Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elpaw)
    How are you so sure of this? so when a dog humps your leg, it's for procreation?

    When a dog does that, it is for showing it's dominance
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evnscncjnk)
    When a dog does that, it is for showing it's dominance
    hm...dogs want to dominate strange things
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by darknessishope)
    hm...dogs want to dominate strange things
    fire hydrants have feelings too u *******
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caz)
    fire hydrants have feelings too u *******
    lmao. I'm just trying to think what the fire hydrant would be thinking when that happened?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:


    ok......i didnt actually post anything in the above post: eek! i just wanted to say mad caddie is full of crap and tolerence is the ONLY way!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicman)
    The fact that homosexuality is clearly not hereditary invalidates your argument somewhat: it is not as if the homosexual "species" needs to pass on the "homosexual gene" in order to survive so the fact that they cannot reproduce does not invalidate them as human beings in my opinion. Also, the fact that they are very much real and there are millions across the globe means they are most certainly not a "one-off gene error" or something similar. It's attitudes like this which causes so many young people with homosexual tendencies to commit suicide/become depressed, and believe me, I speak from experience.
    I would like to point out that many reputable scientists in reputable journals have shown that there are hereditary links to homosexuality. In fact, genes have been manipulated in insects to make them homosexual. As for the argument for the 'invalidity' of homosexuals as humans because they do not reproduce is utterly flawed scientifically as well as ethically.

    The 'purpose' of a gene is to continually survive in the form of copies in offspring. Although exclusively homosexual people do not do this, the gene is still propagated through bisexual people and through the heterozyote form (See E.O. Wilson). It seems that the heterozygote (one 'gay' allele and one 'straight' allele) may give an advantage to humans in making them more effective parents and therefore more likely to bring their children up to reproducing age.

    My point is that despite the flawed logic of people believing that homosexuality is somehow invalid, the very fact that the 'gay' genes are present in such high numbers of humans (3-10% in men, 1-4% in females [Dewar 2003]) is testament to its success as a gene.

    I would also like to make the point that all this shouldn't matter to you anyway unless you are of the religious viewpoint that homosexuality is a sin. In nature, homosexuality isn't unnatural, out of 2,000 species which have been studied, 450 have been shown to practice homosexual relationships.

    Also, in modern civilization, people who do not reproduce are certainly not invalid. Many religious leaders practice absolute celibacy and I don't think I have to explain the effect of religious leaders over the last 2000 years from popes to Archbishops.

    Please do not try to use science against homosexuality since there really is not basis for it. The only argument I can understand is the argument that God has said it is wrong (which as I'm sure you all know has many flaws of its own).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What actual difference does it make if homosexuality is a result of nurture or nature?

    Some folks seem to be steadfaststuck supporter of one theory and cite tons of evidence to substantiate it. Others fully support and seek to substantiate the other theory.

    I'm fascinated not by the topic but by the interest it causes. Does it actually make any fuc*in difference what it is a result of?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    What actual difference does it make if homosexuality is a result of nurture or nature?

    Some folks seem to be steadfaststuck supporter of one theory and cite tons of evidence to substantiate it. Others fully support and seek to substantiate the other theory.

    I'm fascinated not by the topic but by the interest it causes. Does it actually make any fuc*in difference what it is a result of?
    No, it doesn't. But I am curious to find out how this thread re-started. It became vacant many moons ago.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Caddie)
    No, it doesn't. But I am curious to find out how this thread re-started. It became vacant many moons ago.
    "Pure Scientist" joined and resurrected it with his first post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Caddie)
    " If homosexuality was meant to be a human form of sexuality then how is it explained that homosexuals cannot reproduce their own offspring. The human body is designed for coupling of male and female, and therefore this illegitamises homosexuality."

    Discuss.

    That is correct, so what is there to discuss?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "The human body is designed for coupling of male and female, and therefore this illegitamises homosexuality."
    By the same [il]logic, any form of sexual activity except sexual intercourse, without contraceptives, purely for breeding purposes, is "illegitamised". So are most human activities, such as wearing clothes. If you are going to use the evolutionist argument, then a homosexual's genes, even if they never engage in breeding sexual activity themselves, will continue in their nephews and nieces, and a blood-relative without children may act as a valuable guardian and mentor to the young.
    Finally, anyone who can invent a word like "illegitamises" is so obviously beneath contempt that their opinions on any subject do not matter.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    "The human body is designed for coupling of male and female, and therefore this illegitamises homosexuality."
    By the same [il]logic, any form of sexual activity except sexual intercourse, without contraceptives, purely for breeding purposes, is "illegitamised". So are most human activities, such as wearing clothes. If you are going to use the evolutionist argument, then a homosexual's genes, even if they never engage in breeding sexual activity themselves, will continue in their nephews and nieces, and a blood-relative without children may act as a valuable guardian and mentor to the young.
    Finally, anyone who can invent a word like "illegitamises" is so obviously beneath contempt that their opinions on any subject do not matter.
    Sorry, what the hell was that. You made several completely unlinked points, all of which made no sense.

    If you would be so kind as to re-think and re-phrase your argument I would be happy to reply.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Caddie)
    Sorry, what the hell was that. You made several completely unlinked points, all of which made no sense.

    If you would be so kind as to re-think and re-phrase your argument I would be happy to reply.
    Unlinked, MC? They are all arguments against your claim that "the human body is designed for coupling of male and female" [Incidentally, who designed the human body?] The "coupling of male and female" is "designed" to produce children so any activity which does not serve that purpose should- in your eyes and phrase- be illegitamised. The human body was not "designed" for wearing clothes: a human skin should serve to keep us warm- it is merely because we have moved to climates that the human body was not "designed" to inhabit that we wear clothes.
    The argument about genes is to point out that claims that homosexuals- or to be entirely accurate- people who engage in homosexual behaviour- do not lose their genes from the hereditary gene pool.

    The final sentence is self-evident. You do to the English language what al-Qaida did to Madrid.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Unlinked, MC? They are all arguments against your claim that "the human body is designed for coupling of male and female" [Incidentally, who designed the human body?] The "coupling of male and female" is "designed" to produce children so any activity which does not serve that purpose should- in your eyes and phrase- be illegitamised.

    I did not say that. If you actually took the time to read the post, firstly you would realise that what was being said in my post was a quote. Secondly, what was meant by that comment was, that if homosexuality was meant to be, then why is reproduction impossible between homosexuals?

    The human body was not "designed" for wearing clothes: a human skin should serve to keep us warm- it is merely because we have moved to climates that the human body was not "designed" to inhabit that we wear clothes.

    What is this in the context of? I cannot see why you have re-stated this? :confused:

    The argument about genes is to point out that claims that homosexuals- or to be entirely accurate- people who engage in homosexual behaviour- do not lose their genes from the hereditary gene pool.

    Tell me this. If homosexuality was meant to be, why can homosexuals not reproduce? Simple as that. If they were meant to be by nature, then why did nature not give them the ability to reproduce? Otherwise how then are homosexuals able to breed if they cannot reproduce?

    The final sentence is self-evident. You do to the English language what al-Qaida did to Madrid.

    Grow Up.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A quote which you said "is the answer to so many peoples' questions about the legitimacy of homosexuality".
    I made the point about clothes because you seem to think that the human body should only do what it was "designed" [still waiting for gen on the designer] to do.
    The biological purpose of reproduction is to ensure the continuation of genes into future generations. Breeding and reproduction are not the only ways to ensure that your genes will go on. Haldane once said that it made sense genetically speaking to lay down your life for three brothers or sisters or five nephews or nieces. Your gene-pool comes out ahead like that. Equally, non-breeders may assist their breeding siblings in ensuring that their children mature and continue their genes.
    As I pointed out, there are no such people- technically speaking- as homosexuals. There are people who engage in homosexual behaviour. Many of them also engage in heterosexual behaviour. Many of them breed and reproduce.
    You seem to think that everything is "meant to be" or "designed". What is your evidence for these claims? Why shouldn't things just happen?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:


    Aren't you forgetting that a lot of homosexuals don't live a homosexual lifestyle, and have hetrosexual relationships ... and therefore do 'breed'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    You seem to think that everything is "meant to be" or "designed". What is your evidence for these claims? Why shouldn't things just happen?
    Im sorry, but I disagree. When exactly did I say that everything is "meant to be" or "designed", you are taking everything out of context and then applying it to suit your unlogical argument.

    Also, may I repeat, I DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIMS!!!

    You seem to interpretted this quote as some sort of fact, whereas I originally posted it as I felt I agreed with what was being said.

    Also, if thigns should just happen then what type of life are we to lead. Let me now follow your line of thinking and take your comment out of context.
    So as "things [should] just happen" does this mean I have the right to go around shooting people at me will. Does this mean I can walk around to my next door neighbours house and steal his car? Surely this is what you are saying?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Caddie)
    Im sorry, but I disagree. When exactly did I say that everything is "meant to be" or "designed", you are taking everything out of context and then applying it to suit your unlogical argument.
    Reread your first post, which I quoted exactly.

    Also, may I repeat, I DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIMS!!!
    (Original post by Mad Caddie)
    The human body is designed for coupling of male and female, and therefore this illegitamises homosexuality.
    That isn't a claim?

    You seem to interpretted this quote as some sort of fact, whereas I originally posted it as I felt I agreed with what was being said.
    The fact is you agreed with it- thought it a fact. I gave reasons to disagree with it.

    Also, if thigns should just happen then what type of life are we to lead. Let me now follow your line of thinking and take your comment out of context.
    As you say out of context. Right out of context. The context is whether things- such as the functions of the human body- are as you do not, it seems claim, though you say it- are "designed" or "meant to be"
    So as "things [should] just happen" does this mean I have the right to go around shooting people at me will. Does this mean I can walk around to my next door neighbours house and steal his car? Surely this is what you are saying?
    I did not say "things [should] just happen" I said "things just happen". Within context I was talking of the evolution and function of human body parts. Most obviously, in context, our fingers were not "designed" or "meant to" type at computer keyboards or our brains to think what we are going to type at computer keyboards, but we can do both and we do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Reread your first post, which I quoted exactly.

    As I have already said, this was an oppinion which I felt was correct within my line of thinking, I did not say it was entirely accurate as stated in subsequent threads. Why do you insist on not acknowledging this?
    That isn't a claim?

    Indeed it is an oppinion, what is the problem with that?

    The fact is you agreed with it- thought it a fact. I gave reasons to disagree with it.

    Fair enough, but they way you went about this was extremely childish and pathetic. Makes me think you are disagreeing just to cause an argument.

    As you say out of context. Right out of context. The context is whether things- such as the functions of the human body- are as you do not, it seems claim, though you say it- are "designed" or "meant to be"
    I did not say "things [should] just happen" I said "things just happen". Within context I was talking of the evolution and function of human body parts. Most obviously, in context, our fingers were not "designed" or "meant to" type at computer keyboards or our brains to think what we are going to type at computer keyboards, but we can do both and we do.
    I am fully aware that you did not say "things [should] just happen". As you were so quick to critisise my use of the English language, I assume you would know that when a word is entered into a quote in square brackets, it is a word not in the original quote which is added to make the quote more cohesive, something which obviously surpassed you. Also, I am still un-sure of how your argument is logiical. If in terms of evolution things should change and be adapted, I still fail to see how homosexuality is an adaption of the sexuality of humans. Evolution occurs to remove defects and enable survival of the humans so they can continue breeding and producing offspring, surely homosexuality inhibits this?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Caddie)
    Ive finally realised the answer to so many peoples questions about the legitimacy of homosexuality.
    The answers is as follows from a philosophical-science point of view.

    " If homosexuality was meant to be a human form of sexuality then how is it explained that homosexuals cannot reproduce their own offspring. The human body is designed for coupling of male and female, and therefore this illegitamises homosexuality."

    Discuss.
    i was thinking the other night.. homosexuality is classified by sexual preferance, but dont you think that it is possible to have a gay man who isnt attracted to men?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.