Do you believe that civil gay unions should be legalised?

togster

@delah you will never change people like the gopher. He is still a kid and mentally conditioned to think a certain way in order to feel included in a society that is still playing catch up. With experience in life is opinion will hopefully soften. However i would say that most people would agree that all people should have equal rights. Growing up in small town ireland often renders many to think on their own too feet and for themselves and not as a collective.

Sir Oxman

randylonghorn wrote: »

[MyLastWordOnTheSubject] NO ... he did NOT say that! He said that given the trend of modern equality legislation etc., he knew that his personal opinion was out of sync with the trend, and that he would find his case difficult to argue ... so would simply cast his personal vote according to his conscience rather than actively engaging / campaigning on the subject ... [/MyLastWordOnTheSubject]

I accept that and apologise to yer man/woman.

Tha Gopher

delah wrote: »

, the SA bloke you know in work must be bent cos he gets on with a fcuking roide and doesn't roide her (as far as you know, boy)

Can you even read? You are making your own story there

togster wrote: »

@delah you will never change people like the gopher. He is still a kid and mentally conditioned to think a certain way in order to feel included in a society that is still playing catch up. With experience in life is opinion will hopefully soften. However i would say that most people would agree that all people should have equal rights. Growing up in small town ireland often renders many to think on their own too feet and for themselves and not as a collective.

Oh jesus christ.

My point is this

a- I have nothing against gays

b- Most Irish males do

c- I think people here are pretending this is not the case

d- EVERYONE with friends seeks their acceptance.

Aard

Tha Gopher wrote: »

a- I have nothing against gays

The fact that you'd deny them equal rights leads one to believe that, contrary to what you proclaim, you do have something against gays.

Varkov

luckat wrote: »

Slight thread creep here, but if you and your spouse and extended family were killed, and you had to choose (from beyond the grave) who would bring your children up, which would you prefer:

* A violent alcoholic heterosexual and his cowed, unloving wife

or

* Two loving people who are homosexual

In the given situation, I think everyone including myself would agree.
-Two loving people who are homosexual
-A violent alcoholic heterosexual and his cowed, unloving wife

But the best enviroment for the child would always be.
-Two loving people who are heterosexual
-Two loving people who are homosexual
-A violent alcoholic heterosexual and his cowed, unloving wife

Zillah

I don't know if this has been posted before, and frankly I don't care, this is far too long a thread to crawl through.

Ten Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. People always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

ixoy

Tha Gopher wrote: »

a- I have nothing against gays

Yes you do - you won't even talk to them.

b- Most Irish males do

Not in my experience. Funnily enough I still have all the friends I've always had - didn't lose one. Nor did I suddenly stop going out with them or start only ever going to certain pubs (here's something: gay people can to all pubs. They may be sitting beside you, drinking a pint, and you'd never know!)

c- I think people here are pretending this is not the case

Because it's not to the extent you make it out, which is basically shunning. People feeling uncomfortable around two guys being intimate? Of course, I'd believe that. Insinuating that most straight guys couldn't even be friends with a gay person is just crap.

Cokehead Mother

ixoy wrote: »

gay people can to all pubs. They may be sitting beside you, drinking a pint, and you'd never know!

May God have mercy on us all!!! :eek:

Mr.Micro

Well our very own Graham Norton once told this joke ( apologies if I am not absolutely correct). What's the difference between a straight man and a gay man? 4 or 5 pints of lager. Boom boom.

Jesus Wept

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Well our very own Graham Norton once told this joke ( apologies if I am not absolutely correct). What's the difference between a straight man and a gay man? 4 or 5 pints of lager. Boom boom.

Good old Graham, stealing jokes.

Original joke:

Question: What's the difference between a dog and a fox?
Answer: About 8 pints.

CrazyTalk

Zillah wrote: »

I don't know if this has been posted before, and frankly I don't care, this is far too long a thread to crawl through.

Ten Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. People always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

This is supposed to be humorous, right? I mean, it has to be the most hilarious and ridiculous thing I've ever read

L31mr0d

CrazyTalk wrote: »

This is supposed to be humorous, right? I mean, it has to be the most hilarious and ridiculous thing I've ever read

see zillah, its for people like this that you need to make use of smilies in your comments ;):rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The_Minister

CrazyTalk wrote: »

This is supposed to be humorous, right? I mean, it has to be the most hilarious and ridiculous thing I've ever read

*Sigh* Of course it is. Nearly every one of those points could be rebutted by a child. He was being ever so humourous.

randylonghorn

The-Rigger wrote: »

Original joke:

No, the original of the species has got to be:

"How do you separate the men from the boys in the navy?"

"With a crowbar!"

(OK ... that's at least two friends I've just 'offended' ... {except they're not that fucking stupid / hyper-sensitive} ... any advance on two? )

randylonghorn

ixoy wrote: »

gay people can to all pubs. They may be sitting beside you, drinking a pint, and you'd never know!)

:eek: Wait! ... you mean that guy earlier really WAS checking out my arse?!

/glances over shoulder


Oh well ... 'spose I can't really blame him! ^_^

Tha Gopher

ixoy wrote: »

Yes you do - you won't even talk to them.
.

Congratulations. You are now the 3rd poster to completely misread/confuse what I said.

Goodnight.

Aard wrote: »

The fact that you'd deny them equal rights leads one to believe that, contrary to what you proclaim, you do have something against gays.

I cant even be arsed arguing with you re why this should not stem as far as adoption.

Incidentally I dont think people like Angelina Jolie who until recently was simply too lazy to have her own child should be allowed to adopt.

Am I a Joliephobe?

Aard

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Aard wrote:

The fact that you'd deny them equal rights leads one to believe that, contrary to what you proclaim, you do have something against gays.

I cant even be arsed arguing with you re why this should not stem as far as adoption.

Incidentally I dont think people like Angelina Jolie who until recently was simply too lazy to have her own child should be allowed to adopt.

Am I a Joliephobe?

Where did I say anything about adoption? I'm talking about the topic of the thread: civil unions. What I said was, that if you deny gay people civil unions, then you must have something against gays - contrary to what you said a few posts up. That's all.

Tha Gopher

But the question isnt unions as such, but whether they should be viewed as equal to current marriage and all the same rights that entails.

ixoy

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Congratulations. You are now the 3rd poster to completely misread/confuse what I said.

So you'll talk to an openly gay man in front of your friends then and not worry about what they'd think?

Tha Gopher

ixoy wrote: »

So you'll talk to an openly gay man in front of your friends then and not worry about what they'd think?

I wouldnt use the word "worry".

Aard

Tha Gopher wrote: »

But the question isnt unions as such, but whether they should be viewed as equal to current marriage and all the same rights that entails.

Listen, basically I'm just trying to point out that you DO have something against gays, and every one of your replies has had little to do with what I've actually said.

Kold

I think all marriage should be banned tbh. And as for children? Rigourous testing open to all members of society but difficult as hell.

SimpleSam06

Aard wrote: »

The fact that you'd deny them equal rights

Just on a point of interest here, they have equal rights, same as anyone else. They want an extension of their existing rights.

To be honest I don't see that marraige as a legal structure serves a whole lot of purpose any more. Yes it had value back in medieval times, but society isn't what it was. If its that important, sign a contract, then you can hold hands in the woods under the moonlight or whatever you like.

I also have issue with the idea that someone can "be" gay, as in hardwired genetically. This whole notion cropped up first with Oscar Wilde's flamboyantly homosexual style, and has inspired generations of impersonators ever since. Before that you were just a man who liked sex with men, a kink like bondage or wife swapping.

I think this is important because it allows people who enjoy same-sex couplings to point to people who find it distasteful and decry them in the same manner as racists. I can't help who I am, etc.

On that same note, I think people who find it distasteful and make it theri business to interfere in others lives should just shut the fuck up and get back to work.

I couldn't give a tinkers damn where you stick it, once its between consenting adults. Two men, two women, a man and a woman, three men and a woman, live your life as you see fit, go for it. Its no business of mine or anyone else what you do with your time (once all are consenting adults).

ixoy

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

To be honest I don't see that marraige as a legal structure serves a whole lot of purpose any more.

But it does have value - such as ensuring inheritance rights or visitation rights in hospital. Rightly or wrongly, we still have these and so it's only fair to extend them to gay couples when straight couples have them too. That's aside from the tax incentives which is an issue I'm not even as pushed about.

I also have issue with the idea that someone can "be" gay, as in hardwired genetically. This whole notion cropped up first with Oscar Wilde's flamboyantly homosexual style, and has inspired generations of impersonators ever since. Before that you were just a man who liked sex with men, a kink like bondage or wife swapping.

I'm not too sure what you're saying here - do you not believe men can fall in love with other men, both physically and emotionally? Because they most certainly can and nobody taught me how to do it.
Or is it more you don't believe in a certain nature - the flamboyancy of Wilde - being hard wired?

Tar.Aldarion

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Just on a point of interest here, they have equal rights, same as anyone else. They want an extension of their existing rights.

Their rights are hardly equal if they need an extension to those rights to get the same rights as other people, now are they?

togster

Tha Gopher wrote: »

I wouldnt use the word "worry".

So what word would you use? Basically you are afraid to in case your friends might take the piss. So really you are a sheep. A scared sheep

SimpleSam06

ixoy wrote: »

But it does have value - such as ensuring inheritance rights or visitation rights in hospital. Rightly or wrongly, we still have these and so it's only fair to extend them to gay couples when straight couples have them too. That's aside from the tax incentives which is an issue I'm not even as pushed about.

Perhaps its the legal implications of the institution of marraige that need to be revisited so. They do have these rights as they stand, just not with another person of the same gender. Saying they don't have equal rights is misleading. As for tax incentives or visitation rights, why not. It needs to be approached with caution however to ensure there is no scope for abuse (as with everything to do with money).

ixoy wrote: »

Or is it more you don't believe in a certain nature - the flamboyancy of Wilde - being hard wired?

I was saying the behaviour isn't genetically hardwired. Who knows, had Oscar been born to a different social strata, he might have been a missionary or an accountant, and no one would have ever heard of him. I do think this behaviour is largely nurture, not nature. Not that its morally wrong in some demented victorian fashion, either way.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Their rights are hardly equal if they need an extension to those rights to get the same rights as other people, now are they?

Well lets look at it from a different angle. What rights were taken away from them, as opposed to anyone else, that they must now be restored? They have the same rights as anyone else. What they are trying to do is extend those rights. Actually upon ponderation, I see no reason why not.

SimpleSam06

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Well lets look at it from a different angle. What rights were taken away from them, as opposed to anyone else, that they must now be restored? They have the same rights as anyone else. What they are trying to do is extend those rights. Actually upon ponderation, I see no reason why not.

WHat are you on about? People who start off with less rights than other people don't have equal rights - it's got nothing to do with things being "taken away".
Women never had the vote - it was never taken away, they just didn't have it - I guess they had equal rights to men?

(And if I'm wrong on that example, my point still holds)

I was saying the behaviour isn't genetically hardwired.

Mm, I guess the homosexual animals observed in nature with absolutely no interference from us were taught their behaviour too.

This whole notion cropped up first with Oscar Wilde's flamboyantly homosexual style

No, it didn't.
Ancient romans, anyone...?

Edit: just to make sure, you think anyone being gay anywhere in the world all originated from Oscar Wilde...?

Tar.Aldarion

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Perhaps its the legal implications of the institution of marraige that need to be revisited so. They do have these rights as they stand, just not with another person of the same gender. Saying they don't have equal rights is misleading.

This is akin to voting in the olden days, everybody has the right to vote, well if they have land and an estate. There was a distinct relationship between tax payments and voting rights. Or a more recent case, would-be voters in the United States had to take literacy tests to qualify to register to vote, oh yes, they all have the same rights, as long as they had the right background etc.
That is not equal rights.

I was saying the behaviour isn't genetically hardwired. Who knows, had Oscar been born to a different social strata, he might have been a missionary or an accountant, and no one would have ever heard of him. I do think this behaviour is largely nurture, not nature. Not that its morally wrong in some demented victorian fashion, either way.

So other animals nurture their children to be homosexual too?
How exactly does one get raised differently so as to be attracted to a different sex? I find it quite unlikely that I could have been raised in such a way as to find men attractive.

Well lets look at it from a different angle. What rights were taken away from them, as opposed to anyone else, that they must now be restored? They have the same rights as anyone else. What they are trying to do is extend those rights. Actually upon ponderation, I see no reason why not.

The right to engage in matrimony with the one they love and get the same benefits as anybody else. Would you say no rights were being taken from you if you were only allowed marry a man(even though you are about as attracted to a man as you are to a cow) to get the same rights as other people?

ixoy

bluewolf wrote: »

WHat are you on about? People who start off with less rights than other people don't have equal rights - it's got nothing to do with things being "taken away".

I think it's an issue of semantics - as a gay man I've just as much right to marry a woman as a straight man.
The extension of the rights needs I suppose to be more seen as a new understanding of the right to partner with the person you love, regardless of gender.

I do think this behaviour is largely nurture, not nature. Not that its morally wrong in some demented victorian fashion, either way.

Just to be clear, this behaviour is the flamboyancy rather than the physical attraction to men?

SimpleSam06

bluewolf wrote: »

WHat are you on about? People who start off with less rights than other people don't have equal rights - it's got nothing to do with things being "taken away".
Women never had the vote - it was never taken away, they just didn't have it - I guess they had equal rights to men?

No, they didn't have the same rights as men, this example is a false dichotomy. Same sex couples can still marry, same as anyone else. What they want is an extension to that right to marry others of the same gender. I have already stated I don't really see a problem with that, so I'm not sure why it is still being debated.

bluewolf wrote: »

No, it didn't.
Ancient romans, anyone...?
Edit: just to make sure, you think anyone being gay anywhere in the world all originated from Oscar Wilde...?

Sigh. Yes same sex couplings have been taking place throughout history. The idea of "being" gay, as in thats it, is a relatively new one. In ancient Greek society, it was considered an honour for young boys to sleep with military leaders. Homosexual behaviour was encouraged among the rank and file since that led to better units and more cohesive armies. That doesn't mean it was hardwired that many Greek soldiers were gay.

The largest sexual organ is the brain. The things that I found erotic when I was 14, 18 and later in life no longer have the same interest for me, and other things have taken their place. Its a big mistake to pigeonhole people based on their sexual preferences, ironically something the "gay" community is as guilty of as the right wing bible bashing community, and thats something I do have a problem with.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

How exactly does one get raised differently so as to be attracted to a different sex? I find it quite unlikely that I could have been raised in such a way as to find men attractive.

Don't mistake nurture (parental upbringing) for environment.

bluewolf wrote: »

Mm, I guess the homosexual animals observed in nature with absolutely no interference from us were taught their behaviour too.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

So other animals nurture their children to be homosexual too?

Hey, guess what, sex feels good, to animals as well as humans. Just because they get their jollies in one way at a given time doesn't mean they are hardwired, or even have a preference for it. Showing a video clip of two male baboons getting it on has absoloutely zero meaning. There is no "gay" gene, and if there was it would have been bred out of the species millenia ago, since it is completely counterproductive to reproduction.

Aard

Two male baboons having sex is one thing. Two male penguins raising a baby penguin is another.

SimpleSam06

Aard wrote: »

Two male baboons having sex is one thing. Two male penguins raising a baby penguin is another.

How so? Penguins can't be kinky? There might be any number of reasons for this behaviour, but its a mistake to think that animals are mindless drones running around on autopilot the whole time.

Kold

Lol, I love catching these things before they're instantly erased.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

So other animals nurture their children to be homosexual too?
How exactly does one get raised differently so as to be attracted to a different sex? I find it quite unlikely that I could have been raised in such a way as to find men attractive.

Aard wrote:

Two male baboons having sex is one thing. Two male penguins raising a baby penguin is another.

What animals are 100% homosexual? think you're missing Sam's point.

Tar.Aldarion

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Don't mistake nurture (parental upbringing) for environment.

I'm not, you are maintaining that 'parental upbringing' can and does cause 'gay' behaviour and not nature. I think that is nonsense, and nature has more of a play than you think.

Hey, guess what, sex feels good, to animals as well as humans. Just because they get their jollies in one way at a given time doesn't mean they are hardwired, or even have a preference for it. Showing a video clip of two male baboons getting it on has absoloutely zero meaning. There is no "gay" gene, and if there was it would have been bred out of the species millenia ago, since it is completely counterproductive to reproduction.

Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them. It is not a simple case of them only doing it for fun, a lot of anmals have been shown to only have same sex partners throughout their life.



You don't really fully understand evolution if that is your stance, natural selection and genetic drift are only the bare scraping of it. There area plethora of theories about homosexuality and evolution.
If homosexuals rarely have children, homosexual genes should decrease to the low frequency expected from recurrent random mutation, a frequency below one in a million. Even if Kinsey's estimate of one in ten is high, there can be no doubt that the abundance of homosexual men is too great to have stemmed from recurrent mutation alone.
That is a bold claim that there are no genes that can make you homosexual, when qualified geneticists do not know things for certain. One theory is that a gene that causes homosexuality in males but a completely different, beneficial, effect in females. There are many many more theories.

Richard Dawkins discusses it if you want a trivial read. :-)


Now, s for homosexuality in nature being simply bred out(if it was a case of natural selection alone), many species exhibit odd behaviour. A heteorsexual bonobo chimp would not be able to breed, for instance. They are not allowed to make friends in a flock and thus are notable to breed.
In some species that bond for life, homosexual pairs raise young. If they are females a male may fertilize their eggs. If they are males, a solitary female may mate with them and deposit her eggs in their nest.

From a quarter to over a half of couples in species have been observed to be homosexual. Male couples mate with a female just to have a baby in some cases. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.

There are even museum displays in different cities dedicated to the lives of homosexual animals.

What animals are 100% homosexual? think you're missing Sam's point.

A lot of species have a large percentage of homosexual individuals.

SimpleSam06

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I'm not, you are maintaining that 'parental upbringing' can and does cause 'gay' behaviour and not nature.

Er, no, I'm not. If parental upbringing was a major factor in people's behaviour, we wouldn't have a music industry.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species,

Whoa, slow down there. You mean animals of the same gender having sex, not hardwired homosexuality.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them. It is not a simple case of them only doing it for fun, a lot of anmals have been shown to only have same sex partners throughout their life.

I love these nice round numbers. Have you got a link, perchance?

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

You don't really fully understand evolution if that is your stance, natural selection and genetic drift are only the bare scraping of it.

That bare scraping forms the basis and significant bulk of evolutionary theory and modern biology. I'm not sure how you can handwave that away as a "bare scraping".

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

If homosexuals rarely have children, homosexual genes should decrease to the low frequency expected from recurrent random mutation, a frequency below one in a million. Even if Kinsey's estimate of one in ten is high, there can be no doubt that the abundance of homosexual men is too great to have stemmed from recurrent mutation alone.

Yes, therefore the obvious conclusion is that genetics are not responsible for this behaviour.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

That is a bold claim that there are no genes that can make you homosexual, when qualified geneticists do not know things for certain.

Perhaps I should have said that no homosexual gene or combination of genes that might contribute to homosexuality has been found yet, despite extensive research in the area. In my opinion, it will never be found - it just makes no sense.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

A heteorsexual bonobo chimp would not be able to breed, for instance. They are not allowed to make friends in a flock and thus are notable to breed.

Ah the bonobo chimp. From wikipedia:

Sexual activity happens within the immediate family as well as outside it, and often involves adults and children, even infants. Bonobos do not form permanent relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by gender or age, with the possible exception of sexual intercourse between mothers and their adult sons; some observers believe these pairings are taboo. When Bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, presumably decreasing tension and allowing for peaceful feeding.

Bonobo males frequently engage in various forms of male-male genital sex (frot). One form has two males hang from a tree limb face-to-face while "penis fencing". Frot may also occur where two males rub their penises together while in missionary position. A special form of frot called "rump rubbing" occurs to express reconciliation between two males after a conflict, where they stand back-to-back and rub their scrotal sacs together.

Bonobo females also engage in female-female genital sex (tribadism) to socially bond with each other, thus forming a female nucleus of Bonobo society. The bonding between females allows them to dominate Bonobo society - although male Bonobos are individually stronger, they cannot stand alone against a united group of females. Adolescent females often leave their native community to join another community. Sexual bonding with other females establishes the new females as members of the group. This migration mixes the Bonobo gene pools, providing genetic diversity.

So, your "homosexual" behaviour is either a social performance, or animals fucking for the hell of it. Which brings us straight back to my original point. Your misrepresentations of the behaviour of these creatures leads me to believe you have some sort of a personal axe to grind.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

In some species that bond for life, homosexual pairs raise young. If they are females a male may fertilize their eggs. If they are males, a solitary female may mate with them and deposit her eggs in their nest.

Which species? And how exactly is this homosexual in the human sense?

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

There are even museum displays in different cities dedicated to the lives of homosexual animals.

These would be American cities, I take it, also home to such wonders as creationism museums.

Tar.Aldarion

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Er, no, I'm not. If parental upbringing was a major factor in people's behaviour, we wouldn't have a music industry.

Then what are you talking about when you say:

I do think this behaviour is largely nurture, not nature.

Whoa, slow down there. You mean animals of the same gender having sex, not hardwired homosexuality.
I love these nice round numbers. Have you got a link, perchance?

Um, use google if you want a link about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. his is not a disputed fact, the figures are round because people use round figures.
What exactly is the difference between an animal having only male partners for life and 'hardwired homosexuality'? What is your definition of this 'hardwired homosexuality'?

That bare scraping forms the basis and significant bulk of evolutionary theory and modern biology. I'm not sure how you can handwave that away as a "bare scraping".

that is the beginning and the basis, it is the bare scraping of understanding evolution fully.

Yes, therefore the obvious conclusion is that genetics are not responsible for this behaviour.

That 'obvious' conclusion is also a very implausible one. The documentation that that quote comes from goes on to describe why this social science orthodoxy that you hold to is always implausible.
The answer is not a simple 'obvious conclusion is that genetics are not responsible for this behaviour' more so that it is just not understood yet why this is the case. This is the equivalent to 'It is not known how the sun rises' and you saying that,well then, the obvious conclusion is that god does it. Instead of querying the workings of evolution, making a wild claim. Recurrent mutation alone is not the answer, so, I even gave you an example out of many about genes being beneficial to women but being passed onto men.

Perhaps I should have said that no homosexual gene or combination of genes that might contribute to homosexuality has been found yet, despite extensive research in the area. In my opinion, it will never be found - it just makes no sense.

Why does it not make sense?
Sexual orientation is complex, it may of course be that it is not found in a single 'gay gene' that does not mean that sexuality is not genetic. It's going to be a combination of various genes acting together to form a person.
Even if sexual orientation is not dictated by genes alone, I believe it plays a far more significant part from my studies of genetics.

Ah the bonobo chimp. From wikipedia:

So, your "homosexual" behaviour is either a social performance, or animals fucking for the hell of it. Which brings us straight back to my original point. Your misrepresentations of the behaviour of these creatures leads me to believe you have some sort of a personal axe to grind.

Your quote says nothing against what I have said, I was arguing against homosexual behaviour being 'bred out' for the advancement of a species and cited that some chimps have been shunned due to heterosexual behaviour, I'm sure the same occurs with pure homosexual behaviour, they could not bond with the flock and thus they were not mated with. Your quote just says 'they also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by gender or age' as I said, it is their way of living and so homosexual behaviour is not being bred out by design. Homosexuals have sex 'for kicks' with the females and their genes carry on. If anything, you are helping my point.

A personal axe to grind? Against what?

Which species? And how exactly is this homosexual in the human sense?

If you want an example, some swan species.
What is 'homosexual in the human sense'?
I am still arguing about homosexuality being bred out, which you claimed it would have been if genetics made people homosexual, by giving examples of howhomosexuals have their genescarried forth.

These would be American cities, I take it, also home to such wonders as creationism museums.

Actually they are around the world, and because something stems from America, it does not make it wrong.

Dudess

I had a cat who may not have been gay, he may just have been asexual, but he definitely wasn't into the the wimmenz. And we never got him neutered.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Can't be arsed reading through the whole thread so sorry if this has been covered.

Civil unions or marriage are not natural institutions, their just made up buracratic BS to try keep couples inline and faithful to each other.

Falling in love is natural, doesn't matter what the sexes are. Being sexually attracted to other people, regardless of sex is perfectly natural.

Homosexuality is natural to homosexuals and not learned behaviour.

So I believe that if a couple regardless of sex want to be together then let it be, couldn't give a rats arse TBH.

But I do have issues with gay couples (men & women) adopting babies and nothing I've ever read, or spoke over with gay friends, has ever swayed my opinion.

Gay couples raising children is not natural, simple as in my books.

Tar.Aldarion

Mairt wrote: »

But I do have issues with gay couples (men & women) adopting babies and nothing I've ever read, or spoke over with gay friends, has ever swayed my opinion.

Gay couples raising children is not natural, simple as in my books.

How about the fact that it happens in nature with other animals too? Why is it not natural, if it eh, happens in nature?

bonkey

Mairt wrote: »

Gay couples raising children is not natural, simple as in my books.

So you're saying that with gays, its a learned behaviour?

If not, then your argument about homosexuality being natural and not learned behaviour would seem inconsistent.

Dave!

Mairt wrote: »

Gay couples raising children is not natural, simple as in my books.

wtf is "natural"? Should an infertile couple not be allowed to raise kids either?

It's one thing saying it's not as good for the kid as a straight couple, but the "not natural" thing is meaningless.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

How about the fact that it happens in nature with other animals too? Why is it not natural, if it eh, happens in nature?

When men start giving birth to babies I'll consider it natural, regardless if thats a human or a donkey.

Btw in case you didn't notice. I was talking about my opinions, I couldn't give a rats ass about anyone else's. If its made legal well so be it, I'll accept its legality but for me I'll never consider it natural.

Dave!

Mairt wrote: »

When men start giving birth to babies I'll consider it natural, regardless if thats a human or a donkey.

Btw in case you didn't notice. I was talking about my opinions, I couldn't give a rats ass about anyone else's. If its made legal well so be it, I'll accept its legality but for me I'll never consider it natural.

And infertile couples? I'm assuming you think they're "unnatural" too, and so shouldn't be allowed to raise children.

If not -- why not?

Also, and I think this is quite an important point -- exactly what bearing does conceptive ability have on a person's ability to actually RAISE a child? Contact any support service for single mothers and they'll tell you about the deadbeat dads who shagged someone, got them pregnant, and then left.

I could be a total junkie, rapist, career criminal -- but because I'm full of sperm, I should be allowed to raise a child sooner than a homosexual doctor or lawyer? How is that right?

Varkov

DaveMcG wrote: »

And infertile couples? I'm assuming you think they're "unnatural" too, and so shouldn't be allowed to raise children.

If not -- why not?

Also, and I think this is quite an important point -- exactly what bearing does conceptive ability have on a person's ability to actually RAISE a child?

People are still getting hung up on the whole infertility thing.

It is not the same thing.

Nature did not intend for two same sex people to raise a child. An infertile couple can still provide the optimal social development that a child needs. This is the way humans have developed over thousands of years. It is evolution, a scientific fact.

arybvtcw0eolkf

DaveMcG wrote: »

And infertile couples?

I'm not a doctor, nothing I can do when nature intervenes.

SimpleSam06

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Then what are you talking about when you say:

Nature, nuture, its a commonly used expression. That you haven't heard it before is not really a surprise.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Um, use google if you want a link about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. that is the beginning and the basis, it is the bare scraping of understanding evolution fully.

So not only have you nothing to back you up, you actually admit to not even grasping the fundamenals of evolutionary theory.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

his is not a disputed fact, the figures are round because people use round figures.

wut

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

this social science orthodoxy that you hold to is always implausible.

What I am saying is anything but orthodox.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

The answer is not a simple 'obvious conclusion is that genetics are not responsible for this behaviour' more so that it is just not understood yet why this is the case. This is the equivalent to 'It is not known how the sun rises' and you saying that,well then, the obvious conclusion is that god does it. Instead of querying the workings of evolution, making a wild claim. Recurrent mutation alone is not the answer, so, I even gave you an example out of many about genes being beneficial to women but being passed onto men.

So, now you are claiming I'm bringing a god of the gaps into it? Please, save your strawmen for someone with the time to care. Also, its goddamn difficult to find something that isn't there. A vagina is useful to women, but not of much use to a man (save it), how many cases of that being passed on are there?

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Actually they are around the world, and because something stems from America, it does not make it wrong.

Actually in matters of sexuality, just about anything that has an institution devoted to it in America is wrong. Bit of an aftershock of the puritans that founded the place.

As for the rest of your long, rambling discourse, making various wild claims, complete with gay bonobos (almost all bonobos are bisexual, but if you wanted to put it in human terms they are also incestuous paedophile rapists, so they'll basically shag anything, bit like what I was saying), with nary a link to back them up, I'll just say this.

Its difficult enough to breed without having two strikes against you by being genetically homosexually inclined. The whole "hardwired" thing has its roots in the eugenics movements of the late 19th century / early 20th century, where the "nature versus nurture" (which you have apparently never heard before) argument came to the fore. Most of the beliefs of these movements have since been discredited, and the "hardwired gay" idea falls directly into the same category.

It might suit a lot of people to believe in it, for their own ends, but belief doesn't make it accurate in any real sense.

gerky

Mairt wrote: »

When men start giving birth to babies I'll consider it natural, regardless if thats a human or a donkey.

Male seahorses carry and give birth to their young.
And in several species of animal the male raises the young.

ixoy

SimpleSam, do you believe two men can love each other and be attracted to each other emotionally despite the fact that you may perceive it performs no evolutionary function? Or is love only the brain's mean of ensuring couples stay together to look after children?