Shelved by: vash-stampede on 2012-06-08
Comment on This Post:
I think gay marriage is wrong.
A respectable opinion sir, now let me tell you that's bullshit...
No it isn't.
Its ok if both girls are hot
I doubt you support that view. If you do, however, and you can tell me why, I'll take the bait.
Even if you don't and can tell me why, I can kick your pretend ass in a debate.
I think homosexuality is against nature.
Against nature? As in contradicts nature? As in homosexuality isn't observed in chimps, dolphins, cats, dogs, and 1500 other species?
As in it is a defect that goes against the one absolute natural law, that is survival through reproduction. AKA the entire of foundation of evolution...
Being born sterile also removes you from reproduction. However, sterile people can still marry.
Further, the fact that some of your specie won't be able to reproduce is a part of evolution.
And in the view of evolution sterile people are defective too.
I'm just saying it is a biological/psychological defect in terms of evolution. Not that you should be discriminated against because of the defect. The same way you wouldn't discriminate against a sterile person.
Yes, we are "selected against," when it comes to the evolutionary standpoint, but that makes it no more or less natural.
Well since butt sex and scissoring don't make babies, and the point of life from an evolutionary standpoint is to reproduce and pass on your genetic code, it kinda isn't normal/natural. It just isn't wrong and shouldn't be the stigma that it is from a cultural standpoint.
It's not so much an issue of yourself, but of your species. One of the genes that can lead to homosexuality in humans is the gene for sexual promiscuity, which encourages reproduction. It may lead to detrimental side effects sometimes, as many genes can, but its presence as a whole is a benefit to the species.
So it's a detrimental side effect to a certain gene, sounds like a defect in other words....Glad we could come to an agreement.
But it's not "against" nature still.
If it's an adverse side effect that is detrimental, it is a defect, thus it is against nature, in the sense that it is bad from an evolutionary point of view.
Perhaps your sense of the word nature, and the way I used it originally differ.
There probably is a better term for it.
Now, genetics only provides a small factor in the process, whereas complications during birth (hormone imbalances, mis-developments) contribute the majority.
And, yes, I suppose in a sense we are "defective", but my confirmation bias doesn't like these negative words associated with something positive. However, we develop and exist as abnormalities, so the classification isn't 100% off, but our species is secure enough to allow for many such anomalies to live in peace.
When I say defect I am not using the word to try and hurt.
But it does have negative connotations.
It just means not working as intended, it does not automatically mean bad or good.
Well, "intended" is a bad word here, as evolution has no purpose or intent.
On the other hand, individual reproduction as of now is no longer the hallmark of human evolution. A better gauge of an individual would be their contribution to society, which sexuality would be no more than coincidence if it played a role.
Then again, that's kind of straying from the point of the discussion.
Evolution seeks to weed out the weak and leave the strongest best adapted specimens to reproduce.
It doesn't think about doing this, but none the less, it does do it.
That's like saying gravity seeks to pull things together.
...I agree with that statement, just because it isn't cognitively trying to do so, doesn't mean that it isn't.
But having will and thought is a prerequisite to having intent or to seek. If something has no will, it cannot have intent.
False, a microscopic parasite seeks to find food but lacks the capacity to think and will, it just does what it does based on instinct.
Gravity or Evolution "seek" to do what they do regardless of will or thought, they are innate laws.
I am not using the word in a personified sense.
PS I don't have anything against homosexuality, mostly was just trying to mess with you, if gays wanna get married I got not problems with it.
I figured from the comment you chose to reply to. I'm still going to argue the point, though.
It's actually not. That's sort of a made up fact. But it's a sterile debate.
Natural is neither good nor bad. Airplanes are unnatural and good. Cyanide is natural and bad. The "argument from nature" is illogical and should not be uttered by any thinking person.
Are you saying that homosexuality isn't observed in non-human species? 'Cause I'd then simply point you to hermaphroditic species.
What I'm saying is that to observe one male dog humping another male dog and declare it to be homosexuality is egregious anthropomorphism. Most species in which we see behavior that people are quick to label homosexuality are simply establishing dominance over one another in a pack or herd order.
Homosexuality as we know it is a human-exclusive phenomenon, as far as we can empirically tell.
Also, hermaphroditism is not homosexuality; any more than asexual reproduction is. Again, too eager to anthropomorphise.
If there is only one sex to a specie, then that specie is homosexual by definition.
I'm not talking about a single homosexual encounter, for that doesn't make a human homosexual either. I'm speaking of a homosexual preference.
Fortunately, I'm not anti-semantic at all. I love semantics!
You could view hermaphroditism two ways: being both sexes or not being either sex. If there are no sexes, there can be no "same sex". If you take the position that one creature is both sexes, then a mating between two such creatures would also be "opposite sex" -- that would be half homosexual at most.
Thanks for the discussion.
I actually don't support that view, and I'm too lazy to come up with a good reason how to because it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to come up with a good reason on why gay marriage should be illegal.
look what you've started.
It's actually spelled touché. American schools are awful at teaching. I am obviously smarter than everyone else. Also, I don't believe in evolution.
Your pathetic attempt at starting an argument stuns and awes!
This post is FALSE!
I think The Room is one of the greatest movies of all time.
You sick bastard...
No, it's actually spelled arguement.
OH YEAH? WHY DON'T YOU MAKE ME?!
1) Misspell "argument." 2) Wait.
This image is bullshit.