it's pretty useless, IMHO, to label genetic traits good or bad.)
What certain groups and agendas so often would have us forget is that homosexuals are people just like us. They would rather have us see them as "things." Worse yet some want them declared "other" or "outsider" for reasons that make no sense at all. As soon as you label another group "other," it is easier to demonize them and scourge them without a conscience. It is what the Nazis did to the Jews in Europe--first to say they were "different" until the depredations culminated in a denial of their humanity, which made it convenient to dispose of them as undeserving non-humans. I only hope that we can see past such shortcomings that plague every one of us.
quote:
To be far most changes are silent rather than good or bad and most mutations occur in vivo - our cells are subjected to thousands of mutations every day from sources such as chemicals and radiation but our bodies have developed systems to combat these mutations (such as p52). The largest effect of mutation is, again in vivo, Cancer rather than inherited diseases. Sorry to get all techincal Scrib, I'm sure you knew all that but I just wanted to clear up any ambiguities that may have sneeked in for other readers
I thought it was p53 and p28 that was responsible for preventing more mutations. Anyway, cancer is a nasty thing.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Wed May 26, 2004 12:43 am |
|
|
NidPuterGuy
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 237
|
And the churchies have no leg to stand on besides the fact that they are prejudiced. It's ok by them to drop bombs on Muslims or for the rich to enslave the poor but mention a gay couple having children and they are going to hell!
Can you handle the truth? |
|
Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:32 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
And from your statement one can gather that you are prejudice against Christians and believe in simplistic sterotypes that fit your view of the universe. It's okay for terrorists to murder and commit atrocities, but if someone mentions they are Christian, then apparently they're an idiot in your mind.
Can you handle the truth? 
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:27 pm |
|
|
Conan The Librarian
City Guard
Joined: 27 May 2004
Posts: 144
Location: Merry Olde England |
Roger and Jessica Rabbit. 
_________________
The optimist sees the doughnut.
But the pessimist sees the hole. |
|
Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:49 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
quote:
Originally posted by NidPuterGuy
And the churchies have no leg to stand on besides the fact that they are prejudiced. It's ok by them to drop bombs on Muslims or for the rich to enslave the poor but mention a gay couple having children and they are going to hell!
Can you handle the truth?
The standard here is not the church or church people it is the Bible. (Although some church congreations seem to think they have power to rewrite the Bible over this issue.)
It is not "OK" for anybody to drop bombs on anybody. However, it is also not "OK" to watch and do nothing while someone murders your whole family.
Homosexual sex is not better or worse than any other sin.
Gay couples can not have children by themselves. To get children they require at least one outside parent and heterosexual sex.
It is important to note that the Bible frowns on ALL illicit sex, not just homosexual sex. The Bible also frowns on opposite sex people with certain relationships getting married.
On this matter there is no prejudice in the Bible, beside saying outright that homosexual sex is wrong. It places boundaries on the sexual activity of all people, not just people who prefer homosexual sex.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:33 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
Wow!! There are lots of debates within debates going on here. Great stuff. May I just compliment everyone on the high standard of discussion, it's wonderful to see. My opinion has been expressed a number of times in various threads, so I'm not going to repeat myself.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:19 am |
|
|
NidPuterGuy
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Truly a question of freedom |
|
This is without a doubt the litmus test of freedom in the US. Free to follow one religion or true freedom. I suport gay marriage for no other reason than being a true patriot! |
|
Tue Jun 15, 2004 4:53 am |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
If it is acceptable for people who do not believe in God to get married (like myself), why is religion a basis for determining if gay people get married or not? I find it strange that on a scale of things that are acceptable, being unfaithful (for which there is no law), being allowed to raise kids (for which no license is required, regardless of how bad you ar in it) and a whole slew of other things is more acceptable than marrying two people that love eachother.
I fail to see how that would endanger the cornerstone of society while all the rest that are more acceptable doesn't or to a lesser extend.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla |
|
Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:04 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:04 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
