Gay Rights

Tha Gopher

rsynnott wrote:

This is a euphemism for "I made it up, or hallucinated it", yes?

Ah yes. My opinion is irrelevant because I dont agree with you. Freelancers story of Australians getting eaten by sharks is gospel because he shares the same views as you

I ask this question to any straight poster here- do you really think that you would like to have been raised by two gay men? Forget surveys and studies conducted in California or Holland, do you really think that you would have got barely any abuse in your Irish national and secondary school?

If so, post the name of the schools, as the places clearly deserve some recognition for their anti bullying policy if you believe that a child with gay parents would suffer minimal hassle at these places.

Zombrex

Tha Gopher wrote:

I ask this question to any straight poster here- do you really think that you would like to have been raised by two gay men?

I got raised by two heterosexual parents and I hated secondary school. It was full of bullying. Most of my friends (all raised by heterosexual parents) hated secondary school, because it was full of bully. Secondary school is just full of bullying People who don't think so were probably the ones doing the bullying.

And yes I understand that argument is "well its going to be a hundred times worse if the person has gay parents". That, as they say, is nonsense, and shows a lack of understand of what bullying is and what causes it.

I knew a kid in school who came home ever day crying like a baby. He would sit up at the top of the bus quiet and sad and sometimes crying. For 6 years Why? Were his parents gay? Were his parents black? Was he black? Was he gay? No, he was a little fat, and a little sensative, and an hugely easy target. And the kids in school ripped him to pieces. There were even reports of physical abuse (some of the kids in my school were total scum bags nutters)

The thing is is it isn't going to matter what sexual orientation the kid is, or his parents, its going to matter about the kid him/herself and how they handle themselves.

There was a guy at school who everyone knew his dad was gay and had left his mother, there was loads of gossip about it with my parents, but none of the kids batted an eye lid, because the kid was in the "cool" crowd. I think one kids slagged him once that started a fight and that was the end of that. And then this poor other guy was going through hell for 6 years simply because he was over weight and could not stick up for himself. Nothing to do with his parents, who were a perfectly average family. And the rest of the normal kids where fighting a constant battle not to say anything stupid or be on the recieving end of any of the dished out abuse. And we were all from average familys.

Its all very well to say we should try and protect these children from possible bullying in school, but it doesn't work like that in real life. The logic is flawed, and missing the fundamental reason kids get picked on. It isn't because of an actual logical reason, it is because some of them are precieved as weak and unable to stand up for themselves. It is going to have very little to do with the orientation of their parents. To a bully that is no more valid a reason to stick someone in a coat room lock the door and walk of for the rest of the day than the fact they simply want to (yes that happened to me). Why were they slagging me at that time? Because I was wearing a "funny" shirt.

So are we going to stop adoptions to parents unless they can prove they are "cool" and are going to raise children that are also "cool"?

rsynnott

Also, again, mixed-race (disgusting term, but you know what I mean) kids tend not to have problems, and didn't even when it was almost unheard of.

Freelancer

Tha Gopher wrote:

Ah yes. My opinion is irrelevant because I dont agree with you. Freelancers story of Australians getting eaten by sharks is gospel because he shares the same views as you

Nope just spouting about how you "studied at the university of life" makes you sound like an ass. The stories true, children bully children over the slightest and worst things.

I ask this question to any straight poster here- do you really think that you would like to have been raised by two gay men? Forget surveys and studies conducted in California or Holland, do you really think that you would have got barely any abuse in your Irish national and secondary school?

If so, post the name of the schools, as the places clearly deserve some recognition for their anti bullying policy if you believe that a child with gay parents would suffer minimal hassle at these places.

Again children bully children, claiming that children of gay parents will be bullied worse without any evidence to back you up, instead you spout stuff life "having studied at the university of life" may get you some kudos when you're talking down the pub but doesn't really cut the mustard when talking to people armed with facts.

The_Minister

rsynnott wrote:

mixed-race (disgusting term, but you know what I mean) .

Better than half-caste.

The OP

rsynnott wrote:

mixed-race (disgusting term, but you know what I mean)

What's disgusting about it? I thought that was the correct term, no?

Freelancer wrote:

lots of animals exhibt homosexual tendancys

Are you comparing gays to animals? Otherwise, what's the relevance?

Zombrex

The OP wrote:

What's disgusting about it? I thought that was the correct term, no?

Not really, since biologically (the "correct" bit) it is a pretty much meaningless term based on our current understanding of race and genetics. It is working on old (classical as they say) ideas of race that don't really hold any more. It also defines a person based on these out of date definitions.

The OP wrote:

Are you comparing gays to animals? Otherwise, what's the relevance?

Homosexual humans are animals. All humans are animals.

I think his point was the homosexuality occurs naturally in a lot of other animal species, so where anyone got the idea that it is something abnormal to humans, or a mental illness effecting humans that can be cured or fixed, or a life style choice unique to humans, is beyond me.

Do gay horses or mice "choose" the gay life style?

Not that it really matters. If it was only a life style choice who cares. I make a life style choice to have birth control protected sex with a woman who is on the pill. When it comes to sex that is about as biologically natural or normal as landing on the moon. Hell I make a life style choice to recieved oral sex for pleasure (if I've been very good), which is something unique to humans (and dolphins afaik)

There is nothing biologically "normal" about that. Yet I don't see the Christian right screaming that I am preverting natures laws :rolleyes:

The OP

No - humans are humans, and animals are animals - we're not the same. Any biologist will tell you that. We're both living beings - yes, but we're not animals.

Blub2k4

The OP wrote:

No - humans are humans, and animals are animals - we're not the same. Any biologist will tell you that. We're both living beings - yes, but we're not animals.

The human being is a part of the animal kingdom, we are not mineral, we are not vegetable that means that we are animal, or do you have some other classification that you would like to share with us?

Zombrex

The OP wrote:

No - humans are humans, and animals are animals - we're not the same. Any biologist will tell you that. We're both living beings - yes, but we're not animals.

Not to get off topic, but in biology an animal is any organism that falls into the kingdom of Animalia, which includes mammals, which includes Homo Sapiens. This is true in all versions of the kingdom system.

There is not a seperate kingdom only for Homo Sapiens. And obviously we don't fall into Protista, Fungi or Plantae. We are simply very advanced animals. Biologically we are not that special compared to any other advance mammal.

In plan English "animal" does sometimes mean not human, but I doubt that was the context that was being used here.

Hobbes

Wicknight wrote:

Do gay horses or mice "choose" the gay life style?

I've always wondered how they explained it to thier parents.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

I think his point was the homosexuality occurs naturally in a lot of other animal species, so where anyone got the idea that it is something abnormal to humans, or a mental illness effecting humans that can be cured or fixed, or a life style choice unique to humans, is beyond me.

Homosexuality is abnormal. It is abnormal in that it is both a deviation from the biological design of the organism and not constituting to the norm or standard of Society or the species. It is the exception rather than the rule. Deal with it.

Does this mean it is evil or bad? No. Evolution is entirely based upon the exception to the rule pushing the species forward after all, so it is not necessarily a bad aberration. Having said that neither is it necessarily a good one either. However, simply saying that it is not normal does not damn it.

Do gay horses or mice "choose" the gay life style

We don’t choose cancer or schizophrenia either. Indeed, paraphilias are not chosen but are compulsive by definition, having been brought about by a combination of both nurture and nature (politically minded psychologists have been debating the exact mix of the two for years). The question is not whether a paraphilia is voluntary, but whether it is antisocial - directly or indirectly.

As to the question of Gay marriage, an interesting spin-off has resulted from its legalisation in Spain. The Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Organizations has demanded the recognition and legalisation of polygamous marriages. Presently only the UK makes a halfhearted attempt at this recognition, and typically the practice is illegal elsewhere in Europe, but overlooked in the case of Muslims (not unlike homosexuality in Ireland less than twenty years ago).

TBH, I don’t see any reasonable argument against the legalisation of polygamous marriages there following that of homosexual ones, but it has resulted in some very uncomfortable Spanish liberals.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Homosexuality is abnormal.

I actually said "something abnormal to humans"

The Corinthian wrote:

We don’t choose cancer or schizophrenia either.

Last time I checked cancer or schizophrenia aren't "life style choices"

Read my posts properly please TC before telling me to "deal" with it

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

I actually said "something abnormal to humans"

You said that where anyone got the idea that it is something abnormal to humans is beyond you. So I explained - simply - why it is abnormal so it would be less beyond you. You may thank me on another occasion.

Last time I checked cancer or schizophrenia aren't "life style choices"

That was my point. I never suggested anything was a "life style choice" in my post.

Read my posts properly please TC before telling me to "deal" with it

Ibid.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

So I explained - simply - why it is abnormal so it would be less beyond you.

Its not something that is abnormal to humans (ie an abnormality unique to only homo sepaians), it occurs in other animals too.

Which supports the idea that it is genetic or at least biological in nature, not a life style choice or a psychological affliction.

The Corinthian wrote:

That was my point.

Actually it was my original point.

It isn't a life style choice. Horses and mice don't make life style choices. That was my point. Homosexuality occurs naturally in nature. Not that I would have any problem even if it were a "life style" choice. As I said I make a number of life style choices to do with sex for pleasure that I would be rather annoyed if they were considered wrong for being unnatural (BJs for one)

Anyway, I think we are basically saying the same thing, so not much point arguing ... give us a hug

rsynnott

The OP wrote:

No - humans are humans, and animals are animals - we're not the same. Any biologist will tell you that. We're both living beings - yes, but we're not animals.

?!

What nonsense. What biologist were you asking, precisely, and was he pre-19th century?

The_Minister

Wicknight wrote:

Do gay horses or mice "choose" the gay life style?

I was under the impression that animals only exhibited gay activity when forced into close-quarters in captivity (like prison:) ), but not in the wild

Wicknight wrote:

Hell I make a life style choice to recieved oral sex for pleasure (if I've been very good), which is something unique to humans (and dolphins afaik)

You forgot gorillas (according to straightdope)

rsynnott

Firespinner wrote:

I was under the impression that animals only exhibited gay activity when forced into close-quarters in captivity (like prison:) ), but not in the wild

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1432991,00.html

The_Minister

rsynnott wrote:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1432991,00.html

No offence but those ducks sound retarded. Having sex with dead ducks?

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

No offence but those ducks sound retarded. Having sex with dead ducks?

No offence :rolleyes: but rysnnott posted it in rebuttal to this piece of nonsense by you;

Firespinner wrote:

I was under the impression that animals only exhibited gay activity when forced into close-quarters in captivity (like prison:) ), but not in the wild

you made an claim, rysnnott disproved it what on earth point are you trying to make by announcing "those ducks sound retarded"?

I'm still reelling from the discovery that I'm not an animal and await meeting "any" biologist who'll confirm that.

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

No offence :rolleyes: but rysnnott posted it in rebuttal to this piece of nonsense by you;.

I was referring to a straight dope article that I read regarding this

straightdope wrote:

Animals usually engage in homosexual behavior only when crowded, deprived of normal heterosexual contact, or otherwise subjected to stress.

but when rereading the article I see that although they reverted to hetrosexual behaviour with females the monkeys do seem to have been somewhat gay.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_198.html




I am aware that straightdope is not always right but i think it is somewhat reliable

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

I was referring to a straight dope article that I read regarding this

No you weren't you quoted and refered to rysnnots article.

but when rereading the article I see that although they reverted to hetrosexual behaviour with females the monkeys do seem to have been somewhat gay.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_198.html




I am aware that straightdope is not always right but i think it is somewhat reliable

In this case it's wrong.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Zombrex

Afaik Homosexuality has been observed in animals in both in the wild and captivity (I wouldn't necessarily call that "prision")

This is hardly surprising is it, considering we are animals as well? Is anyone shocked by this?

Freelancer

Wicknight wrote:

Afaik Homosexuality has been observed in animals in both in the wild and captivity (I wouldn't necessarily call that "prision")

This is hardly surprising is it, considering we are animals as well? Is anyone shocked by this?

I think "the OP" needs to hear it again.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Which supports the idea that it is genetic or at least biological in nature, not a life style choice or a psychological affliction.

It supports the idea that there is a genetic or biological component to homosexuality. You’d be jumping to conclusions to say that it was the principle or, let alone, only cause - indeed, most studies on abnormal sexuality have indicated that they are largely learned. Of course I’m not claiming this is the case with homosexuality, only that you are jumping to conclusions.

It isn't a life style choice. Horses and mice don't make life style choices. That was my point. Homosexuality occurs naturally in nature.

My point was that whether it was or was not a choice was ultimately irrelevant. Just because something may occur in nature or even go so far as to be considered natural does not make it a good thing any more than if it is abnormal or unnatural makes it a bad one.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

My point was that whether it was or was not a choice was ultimately irrelevant. Just because something may occur in nature or even go so far as to be considered natural does not make it a good thing any more than if it is abnormal or unnatural makes it a bad one.

I know, I wasn't making a comment on if it was good or bad. As has been pointed out ducks rape each other, it doesn't mean we should.

But at the same time, the argument was that homosexuality is not natural, ie some form of social/pyschological haywiring going on in the human brain, and that was a reason to not accept it. If that is the only reason it is a bit of a weak reason

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

No you weren't you quoted and refered to rysnnots article.

Very well I was thinking of the article.

Freelancer wrote:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

If you read the article more carefully the reasons that animals are homosexual are

national geographic wrote:

Another suggestion is that homosexuality is a developmental phase people go through. He said, "This is similar to the argument of play in young animals to get their brain and muscles to work effectively and together. Off the back of this, there's the possibility you can get individuals locked into this phase for the rest of their lives as a result of the social environment they grow up in."

But he adds that homosexuality doesn't necessarily have to have a function. It could be a spin-off or by-product of something else and in itself carries no evolutionary weight."

He cites sexual gratification, which encourages procreation, as an example. "An organism is designed to maximize its motivational systems," he adds.

In other words, if the urge to have sex is strong enough it may spill over into nonreproductive sex, as suggested by the actions of the bonobos and macaques. However, as Dunbar admits, there's a long way to go before the causes of homosexuality in humans are fully understood.

This makes it look like a screw-up or perversion more than any other evidence before presented on this thread.

rsynnott

Firespinner wrote:

If you read the article more carefully the reasons that animals are homosexual are


This makes it look like a screw-up or perversion more than any other evidence before presented on this thread.

Those weren't all the reasons given, and in any cases those articles would imply that, assuming it IS genetic or partially so, it is an evolutionary byproduct. Still NATURAL (though abnormal), though, like lefthandedness, or, indeed, schizophrenia. Being natural, of course, doesn't make anything right or wrong.

The_Minister

rsynnott wrote:

. Being natural, of course, doesn't make anything right or wrong.

I've always thought people made up their own definitions of right or wrong, normally to accomodate what they want to do.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

Very well I was thinking of the article.

Bully for you, seeing as we're not psychic it wasn't possible for us to know that.

If you read the article more carefully the reasons that animals are homosexual are


This makes it look like a screw-up or perversion more than any other evidence before presented on this thread.

You're being most selective in the bits of the article you're quoting.

In any case homosexuality occurs in nature, and therefore cannot be considered unnatural.

I've always thought people made up their own definitions of right or wrong, normally to accomodate what they want to do.

And what does this non sequitur have to do with homosexuality occuring in nature?