What's so wrong with homosexuality?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-06-17 12:46am

damn, shes cute.

there was a time tho, when I would feel not a damn thing - self programmed inhibitions against nudity are interesting things.

Z-Ha-Dum · Post by **Z-Ha-Dum** » 2003-06-17 12:53am

Homosexuals are people and deserve respect...except if they are one of those democrat activists who impose their point of view and think they are always right. I have friends who are gay and they are good people. Gay libertarians speak more sensibly than gay democrats.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-06-17 01:00am

Well...I am a gay democratic(libertarian) socialist....

I am also an activist. For no other reason than society does treat me poorly.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-06-17 03:27am

I hate homosexuals. Their fashion sense is so much better than mine.

Z-Ha-Dum · Post by **Z-Ha-Dum** » 2003-06-17 07:49am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Well...I am a gay democratic(libertarian) socialist....

I am also an activist. For no other reason than society does treat me poorly.

Some libertarians make the distinction that they are not democrats (there is a Libertarian Party). I have an acquaintance who calls himself "gay-libertarian" (the gun-loving type) and he makes it known his politics is much against the Democratic party.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-17 10:23am

Libertarians' views on the free market and the amount of market regulation are much closer to those of the Republicans than those of the Democrats. They take most of the stuff from both parties that I agree with and throw in some stuff I don't.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-17 11:01am

SPOOFE wrote:I hate homosexuals. Their fashion sense is so much better than mine.

Now mine!

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-06-17 02:19pm

Durandal wrote:Libertarians' views on the free market and the amount of market regulation are much closer to those of the Republicans than those of the Democrats. They take most of the stuff from both parties that I agree with and throw in some stuff I don't.

I dont aassociate with a political party really....more with a concept.

I am democratic in that I hate dictatorships...Give me a Consttitutional republic any day...

libertarian in that I am a human rights monger(far left on the social axis of the political spectrum)

And I am also a mild socialist....

I do tend to vote Democratic however(why would I vote Republican?) I would vote for a party that matches my beliefs, but that would be wasting a vote(and giving it to the GOP)

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-06-17 02:31pm

SPOOFE wrote:I hate homosexuals. Their fashion sense is so much better than mine.

I am living proof that you just made a sweeping generalization.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-06-18 04:55am

You ain't never seen my wardrobe, Frank.

Sobbastchianno · Post by **Sobbastchianno** » 2003-06-18 10:46pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Durandal wrote:Libertarians' views on the free market and the amount of market regulation are much closer to those of the Republicans than those of the Democrats. They take most of the stuff from both parties that I agree with and throw in some stuff I don't.
I dont aassociate with a political party really....more with a concept.

I am democratic in that I hate dictatorships...Give me a Consttitutional republic any day...

libertarian in that I am a human rights monger(far left on the social axis of the political spectrum)

And I am also a mild socialist....

I do tend to vote Democratic however(why would I vote Republican?) I would vote for a party that matches my beliefs, but that would be wasting a vote(and giving it to the GOP)

Alyrium, it is never wasting a vote when you vote what your conscience dictates. I am a registered Libertarian. I have been told that I waste my vote because I vote for a party that "can't possibly win."

Here is my take on voting. If I vote for what others think is popular, then I am not voting MY VOICE, and that is what MY VOTE is. Will I win, probably not, but I will have had MY SAY, and not just gone along with the crowd. In my opinoin, too many Americans think voting is a popularity contest. Home Coming Queen and President are two very different things. The first can be a popularity contest, the second one cannot be (as we saw from the last "selection").

Sobbastchianno · Post by **Sobbastchianno** » 2003-06-18 10:46pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Durandal wrote:Libertarians' views on the free market and the amount of market regulation are much closer to those of the Republicans than those of the Democrats. They take most of the stuff from both parties that I agree with and throw in some stuff I don't.
I dont aassociate with a political party really....more with a concept.

I am democratic in that I hate dictatorships...Give me a Consttitutional republic any day...

libertarian in that I am a human rights monger(far left on the social axis of the political spectrum)

And I am also a mild socialist....

I do tend to vote Democratic however(why would I vote Republican?) I would vote for a party that matches my beliefs, but that would be wasting a vote(and giving it to the GOP)

Alyrium, it is never wasting a vote when you vote what your conscience dictates. I am a registered Libertarian. I have been told that I waste my vote because I vote for a party that "can't possibly win."

Here is my take on voting. If I vote for what others think is popular, then I am not voting MY VOICE, and that is what MY VOTE is. Will I win, probably not, but I will have had MY SAY, and not just gone along with the crowd. In my opinoin, too many Americans think voting is a popularity contest. Home Coming Queen and President are two very different things. The first can be a popularity contest, the second one cannot be (as we saw from the last "selection").

Grand Admiral Ancaris · Post by **Grand Admiral Ancaris** » 2003-06-19 04:26pm

From the genetic/reproductive point of view homosexuality doesn't make sence. I don't have any problems with homosexuals or bisexuals though. If that's what floats your boat then good for you.

Things I DO have problems with though would be:

The super, flaming gay types. They irritate the hell out of me.

Couples (both gay and straight) who find it appropriate to make out, grope, share each others dinner (via mouth), and whatnot in public. I don't want to see that kind of stuff. Save that kind of behavior for private people.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-19 04:39pm

GAA, homosexuality actually can act as a population limit: Extra work force for survival, but no offspring to drain the resources of the species. It also offers another way to strengthen bonds within a small group of [insert species] more then just male-female relationships would.plus, its fun!

and yes, flamers.. blegh. idiots. making out in public or groping i dont mind much, i dont have to look at them if i dont want to.

Grand Admiral Ancaris · Post by **Grand Admiral Ancaris** » 2003-06-19 04:54pm

kojikun wrote:GAA, homosexuality actually can act as a population limit: Extra work force for survival, but no offspring to drain the resources of the species. It also offers another way to strengthen bonds within a small group of [insert species] more then just male-female relationships would.plus, its fun!

Now maybe this is just my poor understanding of genetics showing through... but if homosexuality were geneticially based, wouldn't the fact that such individuals have a tendancy of not reproducing cause said genetic triggers to be weeded out of the gene pool as evolution continued???

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-19 05:00pm

whatever makes someone like a certain gender is an either-or from both parents. One parent likes guys (or both) the other likes girls (or both). The gene that determines such [whatever that gene is] would logically be capable of turning up in a child of either gender. it would be as trivial as haircolour. it wouldnt need to be "passed on from queer to queer" because its a simple switch that both parents have.

what i mean is, if the mother has the "like guys" gene, and the father has the "like girls" gene, the child could have EITHER of them, regardless of sex. It wouldnt have to be passed down to his or her child, because the gene would actually rely on heterosexual or bisexual couples in order to produce a homosexual child.

Sexuality isnt a matter of "GAY" and "STRAIGHT" its a matter of "liking guys" and "liking girls", which is gender unspecific.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-06-19 05:49pm

Grand Admiral Ancaris wrote:
kojikun wrote:GAA, homosexuality actually can act as a population limit: Extra work force for survival, but no offspring to drain the resources of the species. It also offers another way to strengthen bonds within a small group of [insert species] more then just male-female relationships would.plus, its fun!
Now maybe this is just my poor understanding of genetics showing through... but if homosexuality were geneticially based, wouldn't the fact that such individuals have a tendancy of not reproducing cause said genetic triggers to be weeded out of the gene pool as evolution continued???

Recessive trait. You dont have to have it dislayed on your phenotype...

All you need are two heterozygous people to breed, and you ave a 25% chance of having a gay child...Though throughing bisexuality into the mix, it is probably a set of genes...

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-06-19 06:31pm

Grand Admiral Ancaris wrote:Now maybe this is just my poor understanding of genetics showing through... but if homosexuality were geneticially based, wouldn't the fact that such individuals have a tendancy of not reproducing cause said genetic triggers to be weeded out of the gene pool as evolution continued???

There could be several reasons. If the gene(s) are recessive and provide some benefit, not so. An example would be sickle-cell anemia. Those who have it are also not likely to breed (albeit for vastly different reasons), but the gene stays very common, because it gives immunity to malaria. Not that the gene(s) homosexuality is (are) anywhere near that extreme, but the same principle could apply.

One theory says homosexuality is a natural response to overpopulation, but I'm not sure how well-supported that is, so I'll shut up now.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-19 06:44pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote: Recessive trait. You dont have to have it dislayed on your phenotype...

All you need are two heterozygous people to breed, and you ave a 25% chance of having a gay child...Though throughing bisexuality into the mix, it is probably a set of genes...

Bisexuality would just be both "guy-liking" and "girl-liking" genes simultaneously activated.

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2003-06-19 07:06pm

I remember reading somewhere that the gene(s) which make male children gay could concievably give the mother a reproductive advantage. If all her daughters have the same advantage, it doesn't matter if a few of the sons dont reproduce at all.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-06-20 03:56am

From the genetic/reproductive point of view homosexuality doesn't make sence.

People that are more comfortable, through recreation (sex can be VERY recreational) and less stressed can contribute to a better society, thus improving society as a whole. A better society increases the odds of healthy and successful offspring.

Thus, we see that, from a genetic/reproductive point of view, homosexuality is very BENEFICIAL to society. Unless you want to ignore the social aspect of human beings...

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-06-20 04:10am

SPOOFE wrote:
From the genetic/reproductive point of view homosexuality doesn't make sence.
People that are more comfortable, through recreation (sex can be VERY recreational) and less stressed can contribute to a better society, thus improving society as a whole. A better society increases the odds of healthy and successful offspring.

Thus, we see that, from a genetic/reproductive point of view, homosexuality is very BENEFICIAL to society. Unless you want to ignore the social aspect of human beings...

That's like saying ice cream improves society because eating ice cream is something that most people enjoy, and it makes people happy, and happier people make for a more productive society. Therefore ice cream is a boon to mankind.

Come on guy. You are reeeeeaaaaallly reaching here. I don't belive homosexuality is a detriment to society, but not only is this a rather large leap of logic, it rather oversimplifies things.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-20 12:58pm

Perinquus wrote:That's like saying ice cream improves society because eating ice cream is something that most people enjoy, and it makes people happy, and happier people make for a more productive society. Therefore ice cream is a boon to mankind.

Aha! But we DO have ice cream! see see see?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-06-20 04:11pm

I've saw oen thing that said it was passed down on the mother's side...so it would only get naturally selected out if it was in a guy. However, since then, i've heard some stuff saying there isn't any guaranteed JUST genetic cause to it. Much more likely it'll be a combination of factors i would have thought.

Plus, in a close society with fewer resources, it'd be beneficial to have genetically related siblings who will look after your kids (selfish genes) but have no kids of their own, and thus keep the resources around for longer.

Or something...

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-06-20 04:16pm

Sobbastchianno wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Durandal wrote:Libertarians' views on the free market and the amount of market regulation are much closer to those of the Republicans than those of the Democrats. They take most of the stuff from both parties that I agree with and throw in some stuff I don't.
I dont aassociate with a political party really....more with a concept.

I am democratic in that I hate dictatorships...Give me a Consttitutional republic any day...

libertarian in that I am a human rights monger(far left on the social axis of the political spectrum)

And I am also a mild socialist....

I do tend to vote Democratic however(why would I vote Republican?) I would vote for a party that matches my beliefs, but that would be wasting a vote(and giving it to the GOP)
Alyrium, it is never wasting a vote when you vote what your conscience dictates. I am a registered Libertarian. I have been told that I waste my vote because I vote for a party that "can't possibly win."

Here is my take on voting. If I vote for what others think is popular, then I am not voting MY VOICE, and that is what MY VOTE is. Will I win, probably not, but I will have had MY SAY, and not just gone along with the crowd. In my opinoin, too many Americans think voting is a popularity contest. Home Coming Queen and President are two very different things. The first can be a popularity contest, the second one cannot be (as we saw from the last "selection").

Yhat is jst the problem. If we didnt have a two party system things woud be different. Unfortunatly that is not the case. If I vote for a third party, the party that has a chance at winning that best fits my view(The democrats) loses that vote. If I were to vote green for instance, A republican, who does not fit my beliefs in the slightest, has a better chance of being elected.