Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bleatmop wrote:
People have every right to be homosexual.


Name one person in these forums who has suggested otherwise.

It is an interesting debate and if you don't see why it makes a difference then I guess it is safe to assume you won't be participating in it.
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
gc wrote:
Craig wrote:
YES!!!! That is what I've been arguing all along. Look at the statements I've made. Genetics can result in a predisposition but ultimately it is a CHOICE.


I think we are using different definitions of homosexuality. While both definitions may be acceptable, I am using the definition that homosexuality is the attraction to members of the same-sex. Whether to act on that attraction is a choice. I could choose to be with men, but I won't because I am not the least bit attracted to them, I am attracted to women. Likewise, a homosexual could choose to be with a member of the opposite sex, but why would they when they are attracted to the same sex?


Yes. I think that is the distinction. The act of committing homosexual acts is a choice. Who one is attracted to is likely a combination of genetics and societal influences.

I believe that who we are attracted to isn't written in stone either. I went through a phase where I was obsessed with oriental women - not so much anymore. I don't see harm in marginalizing homosexual behaviour. To consider it equal or just as normal as hetero relationships is absurd.


Why?
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bleatmop wrote:
Craig wrote:
gc wrote:
Craig wrote:
YES!!!! That is what I've been arguing all along. Look at the statements I've made. Genetics can result in a predisposition but ultimately it is a CHOICE.


I think we are using different definitions of homosexuality. While both definitions may be acceptable, I am using the definition that homosexuality is the attraction to members of the same-sex. Whether to act on that attraction is a choice. I could choose to be with men, but I won't because I am not the least bit attracted to them, I am attracted to women. Likewise, a homosexual could choose to be with a member of the opposite sex, but why would they when they are attracted to the same sex?


Yes. I think that is the distinction. The act of committing homosexual acts is a choice. Who one is attracted to is likely a combination of genetics and societal influences.

I believe that who we are attracted to isn't written in stone either. I went through a phase where I was obsessed with oriental women - not so much anymore. I don't see harm in marginalizing homosexual behaviour. To consider it equal or just as normal as hetero relationships is absurd.


Why?


Biological imperitive
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Bleatmop wrote:
Craig wrote:
gc wrote:
Craig wrote:
YES!!!! That is what I've been arguing all along. Look at the statements I've made. Genetics can result in a predisposition but ultimately it is a CHOICE.


I think we are using different definitions of homosexuality. While both definitions may be acceptable, I am using the definition that homosexuality is the attraction to members of the same-sex. Whether to act on that attraction is a choice. I could choose to be with men, but I won't because I am not the least bit attracted to them, I am attracted to women. Likewise, a homosexual could choose to be with a member of the opposite sex, but why would they when they are attracted to the same sex?


Yes. I think that is the distinction. The act of committing homosexual acts is a choice. Who one is attracted to is likely a combination of genetics and societal influences.

I believe that who we are attracted to isn't written in stone either. I went through a phase where I was obsessed with oriental women - not so much anymore. I don't see harm in marginalizing homosexual behaviour. To consider it equal or just as normal as hetero relationships is absurd.


Why?


Biological imperitive


Could you expand on that a little bit please?
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Bleatmop wrote:
People have every right to be homosexual.


Name one person in these forums who has suggested otherwise.

It is an interesting debate and if you don't see why it makes a difference then I guess it is safe to assume you won't be participating in it.


I did participate in it. I expressed my opinion. I believe it doesn't make a difference. I was planning on leaving it on that.

I don't recall accusing anyone saying that people don't have the right to be homosexual.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
Bleatmop wrote:
Why?


Biological imperitive


Could you expand on that a little bit please?


Sure...

Quote:
Genetic imperatives are biological imperatives that include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: Survival, Territorialism, Competition, Reproduction, Quality of life-seeking. Living organisms that do not follow these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive. Maladaptivity is perhaps the most fundamental criteria for defining abnormality and mental illness.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Genetic imperatives are biological imperatives that include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: Survival, Territorialism, Competition, Reproduction, Quality of life-seeking. Living organisms that do not follow these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive. Maladaptivity is perhaps the most fundamental criteria for defining abnormality and mental illness.


Would you marginalize someone who was born infertile? Or someone born with cystic fibrosis, or asthma? Would you consider them to be equal?
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Living organisms that do not follow these imperatives are described as maladaptive


so people who use birthcontrol would be maladaptive?
right now we have cultural selection, not natural selection.

I think for a lot of gay and bisexual people acting straight and only having hetrosexual sex is a (bad) choice.

quick question
guy a and guy b - both are bisexual males who use condoms and are in monogamous relationships

guy a is with a girl
guy b is with a guy

why shouldnt these relationships be seen as equal?

I would say a homosexual person in a monogamous relationship is in my view above a hetro person who either sleeps with everything that moves or cheats.
Dolphin





Joined: 30 Sep 2007
Posts: 31
Reputation: 61
Location: California, USA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is probably a genetic component, but also a degree of 'choice', for lack of a better word. I know I couldn't chose to be gay if i tried, I imagine most gays will say the same thing about being straight. Some gays just live the staight lifestyle to conform, others with overwhelming desire to be 'normal' are able to stay straight.

It doesn't really matter in the end, even if it was entirely a choice it doesn't harm them or society, so I see no problem with it.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
so people who use birthcontrol would be maladaptive?


That is tantamount to saying that if I choose not to have sex on a particular day I am maladaptive. Just because I choose not to reproduce on a given day doesn't make me maladaptive because I still have the desire to do so at some point in time.

Quote:
right now we have cultural selection, not natural selection.


Please explain. I would find it hard to fathom any scenario where it is one or the other. They usually both come into play.


Quote:
quick question
guy a and guy b - both are bisexual males who use condoms and are in monogamous relationships

guy a is with a girl
guy b is with a guy

why shouldnt these relationships be seen as equal?


Biological imperative. The male having sex with a female has better genes (biologically speaking) because he has the correct desire. The guy having sex with another guy is maladaptive (unhealthy to the species).

Quote:
I would say a homosexual person in a monogamous relationship is in my view above a hetro person who either sleeps with everything that moves or cheats.


Is that a moral statement? Biologically speaking the guy who sleeps around is far superior.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That is tantamount to saying that if I choose not to have sex on a particular day I am maladaptive. Just because I choose not to reproduce on a given day doesn't make me maladaptive because I still have the desire to do so at some point in time.


no but if you choose to only have sex with one women you would be. Therefore using this logic men who believe in monogamy are maladaptive and should not be encouraged (although we should allow it legally of course, just not have to respect their poor choice)

my point is that humans do not exist in a state of nature so we cant apply the same rules we do to animal behaviour (where bisexuality is also rampent btw) as we can to human behaviour.

As to the people from the question both desire men and women. Neither is having sex for reproduction, so WHY should someone choose choice a over choice b if they are bisexual? If you are bisexual but wanting a monogamous relationship and not wanting kids WHY should you choose a women over a man? How is bisexuality unhealthy for the species? I really disagree that sexual orientation has much to do with birthrates.

Quote:
Is that a moral statement? Biologically speaking the guy who sleeps around is far superior.


well i didnt say it had to be a guy, but i think the problem that i am having with your (and a lot of other people who are against homosexualitiy) arguement is that your trying to defend a moral position through biology.

Quote:
I know I couldn't chose to be gay if i tried


a lot of hetro people who go gay pretty quick if they were in jail for the rest of their life.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Being gay - choice vs. genetics

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB