'Gay' baby triggers row

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I disagree. I think you dudes are wanting essential to mean quintessential...which it doesn't. More than one thing can be essential for the same objective...in this instance...religious toleration and coexistence would be ANOTHER essential item for the success of modern society...by my meter stick.

Anyway, there is a strange feeling I have right now...I can't explain it...am I always supposed to feel like this when Bardock42 actually agrees with someone?

Also, I hope that I didn't offend you on a personal level...this, to me, is supposed to be entertainment and if I saw you in real life, I would buy you a drink or something...I offended Schecter one time so I want to make clear that I totally and honestly don't think you are an idiot.

I don't take personal shots at my intellectual capacity personal either...I take it as point you are trying to make.

As for you disagreeing, it doesn't really matter, as you just pointed out you didn't mean that homosexuals are essential to modern culture, but that their existance furthers tolerance. They are not essential to modern life, modern life could exist without them, that's the point.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yes.

But, isn't all of that what I said?

*Looks back over your posts*

Yup...sort of...I was saying the same things for just a slightly different reason...I think that it is essential for us to progress...as in, less war, better technology through cooperation, etc...did you mean that as well?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, thank you for the disclaimer and do not worry I am not offended...annoyed is more likely though.

As for you disagreeing, it doesn't really matter, as you just pointed out you didn't mean that homosexuals are essential to modern culture, but that their existance furthers tolerance. They are not essential to modern life, modern life could exist without them, that's the point.

I did clearly define my objectives with my statement which negates your interpretation of my meaning. I clearly indicated that humans can survive just fine without homosexuals and in fact, we probably could survive even better without them(i.e. reproduction)...I was referring to our progression into being a "higher" species. (Like Vulcans, from Star Trek.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I did clearly define my objectives with my statement which negates your interpretation of my meaning. I clearly indicated that humans can survive just fine without homosexuals and in fact, we probably could survive even better without them(i.e. reproduction)...I was referring to our progression into being a "higher" species. (Like Vulcans, from Star Trek.)

You forgot a verb, Bardock.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You forgot a verb, Bardock.

Originally posted by dadudemon
*Looks back over your posts*

Yup...sort of...I was saying the same things for just a slightly different reason...I think that it is essential for us to progress...as in, less war, better technology through cooperation, etc...did you mean that as well?

It is. But what is said is that interaction is beneficial.

And you can't really muddy the waters with talk of essential v. quintessential. The fact that homosexuals exist is beneficial to mutual understanding through adversity and understanding. But, to define homosexuals as essential is like saying that humanity requires homosexuals to acheive understanding and acceptance. This is not the case. Although I have a feeling you understand that homosexuality, as an example, is interchangable with any number of other minority groups.

Homosexuals exist to provide clues in creating the ultimate nonviolent weapon: the gay bomb.

Until that time, however, they serve an alternative purpose: someone we can band together against so we don't fight each other.

Originally posted by Devil King
It is. But what is said is that interaction is beneficial.

And you can't really muddy the waters with talk of essential v. quintessential. The fact that homosexuals exist is beneficial to mutual understanding through adversity and understanding. But, to define homosexuals as essential is like saying that humanity requires homosexuals to acheive understanding and acceptance. This is not the case. Although I have a feeling you understand that homosexuality, as an example, is interchangable with any number of other minority groups.

EXACTLY!! I stated that already. See below.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I disagree. I think you dudes are wanting essential to mean quintessential...which it doesn't. More than one thing can be essential for the same objective...in this instance...religious toleration and coexistence would be ANOTHER essential item for the success of modern society...by my meter stick.

Edit:

lol, from way back on page 4

Originally posted by Devil King

[QUOTE=9780315]Originally posted by myself
the definition of sexuality as being an "either/or" type proposition is misleading

hmmm...

As a society, we have some predetermined ways of classifying types of sexual behaviour. When it comes to gender preferance, we seem to want to say that an individual is either fully homosexual or fully heterosexual. I know bisexual individuals exist (I bet you will have lots of trouble figuring out where I fit after reading this...) but lets be honest, the discourse surrounding "sexuality" really never approaches them.

Because it is so important to sexual identity in our culture (and, admittedly in almost all cultures, which is a point against my argument) to know whether you are hetero or homo (in fact, it is the distinction we use when discussing "sexuality"😉, it will force people to, even if subconsciously, "take sides".

I know what that sounds like, and I am not arguing that gender preferance is a choice. I wouldn't be so bold to assume that it is an inborn quality of an individual, but I would assume it develops much like other personality characteristics through childhood and puberty, and like other personality characteristics, it is not really something that is "controllable".

My assumption is that people are born with no sexuality (re: at the time of conception, there is no sexual preference in any way "built" into the fetus). Of course I am willing to be changed from this position, and evolution probably does predispose to wanting to procreate, but (and not to just bring everything back to the brain) even things like our ability to see horizontal lines can be changed given the environment we are reared in.

I believe that people develop things that they are attracted to. I am willing to say that men are probably predisposed to develop female features and characteristics as the "things" that they find attractive, but by no means is that necessary.

So, I'll try to summarize and conclude....

People are born as something that could be described as sexually plastic. As they develop a sexuality, certain characteristics of people become the things that they are attracted to. Assumedly, these things will either be more male characteristics or more female characteristics. Because we live in a society where the definition of sexuality is specifically related to gender preferance, people will "choose" (I use that term very loosely) to live a hetero or homo sexual lifestyle.

I could keep going and redefine term after term, but I think thats a really basic outline of my thoughts. If anything is unclear, I'll explain it more. LOL, I dont know how "true" all this is, but it is how I interpret the world 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
EXACTLY!! I stated that already. See below.

Which is why the use of the term essential, or quintessential, is incorrect. Just as long as you let that go, I think the pages of useless argument can end.

Originally posted by inimalist

hmmm...

As a society, we have some predetermined ways of classifying types of sexual behaviour. When it comes to gender preferance, we seem to want to say that an individual is either fully homosexual or fully heterosexual. I know bisexual individuals exist (I bet you will have lots of trouble figuring out where I fit after reading this...) but lets be honest, the discourse surrounding "sexuality" really never approaches them.

Because it is so important to sexual identity in our culture (and, admittedly in almost all cultures, which is a point against my argument) to know whether you are hetero or homo (in fact, it is the distinction we use when discussing "sexuality"😉, it will force people to, even if subconsciously, "take sides".

I know what that sounds like, and I am not arguing that gender preferance is a choice. I wouldn't be so bold to assume that it is an inborn quality of an individual, but I would assume it develops much like other personality characteristics through childhood and puberty, and like other personality characteristics, it is not really something that is "controllable".

My assumption is that people are born with no sexuality (re: at the time of conception, there is no sexual preference in any way "built" into the fetus). Of course I am willing to be changed from this position, and evolution probably does predispose to wanting to procreate, but (and not to just bring everything back to the brain) even things like our ability to see horizontal lines can be changed given the environment we are reared in.

I believe that people develop things that they are attracted to. I am willing to say that men are probably predisposed to develop female features and characteristics as the "things" that they find attractive, but by no means is that necessary.

So, I'll try to summarize and conclude....

People are born as something that could be described as sexually plastic. As they develop a sexuality, certain characteristics of people become the things that they are attracted to. Assumedly, these things will either be more male characteristics or more female characteristics. Because we live in a society where the definition of sexuality is specifically related to gender preferance, people will "choose" (I use that term very loosely) to live a hetero or homo sexual lifestyle.

I could keep going and redefine term after term, but I think thats a really basic outline of my thoughts. If anything is unclear, I'll explain it more. LOL, I dont know how "true" all this is, but it is how I interpret the world 🙂

I find that well thought out. (Like I'm a judge) I'm still in the genetic category, however.

But one thing I would like to see happen is more research. As I understand it, many of the studys have found physical differences in the homosexual participants and the heterosexual participants. Finger prints, regional differences in the brain, etc. (I've never been very comfortable that the genetic differences in homosexuals lend themselves to being similar in development and function to those of females; it's like a stereotype that gay men act like women because they're somehow genetically closer to females.) But, I'd like to see the results of a study that builds on those findings. Perhaps take a study group, discern which in the group has those distinct characteristics and see how many of them are actually homosexual. Despite that not sounding very conclusive, I'd like to know how many of the heterosexual participants share those "homosexual" traits.

Originally posted by Devil King
Which is why the use of the term essential, or quintessential, is incorrect. Just as long as you let that go, I think the pages of useless argument can end.

I'd like to know how many of the heterosexual participants share those "homosexual" traits.

1. There can be more than one essential item relative to a specific objective...everyone else is wrong about my use of the word essential...

For example...why is there 8 essential amino acids classified...if essential can be used only for one item for one specific objective, then that should be wrong by everyone's logic...right?

Of course, everyone seems to know the English language better than I do and quintessential is definitely not the word the are thinking of. 😄

Second, I would also like to see the same data...because that would prove my sexual orientation classification list right in more than one way. (In other words, people are gay for more than just physical reasons.) Though I may not have needed a test to tell me what people have told me about their homosexuality, already. We will see.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Of course, everyone seems to know the English language better than I do and quintessential is definitely not the word the are thinking of. 😄

Alert the news stations!!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Alert the news stations!!!

OMG!!!! Sarcasm FTW (For the win.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
OMG!!!! Sarcasm FTW (For the win.)

My, my, and it took you just 5 days to accept that it is stupid to make up your own meaning for abbreviations.

Originally posted by Devil King
I find that well thought out. (Like I'm a judge) I'm still in the genetic category, however.

But one thing I would like to see happen is more research. As I understand it, many of the studys have found physical differences in the homosexual participants and the heterosexual participants. Finger prints, regional differences in the brain, etc. (I've never been very comfortable that the genetic differences in homosexuals lend themselves to being similar in development and function to those of females; it's like a stereotype that gay men act like women because they're somehow genetically closer to females.) But, I'd like to see the results of a study that builds on those findings.

lol, I'm always a fan of more research...

The stuff you brought up (anatomical brain differences, fingerprints) are very strong indicators of it being genetic. I could muddle around with how much of a role "predisposition" plays in development, but that would be generally conceding the point.

I agree with the "gay men act like females" sentntiment. It is pretty retarded. I guess that sort of leaves the door open for discussing "gay culture", but I can't imagine a world where the actions of people at a gay pride parade are found to be entirely genetic.

Originally posted by Devil King
Perhaps take a study group, discern which in the group has those distinct characteristics and see how many of them are actually homosexual. Despite that not sounding very conclusive, I'd like to know how many of the heterosexual participants share those "homosexual" traits.

oh wow, what an ambitious proposition...

We would need something that worked really well as an indicator of homosexuality.

A response to this from my view would be something like: Many people who are either heterosexual or homosexual will show many traits that are associated with the "opposite" sexuality. This, imho, is because people are not 100% hetero or homo, but choose the title that best describes the model of an individual that they are attracted to (so even someone who is only 51% homosexual [wow.... lets not even get into that] would conclude, based on social cues, that they are a "homosexual"😉.

However, if there is a strong genetic component that is also associated with things like fingerprints or neuroanatonomy, then there could be a checklist of traits, and one could make inferences about the gender of the "model sexual partner" of an individual based on how many of these traits they showed.

An interesting point that is sort of a continuation of that logic is that, for any sexual preference, there could be an associated list of traits, and theoretically, one could "construct" the idea partner for someone based on which traits they displayed.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I'm always a fan of more research...

The stuff you brought up (anatomical brain differences, fingerprints) are very strong indicators of it being genetic. I could muddle around with how much of a role "predisposition" plays in development, but that would be generally conceding the point.

I agree with the "gay men act like females" sentntiment. It is pretty retarded. I guess that sort of leaves the door open for discussing "gay culture", but I can't imagine a world where the actions of people at a gay pride parade are found to be entirely genetic.

I think that the behavior we've seen on display at the pride parades are overwhelmingly the result of society telling little gay boys that they have more in common with girls than they do with other boys. It's like girls wanting to play sports. Some girls, who are told by society that they shouldn't want to play baseball or football, are hardcore sports fanatics. While some boys, like myself, preferred to play in my imagination, rather than pick up a football. (I loved to play baseball though. Not watch, just play)

Another strongly held finding is that of the homosexual brain responding to the pheremones of another male to which it's attracted. I've read that's the body influencing itself; but I have a hard time understanding how, on anything other than a genetic level, the brain could condition itself to respond to male pheremones, if being inherently attracted to female pheremones is what the male brain's natural function would be.

Originally posted by Devil King
But one thing I would like to see happen is more research. As I understand it, many of the studys have found physical differences in the homosexual participants and the heterosexual participants. Finger prints, regional differences in the brain, etc. (I've never been very comfortable that the genetic differences in homosexuals lend themselves to being similar in development and function to those of females; it's like a stereotype that gay men act like women because they're somehow genetically closer to females.) But, I'd like to see the results of a study that builds on those findings. Perhaps take a study group, discern which in the group has those distinct characteristics and see how many of them are actually homosexual. Despite that not sounding very conclusive, I'd like to know how many of the heterosexual participants share those "homosexual" traits.

Originally posted by Bardock42
My, my, and it took you just 5 days to accept that it is stupid to make up your own meaning for abbreviations.

note how I define the acronym each and every time.

Bardock42, I was making up leet speak on teh interwebz before you stopped pissing in your bed.

I was saying "Fut the wuck" long before "For the win" was used on teh interwebz. My version never caught on so it became the primary leet acronym for FTW.

Are you done being leetishly cool now?