Homosexuality

[Eilonnwy]

I agree with Kyu, sexuality is a range. I'm fairly 50/50 in my attraction to men and women, but I have to admit if it leans one way it leads towards women.

Having there be a range doesn't mean people can't be on the extreme edges.

Although it does remind me of Ron White's joke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSnNHUaNR_8

[LEDO]

There is a mountain of evidence on the web, if you were ever seriously interested. Since all you seem tyo be is a nay-sayer, it would be a waste of our time to "prove" it to you as there is no proof you would accept. (If there is, tell us.) If you are interested, you might start with Desmond Morris' "Naked Ape" where he desribes homosexuality among apes as a means of survival.

What the fuck is a nay-sayer? Speak English will you.

Explain the means of survival using homosxuality amoung apes, and apply it to humans. Explain your proof and debunk my example.

Apes act as homosexuals in order to prevent being attacked by the alpha male. A nay-sayer is someone who will say it is black when it is shown to be white. They reject any and all proof presented because they have a sytem of false a priori beliefs which drives them.

[g-mark]

Apes act as homosexuals in order to prevent being attacked by the alpha male. A nay-sayer is someone who will say it is black when it is shown to be white. They reject any and all proof presented because they have a sytem of false a priori beliefs which drives them.

'Acting' and so called 'Being' are two completely different things. If you are acting you are not really what you are acting to be. Why would a human act gay to protect themselves?

Also, I am not a nay-sayer. Present rational logical proof that can be applied to humans and I will accept it.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@LEDO

A nay-sayer is someone who will say it is black when it is shown to be white. They reject any and all proof presented because they have a system of false a priori beliefs which drives them.

Really? I didn't know that. I always thought "nay" just meant "no". IE "A nay sayer" being a person who contradicts or rejects an argument. I was unaware of any logical inference,although here the term is used as a form ad hominem attack..

From an The Free Dictionary:

Noun 1. naysayer - someone with an aggressively negative attitude
obstructer, obstructionist, obstructor, resister, thwarter - someone who systematically obstructs some action that others want to take.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines 'nay say' as utter denial.

[Eilonnwy]

Present rational logical proof that can be applied to humans and I will accept it.

I already addressed the "homosexuality in nature" issue if you care to read it.

[g-mark]

Present rational logical proof that can be applied to humans and I will accept it.

I already addressed the "homosexuality in nature" issue if you care to read it.

This part was interesting:

No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental.

This states that there is no scientific consensus. And I agree.

[LEDO]

Apes act as homosexuals in order to prevent being attacked by the alpha male. A nay-sayer is someone who will say it is black when it is shown to be white. They reject any and all proof presented because they have a sytem of false a priori beliefs which drives them.

'Acting' and so called 'Being' are two completely different things. If you are acting you are not really what you are acting to be. Why would a human act gay to protect themselves?

Also, I am not a nay-sayer. Present rational logical proof that can be applied to humans and I will accept it.

You asked how it could occur in nature. That I have shown you. It is impossible to tell which apes pretend to be homosexuals and which ones are born that way. There are studies to suggest there is a gay gene. A gay gene would throw your rational logic out the window. People are born with birth defects that prevent them from walking and thinking normal. It logically does nothing to help the species, yet it exists.

[Eilonnwy]

This states that there is no scientific consensus. And I agree.

Yes, but it's important to understand that a lack of scientific consensus on what causes homosexuality does not mean it isn't something that is genetic. It's like the fact that there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happenning, but not to what extent is man made and how it will affect us. We do know that homosexuality is something intrinsic to someone's identity and not a choice.

[fr0d0]

The truth is that marriage is a contract and/or a religious ceremony/sacrament. While some gays may believe in the religious aspect, the gay rights movement is about the contract. If two consenting adults of opposite sex can enter into a legally binding contract that grants them certain benefits, then two consenting adults of the same sex should be able to as well. I support one of two solutions. Marriage becomes religious only and the government only gives out civil unions and their benefits, or gays can married and religions can discriminate as they want and already do. (Although I don't think religions should get tax benefits but that's another discussion ENTIRELY)

I personally, am a bigger fan of the latter solution but either achieves civil equality.

I'm certainly in favour of gay marriage for both religious and legal reasons. I also think that religion should stay out of state involvement institutionally.

Religions getting tax benefits is a strange one. Another legacy.

[g-mark]

Apes act as homosexuals in order to prevent being attacked by the alpha male. A nay-sayer is someone who will say it is black when it is shown to be white. They reject any and all proof presented because they have a sytem of false a priori beliefs which drives them.

'Acting' and so called 'Being' are two completely different things. If you are acting you are not really what you are acting to be. Why would a human act gay to protect themselves?

Also, I am not a nay-sayer. Present rational logical proof that can be applied to humans and I will accept it.

You asked how it could occur in nature. That I have shown you. It is impossible to tell which apes pretend to be homosexuals and which ones are born that way. There are studies to suggest there is a gay gene. A gay gene would throw your rational logic out the window. People are born with birth defects that prevent them from walking and thinking normal. It logically does nothing to help the species, yet it exists.

You have given me your opinion only, you have not shown evidence. Show me your evidence and stop babling on about 'suggestions'. My rational logic has alot more merit than any opinion based on an assertion with no evidence.
Yes, there are people who are born that cannot think normally and there are people who think they are homosexual. Looks as if these two points are related.
Why give this opinion if it cannot be applied to humans. You are making less and less sense of the subject at hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and...rientation

This states that there is no scientific consensus. And I agree.

Yes, but it's important to understand that a lack of scientific consensus on what causes homosexuality does not mean it isn't something that is genetic. It's like the fact that there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happenning, but not to what extent is man made and how it will affect us. We do know that homosexuality is something intrinsic to someone's identity and not a choice.

That is like saying because there is a lack of scientific consensus concerning the existence of a god does not mean god isn't something that does not exist. I believe you are bias concerning this subject because of your own sexual orientation. You cannot state there must be a scientific consensus concerning one subject, to then turn around and state that a scientific consensus doesn't matter in certain circumstances. It sounds like a hypocritical argument.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocritical

You will find that the large majority of educated people support a man made global warming, and understand the affects that will occur to our planet. The people who are sceptics are usually those uneducated on the matter. Or those who believe the human race is an indestuctable all powerful species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://www.livescience.com/globalwarming/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

I said nothing about choice. I said it was a chemical imbalance.

Early fixation hypothesis
Main article: Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation
The early fixation hypothesis includes research into prenatal development and the environmental factors that control masculinization of the brain. Studies have concluded that there is empirical evidence to support this hypothesis, including the observed differences in brain structure and cognitive processing between homosexual and heterosexual men. One explanation for these differences is the idea that differential exposure to hormone levels in the womb during fetal development may block or exaggerate masculinization of the brain in homosexual men. The concentrations of these chemicals is thought to be influenced by fetal and maternal immune systems, maternal consumption of certain drugs, maternal stress, and direct injection. This hypothesis is also connected to the fraternal birth order research.