By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is being Gay an evolution of humans?

Yoshiya on 01 August 2013
reggin_bolas said:

In the last paragraph you are just plain wrong. The difference is that people of all races throughout time have rejected homosexuality because it is patently unnatural and therefore offensive to the rational faculties. It isn't unnatural to have a sexual union between people of different ethnicities. That has been a common practice throughout antiquity.

Interracial relations have only been rejected out of specific ideologies such as national socialism.

It simply isn't true that it's been rejected by all races in history. Some places even embraced it. I remember reading in numerous books on Japanese history that homosexual behaviour in men wasn't just encouraged but was actually seen as "true" love compared to sex with women which was seen as being purely for reproduction.



Around the Network
Screamapillar on 01 August 2013

Are there homosexual animals?



The Screamapillar is easily identified by its constant screaming—it even screams in its sleep. The Screamapillar is the favorite food of everything, is sexually attracted to fire, and needs constant reassurance or it will die.

the2real4mafol on 01 August 2013
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
the2real4mafol said:
reggin_bolas said:

A question for you gay-rights sympathizers. Do you find the idea of polyamory morally acceptable? Should people be allowed to marry more than one spouse? I ask because that's the future of civil rights advocacy.

You people intend to deconstruct (viz, destroy) the concept of family and that will pretty much be the end of this civilization.

No having more than one wife or husband at the same time is just stupid. Simply because you are supposed to be loyal to the one you love. They are the one and only. Personally i think we love all our friends and family, but it's not the same. I don't really know what this has to do with gay rights though. 


What if three people love each other and wishes to be loyal towards each other? No one will get hurt, so there is no point in opposing this idea.

 

Same thing can't be said about pedophilia.

I suppose so on the basis it's in THEIR consent but it's seems very weird to me. Who even does this in a relationship? 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

naruball on 01 August 2013
reggin_bolas said:
naruball said:
Wright said:
reggin_bolas said:

Classic desperation. When you homosexuals lose arguments you resort to the usual personal attacks. Same thing with minorities, if you keep disagreeing with them they will eventually call you racist. 


You keep ignoring me, though. I've proven that those who actually led to mankind's greatness (you know, the ancient greek) accepted homosexuality.

 

And Plato was bisexual. You should read Bouquet. (Or whatever his notes about love and romance was called)

Sorry, dude but that's not true. There is no way to determine whether he was straight, gay or bi. I'm a classist, doing a phd and the Symposium (means "the banquet") is part of my research. Seems to me that you haven't read it. Basically in the dialogue there are 7 main speakers, one of which is Socrates and only one of the seven talks about men being born with two heads, four arms etc and being split into two and seeking their other half their entire lives. There's no indication which speaker Plato agrees the most with. No serious scholar has writen any articles on Plato being bi or whatever. That would be nothing but speculation. Even if we assume that Socrates expresses Plato's views, in this dialogue, Socrates does not talk about love between men or women specifically. He talks mostly about love between men and women (with only a few ambiguous passages). 

Also, another misconception is that homosexulity was acceptable in Greece or Rome around 5th-1st cBC. It wasn't. Only certain types were acceptable and everything else heavily criticized. I'm not gonna go into detail, as I don't know if anyone wants to hear about it. Just wanted to point out that that's a common misconception.

As for the topic, Spurge was specific. If you disagree with homosexuality, stay out of this thread. Not sure if certain people here have bad comprehension skills or simply can't help themselves. If it's the latter, then they need to get some professional help, as it seriously doesn't affect their lives, but their words and actions affect those of others. Such hatred is misplaced and should thus not exist.

Anyway. To answer the question, it's definitely not evolution as many people rightly pointed out, but it does seem to me to be an anomaly. And I don't say that in a disrespectful way (I'm gay myself). It's just outside the norm along with so many other things in  life. We're all different in a way; it's just that we focus on some things that are different over other things. Some people are lactose intolerant, some others have insanely good memory, others incredibly good/fast metabolism. I think all these are anomalies (i.e. ouside the norm), but so what?

As for the argument about the "unbiased" "majority" thinking that homosexuality is bad, digusting, etc, the same thing could have been said about the majority of people 50 years ago and their feelings towards interacial couples, women voting/having equal rights and so on. The majority didn't like Black people for being black and I'm sure they felt unbiased, but that didn't make them any less wrong.  

In the last paragraph you are just plain wrong. The difference is that people of all races throughout time have rejected homosexuality because it is patently unnatural and therefore offensive to the rational faculties. It isn't unnatural to have a sexual union between people of different ethnicities. That has been a common practice throughout antiquity.

Interracial relations have only been rejected out of specific ideologies such as national socialism.

No, you're the one who's wrong. 

Your argument is weak and I showed just how flawed your logic is. You argued that "unbiased" "majority" thinks in a certain way, hence it's unnatural. The same majority had views that we consider wrong nowadays. That was my point and I proved you wrong. You may think that having two master's makes you something special or above everyone else, but it doesn't. Your bigotry is so evident that any further discussion with you will be a waste of time. Please don't reply as I have absolutely nothing to discuss with you, not because of your views, which you're entitled to, but because of your attitude. 



TruckOSaurus on 01 August 2013

Well this discussion is going nowhere and it's starting to get ugly. I'm locking the thread.



Signature goes here!

Around the Network
ninetailschris on 01 August 2013
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
the2real4mafol said:
reggin_bolas said:

A question for you gay-rights sympathizers. Do you find the idea of polyamory morally acceptable? Should people be allowed to marry more than one spouse? I ask because that's the future of civil rights advocacy.

You people intend to deconstruct (viz, destroy) the concept of family and that will pretty much be the end of this civilization.

No having more than one wife or husband at the same time is just stupid. Simply because you are supposed to be loyal to the one you love. They are the one and only. Personally i think we love all our friends and family, but it's not the same. I don't really know what this has to do with gay rights though. 


What if three people love each other and wishes to be loyal towards each other? No one will get hurt, so there is no point in opposing this idea.

 

Same thing can't be said about pedophilia.


Can you prove that this true even though it contradicts history and reports of pedophile relationships in legal countries? You do realize there people who have married minors and never hurt them right. This is fact if you do basic research on matter. Chinese,America,South America ,Africa, etc. All had allowed today or before pedophile relationship and millions of kids were never abused. So, based on this what ground does the bolded stand?



"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen"  ~ max

reggin_bolas on 01 August 2013
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
reggin_bolas said:

Didn't you know gay rights is equted as civil rights? What do you think the next civil rights cause will be after gay rights? Do you think people will stop advocating for groups of people with historically oppressed interests? It's either the rights of pedophiles, bigamists, or other sexual deviants that will be the next focus.

Progressive liberalism is the single greatest threat to Western civilization, not radical islamism.


You really need stop to bringing up pedophilia in this discussion. A child's brain is not developed enough to give consent and this will not change in the future.

 

Everybody knows that the child's health is at stake when it comes to sexual activity. Not only Christians.

 

There are social studies coming out of Europe which show that consent between adult and child exists. These studies suggest that children who willingly enter into such a union have no regrets of said activity in their adulthood.

Furthermore, while it's true that the brain of a child is less developed than an adult brain, we shouldn't downplay the autonomy of young adults to make important decisions. When I was 15 I made the decision to enter into a high school track that focused heavily on social science. Are you saying I was incapable of making such a decision?

Did you know that contracts entered between minors and adults are not necessarily void but merely voidable depending on the situation? Did you know that marriages between children of certain ages are not void but merely voidable? There is no absolute cut off point at the age of 18 for consent for major life decisions.



irstupid on 01 August 2013

One thing I find amusing is Aethiest homosexuals.

They preach there is no God and its all evolution, darwinism, ect. But wouldn't being Homosexual make you then a faulty human, and error, an organism that can't survive. I mean Homosexuals aren't Asexual, so its not like its a positive evolution. It's an evolution that woudl result in the extinction of mankind.

So to me all homosexuals should be religious and believe that God made them that way and that everyone is perfect or whatever is all preached.

I mean if your Homosexual, how can you only believe in evolution, darwanism, survival of the fittest and not come to the realization that you yourself would be a defect?



Wright on 01 August 2013
naruball said:

Sorry, dude but that's not true. There is no way to determine whether he was straight, gay or bi. I'm a classist, doing a phd and the Symposium (means "the banquet") is part of my research. Seems to me that you haven't read it. Basically in the dialogue there are 7 main speakers, one of which is Socrates and only one of the seven talks about men being born with two heads, four arms etc and being split into two and seeking their other half their entire lives. There's no indication which speaker Plato agrees the most with. No serious scholar has writen any articles on Plato being bi or whatever. That would be nothing but speculation. Even if we assume that Socrates expresses Plato's views, in this dialogue, Socrates does not talk about love between men or women specifically. He talks mostly about love between men and women (with only a few ambiguous passages). 

Also, another misconception is that homosexulity was acceptable in Greece or Rome around 5th-1st cBC. It wasn't. Only certain types were acceptable and everything else heavily criticized. I'm not gonna go into detail, as I don't know if anyone wants to hear about it. Just wanted to point out that that's a common misconception.

As for the topic, Spurge was specific. If you disagree with homosexuality, stay out of this thread. Not sure if certain people here have bad comprehension skills or simply can't help themselves. If it's the latter, then they need to get some professional help, as it seriously doesn't affect their lives, but their words and actions affect those of others. Such hatred is misplaced and should thus not exist.

Anyway. To answer the question, it's definitely not evolution as many people rightly pointed out, but it does seem to me to be an anomaly. And I don't say that in a disrespectful way (I'm gay myself). It's just outside the norm along with so many other things in  life. We're all different in a way; it's just that we focus on some things that are different over other things. Some people are lactose intolerant, some others have insanely good memory, others incredibly good/fast metabolism. I think all these are anomalies (i.e. ouside the norm), but so what?

As for the argument about the "unbiased" "majority" thinking that homosexuality is bad, digusting, etc, the same thing could have been said about the majority of people 50 years ago and their feelings towards interacial couples, women voting/having equal rights and so on. The majority didn't like Black people for being black and I'm sure they felt unbiased, but that didn't make them any less wrong.  


I'll ask sorry in advance, I used a loose term applied to an era that doesn't fit; it has been established that sexuality wasn't the same back in the Ancient Greece as how it is now. So I made a mess saying that Pluto was bisexual. That being said, if I don't recall correctly, didn't Plato use the Socrates figure as to explain his own vision? Didn't he twisted Socrates' vision as to fit his? And with that being said, the context of... Symposium (Symposium, seriously? I assume that the Spanish version is wrongly translated) do indeed has Socrates listening to those speakers. I don't remember that much about the book because I read it back at high school, but he didn't contradict people in it either. He just listened to them, just like Socrates used to do, and extracted a conclusion using the mayeutica. (That "ask and ask questions till' you find an answer thing). And in most of the cases, the results of those questions led to the right answer. I'll have to read the book again, though, thanks for the heads-up.

However, homosexuality was indeed tolerated, just like ancient Roman did. It had its limitations, but of course, and I think I know what you meant with the details. Caesar is the prime example, as he was mocked with the expression "Man of all women, but woman of all men". . But being criticised doesn't mean it was forbidden to do so. It wasn't as taboo as it was during Middle Age.

 

I don't disagree with homosexuality. It's just I have some problems during comprehension because English is not my main language.



Jay520 on 01 August 2013
reggin_bolas said:
Jay520 said:
reggin_bolas said:
Jay520 said:
ListerOfSmeg said:
Here is the real issue people never seem to look at.
When you start making it a law that a certain group with a different sexual preference has the right to practice sex how they see fit, it opens up the doors for the others to come forward and claim the same rights

As we speak pedophiles, Nambla, and scientist and therapist are now pushing to change the definition of rape and child rape.
If one persons unnatural sex life is accepted then we have to accept everyone elses sexual preferences too because they also cannot help it.
Pedophiles cannot help how they feel. They were born that way so it should be perfectly fine for them to have sex with children. According to gays they cant help it so it should be accepted so now according tot hem pedophiles are okay too. rapist cannot help their sexual urges so their rights should be protected too.

If its how someone was made, then it should be okay for them to live that life..Isnt that what many of you said here yourself... Then you must also except every other persons sexual preferences because they were born that way.


The argument that homosexuality should be accepted has little to do with the fact that "its just the way people are". It's based on the fact that it doesn't harm anyone. So there's no reason to reject it. If there's no reason to reject something, then it should be accepted by default.

I am reposting what I wrote earlier in response to this classic gay-rights response.

"You look at the design of the human body and you will come to the conclusion it was only meant to engage in intercourse with another sexually-mature female. The anus is not designed to handle penetration. It ruptures easily and can develop polyps. Same thing with oral sex, studies show a link between oral sex and increased risk of mouth and  throat cancer. This leads a rational person to conclude that the sexual union between a man and a man is unnatural. Same principle with women, only behavior leading to procreation is natural by virtue of our biological design"

In other words, homosexuality violates the design of our bodies and the way we were meant to live.


Post link to support your points.

 

No one cares to read lenghty scholarly articles, like that P student said; I won't bore you with the details. I'm just posting what I remember reading through my 10 plus years of higher education.

And the part about the anal area is medical common sense. It simply isn't designed to handle penetration by foreign objects. Ask any MD.



I believe you. I just want to know to what severity the risk increases. What's more harmful to a person's well-being? Increasing the risk for certain conditions or limiting themselves from a romantic relationship with someone they love?