Homosexuality Debates

On 28-Jul-2009 Craizen said:

I knew in when I was in 6th grade. Common age.

Now I grew up with both parents, have three older brothers, and a tomboy of a sister. Yes, I had plenty of women in my life, but a lot a male influences also.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline...153/1/27

There's one of the studies into the effect that I mentioned to you. As you can see from the conclusion the increased number of older brothers increases the chances of homosexuality as opposed to decreasing it.

It's thought to do with antibodies in the womb that are developed by the mother with each successive male child, although that's just a theory as to why the effect occurs.

Another link which explains it in a little more detail: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13555604/

Even with at least a ten year age gap?

See I don't know If I'm quite into studies like that.

Probably to many anomalies for me.

« Last edited by Craizen on Jul 29th 2009 »

On 29-Jul-2009 Craizen said:

Even with at least a ten year age gap?

See I don't know If I'm quite into studies like that.

Probably to many anomalies for me.

Unless you can find a problem with the methodology of the study or an ulterior motive behind it (for example a study of homosexuality by fundamentalist Christian groups is likely to be skewed against homosexuals by selective sampling or misleading numbers) then you can't just disregard it entirely.

Even if the study does have some errors, at best it seems to indicate that having older brothers as other "male influences" in your life does not do anything to decrease the chances of being homosexual, as it has indicated the opposite to be true. But as I say, unless you can find an actual reason to disagree with the verdict of the study then I don't think you can just disregard it as being wrong.

True. But I still think an age gap has to play some role in that.

Evolution has basically been proven...

It happens through mutations, just as others have said, how are blind people born blind, how are people born with mental defects, born deaf, ect. It's all mutations of the genes. Some of these mutations are good, some are bad.

In humans, I think our evolution path is somewhat messed up. In the wild, those animals that are born blind probably won't survive. It's a bad mutation that doesn't really help most animal's lifestyles, especially, say, a primitive human. These animals wouldn't normally live to breed, generally keeping these animals out of the gene pool, which would help the race survive to develop good mutations and continue reproducing.

Things like homosexuality are touchy subjects, because no one knows for sure if all homosexuals "chose" to be homosexual, or if they were all born homosexual. I'm not sure if I'd say it's a defect or not, but if humans are born with it is certainly a genetic mutation. Homosexuals, although they generally can reproduce, cannot reproduce with another person of the same sex. Just doesn't work. If they don't reproduce, they aren't producing for the species. However, the world's overpopulated anyway. What difference does it make?

Another thing that's been debated: does it make you homosexual to have homosexual intercourse. My answer: no. Sexual intercourse does not determine your sexuality. The act of it doesn't, anyway. If you enjoy homosexual intercourse, then I would say you are homosexual. You do choose to have homosexual sex (unless it is rape), but that doesn't mean you choose to be homosexual.

I Dont See How Theres A Debate on how people live there lives i am Straight but I love Gays Guys and Women.What People do in there bed room is there business and no one elses

yeah, it's not like it changes people. if you knew someone for a long time and were friends with them and then you found out they were gay, i don't think the friendship should change, since you got along with them great before.

Very Well Said My Friend

Thanks. I see homosexuality as a way of life, not a defect.

On 27-Aug-2009 dragonx254 said:

Thanks. I see homosexuality as a way of life, not a defect.

If that was the case for everyone then yes there would be no debate, but there are a relatively significant number of people out there who would view that as the other way around.

yeah, it's not like it changes people. if you knew someone for a long time and were friends with them and then you found out they were gay, i don't think the friendship should change, since you got along with them great before.

Agree entirely with this, as already said regardless of what their sexual orientation is doesn't change the person that they are.

@LoveMeBaby: I can appreciate you acknowledging his post but could you make sure that all posts add something to the debate in future please, just keeps the debate moving along.

« Last edited by super craig on Aug 27th 2009 »

On 24-Aug-2009 City of Wonder said:

Evolution has basically been proven...

It happens through mutations, just as others have said, how are blind people born blind, how are people born with mental defects, born deaf, ect. It's all mutations of the genes. Some of these mutations are good, some are bad.

In humans, I think our evolution path is somewhat messed up. In the wild, those animals that are born blind probably won't survive. It's a bad mutation that doesn't really help most animal's lifestyles, especially, say, a primitive human. These animals wouldn't normally live to breed, generally keeping these animals out of the gene pool, which would help the race survive to develop good mutations and continue reproducing.

Things like homosexuality are touchy subjects, because no one knows for sure if all homosexuals "chose" to be homosexual, or if they were all born homosexual. I'm not sure if I'd say it's a defect or not, but if humans are born with it is certainly a genetic mutation. Homosexuals, although they generally can reproduce, cannot reproduce with another person of the same sex. Just doesn't work. If they don't reproduce, they aren't producing for the species. However, the world's overpopulated anyway. What difference does it make?

Another thing that's been debated: does it make you homosexual to have homosexual intercourse. My answer: no. Sexual intercourse does not determine your sexuality. The act of it doesn't, anyway. If you enjoy homosexual intercourse, then I would say you are homosexual. You do choose to have homosexual sex (unless it is rape), but that doesn't mean you choose to be homosexual.

Again, as stated numerous times, mutations don't prove evolution at all, as the fact is that mutations are always losses of information; never has the gaining of genetic information been recorded.

Point invalid.

On 27-Aug-2009 tbug2007 said:

Again, as stated numerous times, mutations don't prove evolution at all, as the fact is that mutations are always losses of information; never has the gaining of genetic information been recorded.

Point invalid.

I disagree, but agree. It is impossible to definitively prove almost any scientific theory, but there is a lot of evidence supporting it. However, the point is not invalid. From my biology text book:
"One kind of mutation that provides evidence of the history of evolution is gene duplication. Duplication of a gene produces gene families-multiple copies of nearly identical DNA sequences. Some of these copies, called psuedogenes, no longer function. They are neither transcribed nor translated. Because psuedogenes are not expressed, they are not subjected to natural selection. Therefore, evolutionary theory predicts psuedogenes accumulate faster than functional genes in the same family. Genetic studies have confirmed this prediction."

That occurs by a double split gene. That's not spontaneously generated, which is what I (personally) assume you're saying.

And that has what to do with what causes homosexuality which we still don't know?

I don't really care until they start acting a little too diferently because of it. I'm talking almost completely personality changes.

@ Tbug: There are different classes of mutations, Deletion, Duplication, Inversion, Translocation and INSERTION, which as the name suggests involves adding material and I raise my point again:

Things gain new genetic material all the time, just look at bacteria and plasmids, they are constantly changing, just look at all the superbugs in hospitals now, when we first started using antibiotics on a wide scale there was nothing like this, yet now we have bacteria that are resistant to our very strongest antibiotics and it has become a real problem. So why were bacteria then affected by them but now they aren't, either god created new bacteria (goes against the story of creation) or they are genetically different now to what they were before (evolution).

Also what is a double split gene? As far as my textbooks say it happens spontaneously and is simply the duplication of a series of nucleotides from a chromosome, no splitting genes about it.

Now back to homosexuality.

@Craizen: I'm pretty sure that if your straight friend had a complete change of personality for whatever reason chances are you'd not get on as well so its not just a homosexuality thing. Also I'm pretty sure in most cases someone 'coming out' doesn't change anything about thier personality at all.

As for the first point, it's still the same bug. It's immune system is like ours, in a way. When we gain immunity from a bugg, are we gaining new genetic material? No. As for the superbug deal, I see what you're saying, but what you've said is flawed.

Is there guaranteed proof that those buggs didn't exist before we noticed them? Speaking technically, they still have the same "footprint" as the old bug. Again, as I've said before, when our vaccines killed off all the weak bugs, it only left the strong bugs to multiply. Hence, superbugs.

Against that, I take it that you believe in spontaneous generation, which we both know didn't happen. Thus, it doesn't go against God, it's NOT "natural selection" (as I know and can explain why it doesn't exist). Need a more decent explanation?

Assuming the superbugs didn't exist at all, there were also some of the weak bugs that were carriers of the "superbug" gene. As that bug reproduced, it will reproduce both weak and strong bugs. You won't be able to kill out a trait completely. Many of the superbugs today (almost all infact) carry weak bug genes. When they reproduce, they will have both weak and strong bugs. Since the weak bugs get killed, the strong remain. I will agree though, they are coming more and more, because the trait is getting more and more dominant. But still, it's not an addition of genetic information. It's a loss, considering the weak gene is falling away.

Ignore my double split statement, I worded it wrong. What I will say against rate_me though, is "confirmed" is a universal statement. Science can't TRULY and completely "prove" anything. While the point may be valid, it is still not proven.

On 28-Aug-2009 tbug2007 said:

As for the first point, it's still the same bug. It's immune system is like ours, in a way. When we gain immunity from a bugg, are we gaining new genetic material? No. As for the superbug deal, I see what you're saying, but what you've said is flawed.

Is there guaranteed proof that those buggs didn't exist before we noticed them? Speaking technically, they still have the same "footprint" as the old bug. Again, as I've said before, when our vaccines killed off all the weak bugs, it only left the strong bugs to multiply. Hence, superbugs.

Against that, I take it that you believe in spontaneous generation, which we both know didn't happen. Thus, it doesn't go against God, it's NOT "natural selection" (as I know and can explain why it doesn't exist). Need a more decent explanation?

Assuming the superbugs didn't exist at all, there were also some of the weak bugs that were carriers of the "superbug" gene. As that bug reproduced, it will reproduce both weak and strong bugs. You won't be able to kill out a trait completely. Many of the superbugs today (almost all infact) carry weak bug genes. When they reproduce, they will have both weak and strong bugs. Since the weak bugs get killed, the strong remain. I will agree though, they are coming more and more, because the trait is getting more and more dominant. But still, it's not an addition of genetic information. It's a loss, considering the weak gene is falling away.

Ignore my double split statement, I worded it wrong. What I will say against rate_me though, is "confirmed" is a universal statement. Science can't TRULY and completely "prove" anything. While the point may be valid, it is still not proven.

I would like to discuss this further but I fear that will lead us down the road of offtopicness as we get away from the idea of evolution and homosexuality and purely onto evolution, we need a new topic for this.

(for the record I don't believe in Spontaneous generation).

« Last edited by super craig on Aug 29th 2009 »

(I figured)

I agree, we're getting offtopic. We can discuss this more on MSN, if you have it. [email protected].

Anyway, back on topic.

- Your personal views on gay rights Sure. They can do what they want. As long as no homo ever tries to touch me, I don't care.
- Whether or not homosexuality is a "choice" Of course it's a choice. Everybody's born equal, they're choosing to be different.
- The issue of gay marriage - yes or no? No. Marriage is symbolic & a luxury.
- Religious views on gay marriage NO HOMO.

On 03-Sep-2009 SoONEr Magic52 said:

- Your personal views on gay rights Sure. They can do what they want. As long as no homo ever tries to touch me, I don't care.
- Whether or not homosexuality is a "choice" Of course it's a choice. Everybody's born equal, they're choosing to be different.
- The issue of gay marriage - yes or no? No. Marriage is symbolic & a luxury.
- Religious views on gay marriage NO HOMO.

So if it is a choice then equally you must have chosen to be heterosexual? Surely if we are all born equal then men should be the same as women, therefore men should like what women like and vica versa. As has been mentioned numerous times, people are killed for been homosexuals in some countries or are treated very badly, not something you would willingly chose to be.

Marriage is symbolic you are right and it symbolises love between 2 people which is the case between 2 homosexuals correct? As for it been a luxury, I don't see why this should stop gay people marrying, for a start you can hardly call it a luxury and even if it was that would also mean homosexuals shouldn't be allowed other luxuries like a car or a nice piece of cake.

I assume when you say touch you mean come onto you and not simply brush past you in the street or shake your hand when you meet them.