Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why should society accept straight people? Watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)

    Clearly making the distinction, so why not argue with him? :rolleyes:
    I did.





    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    No you're not needed, as I just stated.

    If you can't show conclusive evidence for the environment making you gay how can you conclude it is entirely the environment?
    I'm not sure whether he acknowledges whether genes play a role or not. And again, conclusive evidence is not needed, because conclusive evidence is nigh impossible. Once more, the same applies to the genetic argument. The evidence linking genes to homosexuality is no more conclusive than the environmental factors.

    But that was never my reason for joining in. The point was, as you so delicately showed, was your obtuse response to them claiming environment played a role, by demanding to have human psychology be reduced to a ridiculously simplistic single cause/single outcome.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    Artificial conception can be done by science but we are talking about the artificial conception of a full society. You can't do that using artificial methods in an efficient way.
    You mean we would have less babies? Smaller populations can function well and better.



    Plus, it is too dangerous since a whole future society would literally rest in the hands of some politicians who can't even solve minor issues in society.
    Or it would be better leading to less unplanned children in poverty and abortions.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Because otherwise humanity would die out? Incest often produces genetic disorders in children and homosexuals can't have biological children with their partners. Humanity will always want to encourage our continued survival. Just like to say that I'm not homophobic in any sense, just trying to think of reasons.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    since you're so passionate and interested in our exchange and making sure not one word of mine goes unquestioned,
    Outside of the first quote, every other has been directed at me.

    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    So what exactly is your goal other than pointlessly wasting time defending something you don't even believe?
    I've argued on the side of human psychology being complex, and environmental factors being involved in homosexual development.

    You seemed to be claiming that environmental factors did not play a role (by claiming the list given in the interview you posted were false), so I explained that environmental factors did play a role, and that there was good evidence to suggest this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    I did.
    So why are you acting like I said something he said?


    I'm not sure whether he acknowledges whether genes play a role or not.
    For the second time: everyone is born straight and that it is the environment (i.e how you interact with life) that decides whether you're straight or gay.

    Get sure.:rolleyes:

    Why am I wasted my time explaining every single exchange between us, is this really that important to you? Why?


    And again, conclusive evidence is not needed, because conclusive evidence is nigh impossible.
    In order to have a conclusive stance conclusive evidence IS needed.










    Once more, the same applies to the genetic argument. The evidence linking genes to homosexuality is no more conclusive than the environmental factors.
    And did I make the argument it is 100% genetic? No.

    But that was never my reason for joining in. The point was, as you so delicately showed, was your obtuse response to them claiming environment played a role, by demanding to have human psychology be reduced to a ridiculously simplistic single cause/single outcome.
    But you're creating straw man because he didn't say it play a role he said it DETERMINED it. THIS is why YOU should stay out of others arguments, you're not needed nor do you have any valid quarrels or even understand what was said. Get it together and stop wasting my time.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    I've argued on the side of human psychology being complex, and environmental factors being involved in homosexual development.
    Which I've never disagreed with so what you have done is waste your time and made yourself look like your reading comprehension skills are lacking.



    You seemed to be claiming that environmental factors did not play a role
    I've never claimed that once. You have now resorted to lies, or you're so confused because you arrogantly got involved in an argument that wasn't yours.

    (by claiming the list given in the interview you posted were false)
    Another claim I never made.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aspirinpharmacist)
    Because otherwise humanity would die out?
    No it wouldn't reproduction can take place via science. So try again.






    homosexuals can't have biological children with their partners.
    Both they can reproduce with others via science so that argument doesn't hold up.

    There's a very simple answer to the question and it is why should we discriminate against people who aren't harming anyone? We shouldn't. Yet you chose to focus on breeding as if that gives them a right to be accepted, it doesn't.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    No it wouldn't reproduction can take place via science. So try again.








    Both they can reproduce with others via science so that argument doesn't hold up.

    There's a very simple answer to the question and it is why should we discriminate against people who aren't harming anyone? We shouldn't. Yet you chose to focus on breeding as if that gives them a right to be accepted, it doesn't.
    Nowadays it doesn't matter because we're overpopulated anyway, but way back a long time ago that would be why humans were opposed to the idea and that discrimination has continued all the way up to now, even though it's pointless because as you say, we can reproduce via science. But that's a relatively new phenomenon. In the 21st century we have absolutely no valid reason to discriminate based on sexuality. Not that abusing someone for being homosexual was ever ok anyway, but that's not what I'm saying.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    In order to have a conclusive stance conclusive evidence IS needed.
    Yes and no.

    In absence of any genetic causes, the cause is assumed to be environmental.

    In the absence of absolute genetic cause, the cause is assumed to be a mixture between the two.

    So conclusive evidence of environmental causes isnt needed. As with specific factors, as long as there is a significant link between the factor and what it is you are investigating, that is enough to be considered a potential cause. If there appears to be a correlation between fatherly rejection and being gay (which there is), that is sufficient to list it as a potential environmental factor.

    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    THIS is why YOU should stay out of others arguments, you're not needed nor do you have any valid quarrels or even understand what was said. Get it together and stop wasting my time.
    To return how I got involved in this in the first place:

    I questioned them on instinctive behavior and heterosexuality. And which point you replied to my point directed at him.

    The second point (which was directed at you) was to do with you demanding a simple explanation of a complex process. From then on, the debate shuffled between me explaining my point, that not knowing or explaining the specifics of the causes, does not negate the causes.

    Then you demanded an environmental factor from me, and I listed some which have been associated with homosexuality. Then you showed me the video, I claimed what the man said was true (that homosexuality did have environmental factors involved), then you asked why you were not gay. This leads to the next point.

    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    I've never claimed that once. You have now resorted to lies, or you're so confused because you arrogantly got involved in an argument that wasn't yours. .
    You demanded me to give you an environmental factor. When I did, you lumped me in with a 'gay-cure' practitioner. This, to me, seemed to suggest you did not agree that there were environmental components to homosexuality.

    (Original post by Interactiveapple)

    Another claim I never made.
    You claimed that the research he used to back up those claims was not conclusive, implying that his claims were unsupported when they were.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Yes and no.
    Nope just yes. You need to have proof for your claims, that isn't debatable. There is ZERO conclusive proof that states it is just environmental the proof states a mixture.


    So conclusive evidence of environmental causes isnt needed.
    In order to make a conclusive claim in the face of contrary evidence? Yes it is.

    You demanded me to give you an environmental factor. When I did, you lumped me in with a 'gay-cure' practitioner. This, to me, seemed to suggest you did not agree that there were environmental components to homosexuality.
    Perhaps if you ACTUALLY read our argument you could have saved us both sometime given that I said this to him on the first page: sexuality is a mixture of genetics and environment.



    You claimed that the research he used to back up those claims was not conclusive, implying that his claims were unsupported when they were.
    His claims that they cause homosexuality without genetics are unsupported. I pointed out that none of them fundamentally lead to you being gay after once again making my APA endorsed stance PERFECTLY clear. But you just want to argue and argue, when you have no argument. You're arguing with yourself, not with anything I've actually said. So well done on showing your outstanding lack of reading abilities, as well as the sheer amount of arrogance it takes to get involved in others arguments without even reading them properly.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Being born straight is the norm and being born gay, which has a higher ratio of happening the more boys a woman has, is the exception and is nature's population control. The only reason people question homosexuality is they don't understand the purpose of homosexuality (I like the theory it happens as population control because it gives it a purpose). It is also a minority, an exception to a procreating through love rule.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Being born straight is the norm and being born gay, which has a higher ratio of happening the more boys a woman has, is the exception and is nature's population control. The only reason people question homosexuality is they don't understand the purpose of homosexuality (I like the theory it happens as population control because it gives it a purpose). It is also a minority, an exception to a procreating through love rule.
    Why does it need to have a purpose?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisG123)
    Why does it need to have a purpose?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because it's an attribute contrary to what causes reproduction. Reproduction is the purpose of being straight. Less reproducing is the purpose of being gay. People will accept different types of people if they understand their purpose. Of course, being specifically left handed has no purpose, but then again neither does being specifically right handed. That's a distinguishable example of something which needs no purpose, as long as you hold whatever in a favourable hand.

    I'd imagine it's more philosophical though, like the meaning of life is to exist, reproduce and continue, homosexuality fits perfectly into that by limiting the rate of reproduction, which makes life more sustainable.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Because it's an attribute contrary to what causes reproduction. Reproduction is the purpose of being straight. Less reproducing is the purpose of being gay. People will accept different types of people if they understand their purpose. Of course, being specifically left handed has no purpose, but then again neither does being specifically right handed. That's a distinguishable example of something which needs no purpose, as long as you hold whatever in a favourable hand.

    I'd imagine it's more philosophical though, like the meaning of life is to exist, reproduce and continue, homosexuality fits perfectly into that by limiting the rate of reproduction, which makes life more sustainable.
    Talking nonsense doesn't make it philosophical, it just makes it nonsense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Because it's an attribute contrary to what causes reproduction. Reproduction is the purpose of being straight. Less reproducing is the purpose of being gay. People will accept different types of people if they understand their purpose. Of course, being specifically left handed has no purpose, but then again neither does being specifically right handed. That's a distinguishable example of something which needs no purpose, as long as you hold whatever in a favourable hand.

    I'd imagine it's more philosophical though, like the meaning of life is to exist, reproduce and continue, homosexuality fits perfectly into that by limiting the rate of reproduction, which makes life more sustainable.
    But all you're doing is saying homosexuality needs a purpose and trying to find one for it. I don't think it makes people any more or less likely to accept if they think it has a purpose; I've never thought of there being a purpose of homosexuality but I accept it.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry to break it to you so harsh but men are biologically not even supposed to mate or have sex why? Because they dont even have sexual organs in order to uknow lol d only way is to put it in d a** and thats not sex biologically op pls answer why do women have a vagine thats exactly shaped to take a penis to take up air? clearly men are only supposed to be with wimen but there are gay ppl in society which is saddening
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revisionbug)
    Sorry to break it to you so harsh but men are biologically not even supposed to mate or have sex why? Because they dont even have sexual organs in order to uknow lol d only way is to put it in d a** and thats not sex biologically op pls answer why do women have a vagine thats exactly shaped to take a penis to take up air? clearly men are only supposed to be with wimen but there are gay ppl in society which is saddening
    Could you translate this into English?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    But now we have science that you don't need straight people to reproduce. So you need another argument.
    We're talking about the natural order. Naturally a man and a man cannot conceive, and our arrival on the earth wasn't through technology (I'm afraid). It was through natural reproduction. So that argument is still very much valid.
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?

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

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