The Homosexuality Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Duke
- 9,138 comments
- 448,025 views
- 1,678
- Canada
- TheDrummingKING
Googled mitochondria, heteroplasmy, and homoplasmy. Didn't help one bit. 
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Phrasing the question as a "cause" of homosexuality implies that it cannot exist naturally, that somehow it must be "caused" by something. Your premise is flawed to begin with.
It isn't caused, it just exists, there is no need to psyhoanalyze it, just accept it exists and get on with our lives. I don't care what anyone does in their bedroom it's not my concern, nor should it be anyone else's. If a person can't accept that, it's their problem, and their's only.
- 87,613
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Being a geneticist helps.
Ignoring the odd gravedig - Duke hasn't been round in a while - that's quite an odd comment.
My eye colour is natural. It's caused by the expression of certain genes. Natural things can be caused by things too.
- 87,613
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Everything has a cause. The question is whether we understand the cause.
In your mechanism something causes testosterone production while something else causes oestrogen production. Something causes the testosterone/oestrogen balance to move one way or the other.
We don't actually know what causes generate the effects of sexual preference - what causes you to prefer certain genders, generations, species and subsets thereof.
In your mechanism something causes testosterone production while something else causes oestrogen production. Something causes the testosterone/oestrogen balance to move one way or the other.
We don't actually know what causes generate the effects of sexual preference - what causes you to prefer certain genders, generations, species and subsets thereof.
- 38,956
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
I'm glad we could open your eyes. (caused by atropine)
Estrogen does things like make you get tits. But just because you have a great rack doesn't mean you want balls in your face. Plus, hormones are manufactured in the body. From cholesterol.
- 87,613
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Now you're into the realm of nature (external influences) vs. nurture (genetic and epigenetic causes). We don't know. There's likely a component of both.
Of course this line of enquiry isn't massively helpful - it takes us back to offence. You'll find just as many people who are offended by the notion that their sexuality is out of their hands (in any way genetic) as you'll find who will be offended by anything other than "I was born this way" (in any way non-genetic) so it's difficult to have a rational conversation about it. For an example, look back in the history of this thread!
Of course this line of enquiry isn't massively helpful - it takes us back to offence. You'll find just as many people who are offended by the notion that their sexuality is out of their hands (in any way genetic) as you'll find who will be offended by anything other than "I was born this way" (in any way non-genetic) so it's difficult to have a rational conversation about it. For an example, look back in the history of this thread!
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I don't know what a gravedig is sorry.
If one accepts that homosexuality is natural, either predetermined at birth genetically, or inflenced by environmental factors which are also natural, or a combination of the two, then beginning with the premise that homosexuality is either a ,"serious problem or an alternative lifestyle" is to me a flawed premise. Your eye colour is "caused" by your genetic make up, but in either case, it is neither a serious problem nor a lifestyle choice nor would anyone choose to frame it with that particular reference.
In this case, the question or premise presupposes the conditions of homosexuality.
- 87,613
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Quoting a very, very, very old post.
None of which is particularly relevant to the supposition that natural things don't have a cause.
However it seems like you're referring to the very first post in this thread, made nearly a decade ago. You might like to make yourself aware of the purposes of the origin of this thread, which was someone else suggesting that homosexuality was a sickness (and various other comments of this kind) - this thread was created as an effective thread split to allow the original to continue.
It wasn't Duke's opinion that homosexuality was either a problem or an "alternative" lifestyle, but of some of the individuals discussing it in the earlier thread. You'll find Duke's opinion on homosexuality mirrors his libertarian outlook and I'll tell you that, without a hesitation, he'll have voted for the last option.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
There's nothing wrong with a gravedig in and of itself, as long as it contributes to the conversation (this is true of any post, actually). Having said that, there are those here who seem to think that replying to any post whatsoever that's more than a few days old is a no-no and should never be done under any circumstances.
Bottom line: If your post truly does contribute to the conversation, don't worry about the date on the post you're replying to.
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
The Supreme Court will here two cases on gay marriage, here is one.
More then 1,000 laws, one of which being inheritance tax. Marriage is considered as 2 becoming 1 I guess, thus the $5 mill exemption or whatever it is but the real story is in the ridiculous tax in the first place. The theory is that all people should have an equal chance and start at ground zero, in other words, redistribution. estate tax is bogus, getting married to avoid it is more bogus. Would Edith Windsor be fighting for gay marriage rights if this tax did not effect her in the first place? I know I know, I am a broken record and some of you say people marry out of love not out of benefit, if that where true, any old church service or whatever flavor you choose to commit yourself to another would suffice.
Seriously, 1,000 laws and programs, I hate to think of the all resources we waste with this sort of nonsense. Suddenly I feel discriminated against lol.
More then 1,000 laws, one of which being inheritance tax. Marriage is considered as 2 becoming 1 I guess, thus the $5 mill exemption or whatever it is but the real story is in the ridiculous tax in the first place. The theory is that all people should have an equal chance and start at ground zero, in other words, redistribution. estate tax is bogus, getting married to avoid it is more bogus. Would Edith Windsor be fighting for gay marriage rights if this tax did not effect her in the first place? I know I know, I am a broken record and some of you say people marry out of love not out of benefit, if that where true, any old church service or whatever flavor you choose to commit yourself to another would suffice.
Seriously, 1,000 laws and programs, I hate to think of the all resources we waste with this sort of nonsense. Suddenly I feel discriminated against lol.
ShobThaBob
Premium
- 2,651
- rosooftw
On top of the giant tax revenue, it's also to fight against a dynasty of idle rich people who can just live off of their fortunes for generations without having to grow upon them. That being said, 5million in the bank is plenty enough to do that unless you insist on living the high life.
- 2,151
- Germany
- x_XNyordiaX_x
*cough*
*cough*
I'm not saying nobody does it, but pointing out that every homosexual couple would get married just for financial reasons goes to far.
Plus, I'd say let them! Straight people have had these rights all along, so gay people should as well.
Please read the post you responded to a little less serious.
Please, don't take everyone serious, that way the society will really improve!
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
People in most marriages do not marry for money. Sometimes the financial situation can weigh in on the decision because it can sometimes negatively affect the total outcome (such as one has severely bad credit), but I know absolutely no one who wanted to be married for a tax benefit. Next you are going to talk about child tax credits and claim that is why people have kids.
Simple fact is your entire comment falls apart when you take into account increased divorce rates over the last 20-30 years. If finances were the primary reason for the couple to be married then why get divorced? No, the majority of marriages are an act of emotion.
That said, yes there are marriages of convenience or politics, marriages by gold chasers, and so forth. But all you have to do is look at the societal view of marriage to know that it is most commonly tied to emotion.
Now, I married my wife because I wanted to create a lifelong emotional and religious commitment to her. But if someone determined that meant I did not get to pass on my finances to her at my death, that she could not be my medical surrogate, and etc. then I would be fighting. These are things you do for or trust to the person you are closest to. In most cases that is a spouse.
To take it further, the reason financial benefits are a legal argument is not because Edith Windsor wants a special tax break, but to point out the inequality of the system. It shows that it is a violation of their rights because by not granting a full marriage the law treats different people in different ways.
And reason #2 I suggest government have no role in marriage at all. Single people and non-parents are at a disadvantage purely because they can't or don't want to be tied down for life to others.
Dial back the sensitivity. He is (jokingly) saying he is discriminated against for being single. And to deny that is a true statement would actually hurt your argument in favor of gay marriage.
He is cynical about love. We've all been there.
You could try explaining why he is wrong instead of taking jabs at his maturity.
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
ShobThaBob
That would be redistribution which is a crock. Take the money away from an idle rich kid and give it to a bureaucracy, no, give it to a poor idle kid because we all know how motivating well fare is. The 5 million exemption is for spouses only btw, that was the point.
Gonales
Straight married people, and no they are not rights, just a bunch of government hocus pokus, tax codes written in attempt to influence behavior. A gift is a gift, the money earned to purchase the gift is taxed, the purchase of the gift is taxed, does the act of giving need to be taxed as well? I'll tax your tax dawg lol.
Just saw your Post FK, in short, I'm not saying marry for money exactly, I think you know pretty well what I'm saying. For what I'm asking to be reality there would need to be one hell of a lot more responsibility in our society. I realize full well why all the laws are what they are, people are nasty and all sorts of complications arise.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
If I earn billions and decide I want that to go to my family for generations so that they have no need or want, that is my choice to do with my money that I earned. The government has no right in trying to change that. The
The estate tax is one of the most vile and disgusting taxes government has ever come up with. I find it no surprise that rich people try to find ways to avoid these kinds of taxes when you have the IRS hanging around their deathbed like a bunch of vultures.
Just so you understand the argument in court is not about financial benefits, but equality in the law.
Last edited:
ShobThaBob
Premium
- 2,651
- rosooftw
I come from a pretty wealthy family, and this tax which varies so wildly every year is always looming in front of me. I wasn't arguing that it was a GOOD idea, but for what it's worth, for all the disgust people might have for it, it cracks me up that so many aren't ever going to be in a position to be affected by it. For me, it's right at the point where it could mean the different between an immediate retirement or paying an obscene amount of taxes and still feeling the pressure to continue working until I have an interest-only income that I'm comfortable with.
Again though, the number of people that actually have to deal with it vs the people who hate on it so much is a little weird and confusing to me.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Being affected by an injustice is not a prerequisite to recognizing it as such and fighting it.
But then you may also have people that on the surface appear to be poor farmers, but the value of the land they inherit is well above the amount to face the tax. Their situation is worse because they have to pay cash for the tax on the property they need to make a living, but may not have available as all their assets are in their farm. They could sell it, but that is also where they live.
I know plenty of people from my home town who had to sell the land they grew up on and buy a house with a small amount of land and hope the remaining cash is enough to retire on.
But all the politicians will talk about is class warfare and the rich paying their "fair share."
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
