Fagits

[f3lix]

Originally Posted by Dent

How can the existence of homosexuals be explained if ‘they go against human evolution?’

Assuming no homosexuals reproduce, even though they did when society forced them to marry and have kids, let's go with the premise that now they won't. Each creation is not a pure strain of the same thing, but an endless batch of randomness. The ones that don't fit the mold won't reproduce, thus ending their lineage at them. Same thing goes for kids who die of diseases. Human evolution is like a tree that has many branches that don't end up going anywhere, where the trunk keeps moving upwards and having to adapt to the new climate of a higher altitude.

[Mr. Blonde]

The human genome doesn't work exactly like that. Genes for homosexuality, if they exist (or predisposition to homosexuality, w/e) are part of our collective genetic heritage. A great deal of the information within our individual (And thus collective, as we all come from a single organism) DNA code is simply not expressed. There's too much information -- DNA appears to adapt all of it's information to it's environment and create a being that fits that environment.

It is, surely possible to EVENTUALLY extinguish "the gay gene" from the human race, probably, but is that really a direction we want to go? I mean, why would we even consider it, is is that gross? Fuck, we have an overpopulation issue on Earth anyways.

Basically, even if no homo ever reproduces again, the human genetic code still has homosexual's written into it, and they will still exist, unless a genetic fluke happens that removes it.

Much of human behavior, including homosexuality, may have simply been a fluke -- random, freak, byproducts of evolution that aren't harmful enough to cause serious ripples in the gene pool.

But, again, in the future, who knows. In the book The Forever War by Joe Haldemaan, which deals with the problems of war in space and relativity (Earth changes drastically over many years every time he returns from tour, because of the relativity), one of the final chapters, everyone on earth is a homosexual and look at hetero's like the fucking people who get dropped off at the end of Close Encounters of the Third Kind.


Great fucking book by the way. http://www.amazon.com/The-Forever-Wa.../dp/0312536631

[f3lix]

I never said it was gross nor do I think that. The problem with the book like that is that even if homosexuality became the norm, human species could not go on without reproduction between a man and a woman, or some function of the sperm and egg. Now I do recognize that we may find alterations to that possibility, and we must be careful citing the human genome as the end all be all since we only really solved it in the last 15 years. We could easily find something far more advanced than the human genome in that same time.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by f3lix

I never said it was gross nor do I think that.

I didn't mean to imply you thought it was gross, I was just saying general arguments against homosexuality ultimately come down that, if everyone is honest with themselves. Gay people literally take up <5% of my daily thought process, and that's because I have family and friends who are, and find myself trying to empathize what it would be like being a gay men in this society, let alone decades ago. It's one of the most time-wasting subject to discuss, but this is a free forum. Gay people exist, our society is embracing them, and there's nothing anyone (looking at you, DH and others keeping deep homosexual dislike inside) can do but accept the fact and chill out or, you know, start openly discriminating against gays. Start being brave enough to express these thoughts in a bar sometime, see how that works for you.

You need some gay friends. DH.

The problem with the book like that is that even if homosexuality became the norm, human species could not go on without reproduction between a man and a woman, or some function of the sperm and egg.

It's just a science fiction book, they're all full half-speculative/half crazy imagination mixed together with modern human themes.....IN THE FUTURE. There's a fair amount of increased suspension of belief in scifi simply because of the fact it's in the future, thus not really comparable to now (technologically speaking. Science fiction is a great motivator to help build a better future, because it inspires young minds to imagine future possibilities, then get to work on making them realities.

Now I do recognize that we may find alterations to that possibility, and we must be careful citing the human genome as the end all be all since we only really solved it in the last 15 years. We could easily find something far more advanced than the human genome in that same time.

No doubt, we do have much to learn about DNA. I'm starting to believe it's god-like mathematically pattern-based from 'random' synthesis from carbon and light (either an amazing fluke or inherent in the huniverse), or, perhaps, organic material itself, seeded throughout the vastness of space by interstellar programmers. But, the question always comes back to abiogenenes. Even if we were seeded (which I believe we were), how the fuck did whatever "seed" Earth evolve?

The future of DNA discovery may end up being much more mysterious than we ever suppposed.

One of the biggest "controversies" right now in the "fringe" scientists and questioners, realizing the bizarre nature of consciousness at a deeper level, than say, a classically trained scientist, is the correlation our only between experiences with EXPERIENCING your own DNA with your consciousness through brews like Ayahuasca, being used in South America for thousands of years.


Jeremy Narby wrote a book about called "The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge" --- a field which interests me greatly and I hope to eventually write about. Visions of intertwined snakes are common when using Ayahuascal and Jeremy believes this is a connection to follow.

Cool QnA between Narby and an interviewer: The Cosmic Serpent, DNA and the Origins of Knowledge

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Blonde, I want to be able to empathize with the gay community too. You should come over for a romp and we can experience it together.

[f3lix]

I wonder at what point DH quit reading this thread.

[Saint DH]

Stopped reading when my argument:

Homosexuality should not be promoted or celebrated in society

Was met with the strawman argument:

You must be a homosexual

The most telling thing about this thread is that only a few people even touched on the OP.

There are literally more Methodists in this country than homosexuals.

This has been a solid reminder that I have absolutely nothing in common with any one here.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Nature, the ultimate engine of creation, which absolutely does exist (At least to organic beings), has created homosexual beings, and that's really where the argument ends for me. Whether there is a "purpose" to the creation of gay people or not is irrelevant --- there may not be a purpose to anything except to simply exist.

Just because something happened naturally through nature, i.e. homosexuality, does that necessarily correlate to something we should accept? What about murder and rape and all of the naturally occurring things that we universally agree are bad? It sounds like you're taking a neutral position -- that like a pendulum, things swing back and forth, and nature has a way of constantly restoring balance to its own creation.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

[Dent]

Originally Posted by f3lix

The only legit argument against homosexuality I've seen is that since they don't reproduce, they go against human evolution, which is bad for our species.

Originally Posted by f3lix

human species could not go on without reproduction between a man and a woman.

Yes, a species cannot go on without reproduction; however, it does not require every individual in the population to pass on their own sperm or egg. All it requires is a copy of the same gene to be passed on. This is kin selection and occurs throughout the animal kingdom. The idea being that non-reproducing individuals share a proportion of their genome with the reproductively active individuals of the population. Contributing non-sexually to the success of the gene through e.g. hunting/rearing/defence indirectly increases the fitness of the shared gene.

As Mr. Blonde points out, the ‘gay gene’ or ‘multiple gay genes’ can be present in individuals without being expressed. However, the idea that these genes express themselves from time to time with neutral selection pressure is inaccurate. Random mutation of a ‘gay gene’ would occur at a lower rate than observed in the human population. This suggests that natural selection is selecting for or has been selecting for a higher proportion of gay individuals rather than selecting against or acting neutrally. This is also found in other animal species which supports the argument that homosexuality is selected for and not an evolutionary fluke or dead end.

In regards to related scientific advancements, developments in reproductive biology suggest that male x male reproduction is possible in the near future. Female x female reproduction will obviously be more challenging due to the lack of the Y chromosome. However, artificial Y-chromosomes could provide an alternate method for producing male offspring.

Edit :
I mentioned a book on this early last year http://www.nubblies.net/forums/im-ri...ost433039.html
She's still a beauty.

[f3lix]

DH, the scary thing to me is that you actually find nothing wrong with your viewpoints. It's one thing to think something and another to 100% believe it when the masses give you every reason to reconsider your position.

[Saint DH]

The masses? There are plenty of people who feel just the same as I do.

What's scary is that even though you acknowledge the effectiveness of media manipulation, you refuse to believe that your opinion has been persuaded by it.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Just because something happened naturally through nature, i.e. homosexuality, does that necessarily correlate to something we should accept? What about murder and rape and all of the naturally occurring things that we universally agree are bad? It sounds like you're taking a neutral position -- that like a pendulum, things swing back and forth, and nature has a way of constantly restoring balance to its own creation.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

Nice post, allow me to expand

I define my own "good and bad" (and I prefer nonjudgment of either) based on needless suffering to individuals. I know the spectrum of suffering intimately and judge my entire life based on as far down that spectrum as I am capable of seeing.

In the case of murder and rape, "obviously" (let's not get into it), it causes needless suffering and harm to other individuals. And for personal, ape-like, erotic power satisfaction. I would definitely say that while nature produced these, that is because their genetic traits somehow have survival advantage. This is unfortunate, but we humans are blessed with rationality to hopefully eventually tame these demons of our biological history.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, does not seem to cause any suffering to other human beings --- in fact, the oppression of homosexuals by others who feel fearful and threatened of "the other" in this case has caused a great deal of emotional (and in the case of hate crimes throughout history, physical) pain and suffering.


Homosexual people are still people. They have feelings and emotions and love just as deeply as us hetero's do. To think of them as anything different is just a delusional idea society (over thousands of years) has imprinted upon your psyche, one that we would all do well to do away with, given how the future seems to be panning out.


Gay or Straight, being forbid from being with/loving/seeing someone you love, on ANY level of love, is one of the worst tortures a human can endure. The "Reason" of Nature producing homosexuals is not my argument. My argument is that, their existence in and of themselves, given that there a multitude of them, who seem to have the same attractions to each other, really causes no harm, but really, unites humanity further in one of many societal niches.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Homosexuality and its acceptance and promotion in our culture is causing suffering to DH. He is clearly distressed, worries about it being shoved down his future children's throats, and feels like it's degrading the moral fabric of society. The cause of suffering for one person might be a source of joy for another.

Your reluctance to label things either good or bad and preference to judge everything based on suffering oversimplifies things. In the above example you have to choose whose suffering you condone, which is effectively making a judgement call on good and bad.

[Mr. Blonde]

I'm offering a practical solution based on my own personal opinions, which, if they were to be standard they would minimize true human suffering. By not judging the morality of homosexuality and instead seeing that, properly allowed to develop, it hurts no one. I am actually taking a stance, regardless of your frustration about my non-judgment, I have just taken a stance that is different from DH's, based on grounds that I (personally) deem to be the correct way of interpreting how things are.

Homosexuality and its acceptance and promotion in our culture is causing suffering to DH. He is clearly distressed, worries about it being shoved down his future children's throats, and feels like it's degrading the moral fabric of society. The cause of suffering for one person might be a source of joy for another.

I can only hope you're high-level trolling/playing devil's advocate at this point, otherwise this is one of the least-wise statements I have heard you make. If DH is truly suffering that much about gays, perhaps he needs to pay closer attention to the abundance in his life compared to people in the world who are starving and dying right now. "Those people expressing love with each other in a way I disagree with and this makes me suffer!"

I don't usually get this involved, because philosophy is one thing, but basic fucking human rights is another.

Civil Rights and its acceptance and promotion in our culture is causing suffering to DH. He is clearly distressed, worries about it being shoved down his future children's throats, and feels like it's degrading the moral fabric of society. The cause of suffering for one person might be a source of joy for another.

Women's Rights and its acceptance and promotion in our culture is causing suffering to DH. He is clearly distressed, worries about it being shoved down his future children's throats, and feels like it's degrading the moral fabric of society. The cause of suffering for one person might be a source of joy for another.

The abolition of slavery and its acceptance and promotion in our culture is causing suffering to DH. He is clearly distressed, worries about it being shoved down his future children's throats, and feels like it's degrading the moral fabric of society. The cause of suffering for one person might be a source of joy for another.

Alcohol in 1920 and its acceptance and promotion in our culture is causing suffering to DH. He is clearly distressed, worries about it being shoved down his future children's throats, and feels like it's degrading the moral fabric of society. The cause of suffering for one person might be a source of joy for another.

---


lol, stop worrying what other people are doing that pisses you off. Like DH has anything important to say about the "moral fabric" of anything. how many hours of their short lives are people going to waste on hatin' gays?

[Saint DH]

Fuck off Blonde.

You paint this picture of homosexuals as some kind of normal people who just want to "love" each other.

The reality is that it's a very small group of people who are home to various mental illnesses beyond homosexuality, promiscuous to a disgusting level, and disease vectors. I think anyone could objectively say that a lack of self control manifested as lust is a degrading character trait.

Once again, your entire fucking argument is a false equivalency fallacy. Good job.

I would say that a more correct analogy would be:

Alcoholism and its acceptance and promotion in our culture is causing suffering to DH. He is clearly distressed, worries about it being shoved down his future children's throats, and feels like it's degrading the moral fabric of society. The cause of suffering for one person might be a source of joy for another.

Crystal Meth use and its acceptance and promotion in our culture is causing suffering to DH. He is clearly distressed, worries about it being shoved down his future children's throats, and feels like it's degrading the moral fabric of society. The cause of suffering for one person might be a source of joy for another.

Gluttony and its acceptance and promotion in our culture is causing suffering to DH. He is clearly distressed, worries about it being shoved down his future children's throats, and feels like it's degrading the moral fabric of society. The cause of suffering for one person might be a source of joy for another.

[Dent]

F3lix are you planning on responding to my post from yesterday?
I'm not sure if you've came across kin selection, natural selection is very complex.
I posted the ants link because the vast majority of ants do not reproduce and it doesn't look like a dead end tactic, they have been around for around a hundred million years.

Mr. Blonde, you were arguing for 'gay genes' as being selectively neutral, can you see that this is extremely unlikely to be the case?

Here's more evidence that the 'gay genes' have been advantageous in the evolutionary landscape. (Selection coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Females with gay siblings have more offspring.

Originally Posted by paper

female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives.

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

The cause of suffering for one person might be a source of joy for another.

Agreed.
Do we have a right to inflict involuntary suffering on others, and what do we do if there is an irreconcilable difference?

[Dent]

KNEEL!! - YouTube

KNEEL!! - YouTube

[f3lix]

Originally Posted by Johnny Richter

The masses? There are plenty of people who feel just the same as I do.

What's scary is that even though you acknowledge the effectiveness of media manipulation, you refuse to believe that your opinion has been persuaded by it.

DH, you couldn't be further from the truth. As a teacher, I see EVERY kind of kid. I see kids of parents who have belief systems like you do. I see parents who hate their children because they are gay. These are the absolute WORST people I have ever come across. Their children come to school every day feeling that their parents don't love them for being who they are. I really hope you have a kid who ends up being gay so you can realize what a fucking imbecile you are.

[f3lix]

Originally Posted by Dent

F3lix are you planning on responding to my post from yesterday?
I'm not sure if you've came across kin selection, natural selection is very complex.
I posted the ants link because the vast majority of ants do not reproduce and it doesn't look like a dead end tactic, they have been around for around a hundred million years.

Mr. Blonde, you were arguing for 'gay genes' as being selectively neutral, can you see that this is extremely unlikely to be the case?

Here's more evidence that the 'gay genes' have been advantageous in the evolutionary landscape. (Selection coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Females with gay siblings have more offspring.

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity





Agreed.
Do we have a right to inflict involuntary suffering on others, and what do we do if there is an irreconcilable difference?

This is my response.

10 Frightening Facts You Probably Didn't Know About Ants

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Johnny Richter

Fuck off Blonde.

You paint this picture of homosexuals as some kind of normal people who just want to "love" each other.

The reality is that it's a very small group of people who are home to various mental illnesses beyond homosexuality, promiscuous to a disgusting level, and disease vectors. I think anyone could objectively say that a lack of self control manifested as lust is a degrading character trait.

Once again, your entire fucking argument is a false equivalency fallacy. Good job.

It has become clear to me that DH, buried softly in his little Indiana cocoon of consciousness, has not had the absolute fuck beaten out of him at least once in his life.

Next time I visit Indiana, I will gladly take on this public duty to help further your studies in life. Consider this a guarantee, sworn on the oath of the sexbear;

Next time I see you in person, at the appropriate moment, I will look you directly in the eye, put down my drink, and request for you to step outside with me to have a discussion. You have a choice of cowardly refusing, at which point I'll be asking you the same question for all of eternity, or you have the choice of coming outside with me and having said discussion, and seeing where it leads.

Unfortunately, receiving a public and humiliating beating is the only way you are going to graduate, and I am more than happy to issue said beating, in the spirit of your further development from a fearful ape-boy into a human being.

I'm dead serious, and I'm insane enough to go through with it. <3

[Dent]

Originally Posted by f3lix

This is my response.

10 Frightening Facts You Probably Didn't Know About Ants

thanks for kneeling f3lix

[Saint DH]

Blonde,

Take a few minutes to think about what you're saying.

You don't want to go down this road. I'll assume this is just playful banter at this point.

[Saint DH]

Originally Posted by f3lix

DH, you couldn't be further from the truth. As a teacher, I see EVERY kind of kid. I see kids of parents who have belief systems like you do. I see parents who hate their children because they are gay. These are the absolute WORST people I have ever come across. Their children come to school every day feeling that their parents don't love them for being who they are. I really hope you have a kid who ends up being gay so you can realize what a fucking imbecile you are.

Muh anecdotal evidence.

Fuck off retard.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Well that escalated quickly. DH I'd take a snapshot of that, in case heaven forbid you have to press charges against a fellow nubblite.

Blonde, chill out. I'll assume you're just having a bad day and letting off some harmless steam.

Your solution is the equivalent of a father trying to beat the gay out of his son. This is the US and DH has the right not to be persecuted for his beliefs. If you want to live like a zealous animal there's plenty of that shit waiting for you in the Islamic State. You wouldn't be the white knight in this situation and I doubt many gay people would approve of such actions in their name.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I can only hope you're high-level trolling/playing devil's advocate at this point, otherwise this is one of the least-wise statements I have heard you make.

Of course I'm playing devil's advocate I'm just trying to point out that what causes suffering is different for people. DH being emotionally distressed over homosexuality is clearly not on the same level, which is why I advocate a more nuanced approach to how we decide what is harmful and what is not.

On a personal note DH, it's not so much your view that homosexuality is wrong that I find disturbing (as you say, a lot of people feel it is wrong), it's the reasoning you use to reach your conclusion, and the absolute venom and hate you spew in expressing it. It actually scares me and makes me not want to be associated with you in any way. I don't know you in person or what you're capable of, but please never act out on these feelings.

You never did give me a thoughtful answer to my post a few posts back, so I consider our conversation over.