|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Chiroptera wrote:
I don't suppose I could get you to see that however large these cultural (environmental) components they ALL must manifest in the organism by way of its operative alleles. To me, the alleles serve as capacitors to modulate the signals from the environment. I don't see how an ebvironmental signal could reach the organism any other way.
Well, yes, I would agree that sex, as in biological male versus biological female, is determined, almost exclusively by genetics. But sex, as in the behavior in which the individual actually acts in his or her life, has a very large cultural component. Trying to determine which behaviors have a biological component and to what degree the behaviors are determined directly by genetics is extremely difficult because the facts demonstrate that even if any behaviors do have a genetic component, the actual behaviors exhibited by individuals are clearly influenced to a very high degree by factors other than genetics.
I don't think what you mean by "behaviors are determined directly by genetics" is exactly the same thing I mean about the role of genes, which operate specifically in allelic combinations. The roles of epigenes and other switches are important, too. You and I may differ on the same grounds that caused upheavals at Harvard and Michigan over E. O. Wilson's "sociobiology" and his proclaimed natural-ness of humans. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
crashfrog wrote:
You can speak for yourself, crashfrog, but I never CHOSE to br straight”I am NATURALLY straight. (Maybe that's my problem.) if gays choose to be gay, then by the same token, straights choose to be straight. So why should straight people be allowed to marry if being straight is a choice? ”Hoot Mon Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
I don't. I'm a genetically predisposed kind of guy, and I expect the same is true for gays. That's why I support gay civil unions. Calling that "marriage," however, flies in the face of tradition. It is the gays and not the straights who are wrong-minded on this issue. If they had any grace at all they'd give it a break. If you didn't have any choice about it yourself, why should we believe that anybody else has a choice? ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Hoot Mon wrote:
crashfrog replied: You can speak for yourself, crashfrog, but I never CHOSE to be straight”I am NATURALLY straight. (Maybe that's my problem.) If you didn't have any choice about it yourself, why should we believe that anybody else has a choice? Particularly when gay people themselves are so certain that their sexual orientation was not voluntarily established? ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
TD writes:
"You people?" You mean the ones with ordinary principles and biological predispositions? You know, when the lawmakers sit down to make laws in any state I would hope they have priority lists to work from. The item "gay marriage" is not nearly as urgent as things like public education, highway maintenance, gun control, corporate crime, environmental protection, port security, and a bazillion other matters. I look forward to the day when mittens for homeless children and birth control for feral cats reach the top of any state's priority list.
This going to be the third time I ask this question. Why is it that you people always say you support civil union for gay people yet always seem to try to pass legislations that not only ban gay marriage but also ALL forms of unions for gay people? But Hoot, every freakin state that has a gay marriage ban also has a ban on all forms of gay union that even remotely resemble marriage. Personally, I think you're just lying about supporting the civil union thing knowing it ain't gonna go anywhere anytime soon.
I ain't lyin'. And I agree, that the civil-union thing for gays ain't goin' anywhere anytime soon. So what? When gay marriage is outlawed only gay outlaws will get married. Let's have an NRA equivalent for gays”say, an NQA”and make this issue really stand up like a girly-man's erection. Oops, that's not politically correct enough to say anywhere but in California. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Hoot Mon wrote: And now we are suppose to change that because "gay pride" says we should? crashfrog replied: No, actually, because our constitution says we should. You've never been married, have you? Because clearly you don't seem to know much about marriage.
Wrong on the first point, right on the second. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
TD wrote:
How so? I believe I've made a perfect fool of myself for insisting that tradition has meaning in America. And I'm not even a holier-than-thou Christian anything. I'm only a wannabe evolutionary biologist who needs to ask a few touchy questions. You know that you have a gift for avoiding the point? ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
DC wrote:
True. They had too many Indians to worry about. But no... given that the framers owned slaves, I'm guessing they weren't too up on the idea of civil rights in general. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
But I support civil-union rights for gays. Didn't I say that somewhere several times? All I'm saying is that the word "marriage" should not apply to them. Let them be "civilly united" and go gayly on their way with every single right bestowed upon the officially married heterosexuals. If they want to call themselves "married," let 'em do it. They have the right to call themselves anything. I have no problem with that. But I don't think the lawmakers need pass special laws protecting their rights to call themselves whatever the want to. Do you? Why do you refuse to take these issues seriously? ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
TD wrote:
Yes! All that! And free Angela Davies, too! The reason I said you have a gift for avoiding the point is because the point is you have no real reason why you don't want gays to be married. You even showed us early on that you thought homosexuality could be treated like a disease and that "curing" homosexuality would solve everything.You never had any valid reason why you don't like gays. You never had any valid reason why you don't want them to get married. You then proceeded with your bigotry (yes, just don't argue, it is bigotry) and tried to come up with one reason after another to justify your bigotry. You admitted that we shot you down with your tradition argument. You, then, proceeded to use the so-called "original intentions of the framers of the constitution" which we've shot down also. If we continue in this vein, I'm pretty sure we're going to start seeing things like "gays can't reproduce... gays have gay-pride parades... gays don't like women..." If you simply say "I don't know why but I simply don't want them to get married..." I would have left you to your bigotry. My aunt used this same line and I haven't bothered her since. I think you are philosophically shallow on this issue of "bigotry." Why is it "bigotry" to question the touchy details that differentiate nature from nurture”from genetic predisposition to choice? I am almost certain that being gay, eventually, will be ENTIRELY a matter of choice by way of gene therapy. What then? When that happens bigots will say to gays "Go get it fixed." I won't be saying that. I'll be saying, along with the gays, that they deserve to have a choice in their own sexuality. Maybe they don't want to "get it fixed." And maybe heterosexuals will choose to get reverse gene therapy to make them gay. I would defend their rights to do that, too. How does that make me a bigot? Again, if the gays want to call themselves "married," that's OK with me. However, I don't think there needs to be laws for that, especially if civil-union rights are available to them. ”Hoot Mon Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
CS writes:
Now this is philosophically rich! I hope it means something to TD, DC, crashfrog, et al. Gays do have the right to get married. Its just that marriage in the US is between a man and a women. The 14th amendment is not being violated. In order for two men to get married, marriage would have to be changed to be between a person and a person. The 14th amendment doesn't give gays the right to change what marriage is. Why not create a type of legal agreement that marriage would be a subset of and then let gays enjoy the benefits of the newly created type of legal agreement? This wouldn't be seperate from marriage as marriage would be a part of it (marriage would be one type of the agrement), and it also wouldn't change what marriage is. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
TD writes:
Maybe we need special laws for people with no wisdom teeth. If I am prejudiced against, say, people with no wisdom teeth, I'm sure I can come up with some excuse like the one you came up with to prevent them from getting dental insurance. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Of course. The fact that he completely avoided the quote I provided regarding a judge's decision in interracial marriage should be telling enough
Interesting how he confates race with sexual orientation. That's quite a mixture of contexts and principles. That's stretchin' it! ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
crashfrog wrote:
You're quoting me here? Please show me where I said that. If you are putting words in my mouth then your credibility just took a dive. So when you say "let them have civil unions but don't change the laws", I know you're not taking this at all seriously, because your position is self-contradicting. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
I asked:
crashfrog replied: You're quoting me here? Not directly (and my use of quotation marks aren't meant to imply that)... ”Hoot Mon
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024