Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Apple Talk => Topic started by: Hoopla on December 15, 2009, 05:07:20 pm

Title: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Hoopla on December 15, 2009, 05:07:20 pm
At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Elder Iptuous on December 15, 2009, 05:14:45 pm
She's right.
you're a totally gay homophobe.

seriously, this is one of those topics, that unless you already know the person's views and enter into what you know will be a civil discussion, or unless you don't give a shit how poorly the discussion goes with the person, it is best to take a position so outlandish that you can be assured that everyone will be opposed, but nobody will waste time arguing with.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Dimocritus on December 15, 2009, 05:16:42 pm
Homophobia indicates fear. From what I can see, you're scrutinizing homosexuality from a vantage point of science, not fear, so, no, I don't think you're a homophobe. On the other hand, I don't think your view of homosexuals as a genetic mistake is altogether accurate. Pretty much every species has its gays (is that an offensive term? Gays? I don't fucking know...) and if it occurs that frequently in a natural setting, then it must serve some purpose, what it is, I'm not too sure (I am certainly not a biologist). I think it has something to do with nature trying to control a quickly growing population so it doesn't get so big that it can't be sustained.

Anyhow, as a straight male, I don't mind the gays. They can really help you pick up women. And, if worse comes to worse and you're shit-broke at the bar, you can trick them into buying beers for you (this is not wrong. Women do it all the time to guys).  
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: LMNO on December 15, 2009, 05:16:48 pm
No not homophobic, but I think you were using a specific definition of "mistake", and possibly making unfounded conclusions.

If all the available evidence points to homosexuality being entirely genetic, and if there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the number of homosexuals born and various environmental factors, then yes, it can be seen as a genetic error that results in a same-sex attraction.


The problem with the above paragraph is that neither one of the propositions listed has been conclusively proven, let alone slightly.

So, you seem to have come to a conclusion based on incomplete or unavailable evidence.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Richter on December 15, 2009, 05:21:26 pm
you're no homophobe.  You weren't expressing an opinion about the right vs. wrong of being homosexual or practicing homosexual acts, you were just stating a viewpoint on it's effect on a species level.

This co worker sounds like a phobeaphobe, to the point that she can't have an objective conversation on a hotbutton issue without getting freaked out.  that or she has soem sort of fetish for flying off the handle and alienating people the moment she can get even an INKLING that they might have an opinion she can take offense at.  (SRSLY, some people can only get off when they're on a self righteous headtrip.)
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Captain Utopia on December 15, 2009, 05:28:47 pm
Well, aren't white people (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/16/dna-mutation-account.html) a "mistake" also? Meaning - you can't easily label some evolutionary dead-ends until you're looking at the overall picture with the benefit of hindsight.

I dunno, I've spent altogether too much frustrated time tip-toeing around the self-righteous dictates of the politically correct issue-centric crowd, because yes - by their standards you are a homophobe. I don't agree with you on the "mistake" part, but neither do I agree with her.

Just call her a nuance-ophobe, and be done with it.




Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: LMNO on December 15, 2009, 05:29:53 pm
What Richter said.

Also, a lot of people get really uncomfortable when you talk about humans as chemical machines.  To call a genetic sequencing error a "mistake" should be ok in purely clinical terms, but most people would see that as you calling the person a mistake.

But, like I said before, there simply isn't enough evidence available to make that claim in the first place.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 15, 2009, 05:32:02 pm
It is difficult to argue  that homosexual behavior is advantageous for a species... there are some theories, but they have yet to provide evidence. Until we have evidence, it seems that the available positions to take are not necessarily positive.

1. Genetic mistake
2. Psychological program created due to experiences etc
3. Conscious Choice
4. Satan
5. Eris

It seems that many activist gays push the "It's genetic" hypothesis and I have no issue with that. However, until we find evidence that such a genetic trait is positive, it seems absurd to consider it anything beyond a common, cross- species anomaly.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: LMNO on December 15, 2009, 05:34:46 pm
Rat, that's an awfully non-agnostic position you're taking there...
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on December 15, 2009, 05:35:07 pm
Wow. Sounds like someone over reacted before even trying to understand what you were talking about.
Shit happens to me all the time.

I see where you're coming from/what you're trying to say, and it doesn't sound homophobic, it's sounds like science. OOOOOOHHH, sciiiiiience. scary.

People all too often get flustered, throw a label on you and walk away when they have no clue what you're saying. It's easier than making you explain, and then sitting there listening, trying to understand.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Elder Iptuous on December 15, 2009, 05:35:32 pm
...To call a genetic sequencing error a "mistake" should be ok in purely clinical terms, but most people would see that as you calling the person a mistake....

Like you mentioned previously, the clinical use of the term "mistake" (probably not the best term)  would be perfectly fine to extend to the person as a whole if you are looking at them from the standpoint of them being chemical machines....
besides 'mistake' is hard to separate from the implication of intentionality, which shouldn't be in the picture...
disadvantageous is all i can come up with atm, but individually disadvantageous traits can be advantageous to groups and so persist....
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 15, 2009, 05:39:32 pm
Homosexuality is a fine practice and should be made compulsory. :troll:
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on December 15, 2009, 05:41:20 pm
There are people in this world who cannot, or perhaps will not, distinguish between "this is what the world seems like to me" and "this is what I consider to be morally/ethically right or wrong." I find them insufferable and avoid certain subjects when around them (unless I'm trolling them). Sounds like you found one such person.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Hoopla on December 15, 2009, 05:48:13 pm
Ok, what you guys said is mostly what I thought.  And you're right, LMNO, I am certainly no scientist, and should probably keep whatever conclusions I come up with to myself.

What I learned:  Don't go to lunch with co-workers.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Captain Utopia on December 15, 2009, 05:49:06 pm
It is difficult to argue  that homosexual behavior is advantageous for a species... there are some theories, but they have yet to provide evidence. Until we have evidence, it seems that the available positions to take are not necessarily positive.

1. Genetic mistake
2. Psychological program created due to experiences etc
3. Conscious Choice
4. Satan
5. Eris

It seems that many activist gays push the "It's genetic" hypothesis and I have no issue with that. However, until we find evidence that such a genetic trait is positive, it seems absurd to consider it anything beyond a common, cross- species anomaly.
I seem to recall that in some species which are communal, otherwise hetrosexual individuals sometimes take themselves directly out of the gene-pool, and play a role in raising young or perform other roles vital to a community. You can show mathematically, that from a genetic perspective this counts as a "win", because enough similar genes in the community are supported by the irrelevance of the individuals "sacrifice". I'm rusty as all hell on this, but I think that's the basic concept.

So I think the burden of proof is on the assertion that homosexuality is not beneficial for our species. Looking at it by counting kids is too simplistic by far.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Richter on December 15, 2009, 05:51:57 pm
Tell the bitch that biggots jump to their conclusions SLOW compared to her.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 15, 2009, 05:53:18 pm
Rat, that's an awfully non-agnostic position you're taking there...

A skeptical one actually.

Homosexuality is surely an anomaly as it is not the norm or most common position. The question then becomes is it a positive, negative or flat anomaly. Based on my current level of knowledge, (and I researched this about 6 months ago) we don't really have any evidence to support the "positive anomaly" position, yet. Until we do, it appear to me that saying "its an anomaly" is the skeptical/agnostic position to take. We can all agree its an anomaly, we do not know if it is a positive one though.

At best, we have some hypothesis about how it might have been positive... we have some evidence of how it could be negative (ie no reproduction of DNA), so assigning a value to the anomaly seems absurd at this point.

FP, I think I recall the study you're talking about and I'm almost positive that the 'homosexuals' in question were more correctly termed bi-sexual as they had performed sexual acts with both sexes. It might support a social cause for homosexual behavior, but I don't think they provided evidence that it was a genetic trigger.

Burden of proof is on seeing it as positive or negative, rather than simply an anomaly.

Also, I realized that I used Hoopla's word in the numbered list... I shouldn't have said 'mistake' but rather 'Genetic anomaly' there.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Hoopla on December 15, 2009, 05:55:54 pm
Genetic anomaly...  christ, my lunch could have been totally different if I had thought to use that term.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: themenniss on December 15, 2009, 05:57:00 pm
i think it could be a faulty gene, but if this was the case it would have to be recessive as the likelihood of a homosexual having kids without adoption is not too great.
i also think that the gene could have a purpose: population control, if everybody was heterosexual then wouldn't that cause a massive increase in the growth or our population where it would become rapidly too big for the limited resources we have on earth?
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Brotep on December 15, 2009, 05:57:38 pm
This co worker sounds like a phobeaphobe, to the point that she can't have an objective conversation on a hotbutton issue without getting freaked out.  that or she has soem sort of fetish for flying off the handle and alienating people the moment she can get even an INKLING that they might have an opinion she can take offense at.  (SRSLY, some people can only get off when they're on a self righteous headtrip.)

This.

The preemptively offended are some of the most obnoxious people I've ever had the displeasure of pretending to listen to at lunch.


Hoops, as I see it you have two choices:
1) don't express your opinions (even if you clarify, the "I know what I heard" / "You said a bad word--I'm telling!" effect comes into play)
or
2) next time you catch a shit wave, bring your surfboard, and enjoy
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 15, 2009, 05:59:32 pm
i also think that the gene could have a purpose: population control, if everybody was heterosexual then wouldn't that cause a massive increase in the growth or our population where it would become rapidly too big for the limited resources we have on earth?

So it's fair to say that homosexuals are like serial killers in that respect?
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Hoopla on December 15, 2009, 05:59:45 pm
2) next time you catch a shit wave, bring your surfboard, and enjoy

this
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 15, 2009, 06:01:07 pm
This co worker sounds like a phobeaphobe, to the point that she can't have an objective conversation on a hotbutton issue without getting freaked out.  that or she has soem sort of fetish for flying off the handle and alienating people the moment she can get even an INKLING that they might have an opinion she can take offense at.  (SRSLY, some people can only get off when they're on a self righteous headtrip.)

This.

The preemptively offended are some of the most obnoxious people I've ever had the displeasure of pretending to listen to at lunch.


Hoops, as I see it you have two choices:
1) don't express your opinions (even if you clarify, the "I know what I heard" / "You said a bad word--I'm telling!" effect comes into play)
or
2) next time you catch a shit wave, bring your surfboard, and enjoy

"preemptively offended" :mittens:
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: themenniss on December 15, 2009, 06:03:01 pm
i also think that the gene could have a purpose: population control, if everybody was heterosexual then wouldn't that cause a massive increase in the growth or our population where it would become rapidly too big for the limited resources we have on earth?

So it's fair to say that homosexuals are like serial killers in that respect?
not quite. serial killers kill people.
homosexuals don't kill anything as it never existed in the first place.
unless you're a gay serial killer. in which case 'surprise butt stab'?
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 15, 2009, 06:08:47 pm
i also think that the gene could have a purpose: population control, if everybody was heterosexual then wouldn't that cause a massive increase in the growth or our population where it would become rapidly too big for the limited resources we have on earth?

So it's fair to say that homosexuals are like serial killers in that respect?
not quite. serial killers kill people.
homosexuals don't kill anything as it never existed in the first place.
unless you're a gay serial killer. in which case 'surprise butt stab'?

Nett result is the same - population control. You think Homosexuals are like serial killers - you bastard! I'm preemptively offended :argh!:
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Captain Utopia on December 15, 2009, 06:10:55 pm
FP, I think I recall the study you're talking about and I'm almost positive that the 'homosexuals' in question were more correctly termed bi-sexual as they had performed sexual acts with both sexes. It might support a social cause for homosexual behavior, but I don't think they provided evidence that it was a genetic trigger.

Burden of proof is on seeing it as positive or negative, rather than simply an anomaly.

Also, I realized that I used Hoopla's word in the numbered list... I shouldn't have said 'mistake' but rather 'Genetic anomaly' there.

I was referring to my 12 year old recollection of reading The Selfish Gene - the non-mating individuals may have had hetrosexual relations in the past, but switched to a non-mating role to help support a niece or nephew. The book looks at the issue from the perspective of the replicating units themselves - the multitude of genes an individual carries, rather than the irrelevant wishes of the fleshy robot they inhabit.

So in the case of the aunt/uncle pitching in, you can see how the genes themselves are best served by giving one individual the best chance of reproduction, rather than supporting two individuals who will compete for scant resources and likely both fail.  It's a step beyond that to apply the same logic of individual sacrifice benefiting a community, and also being in the best interest of the genes of the sacrificial individual. And it's another step beyond even that to suggest that homosexuality may provide similar benefits, though I think it's more probable than homosexuality being a genetic plague that the human race can't seem to rid itself of. But I'm out of my depth on this.

Damn, where's Kai when you need him?

Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Brotep on December 15, 2009, 06:15:34 pm
i also think that the gene could have a purpose: population control, if everybody was heterosexual then wouldn't that cause a massive increase in the growth or our population where it would become rapidly too big for the limited resources we have on earth?

So it's fair to say that homosexuals are like serial killers in that respect?
not quite. serial killers kill people.
homosexuals don't kill anything as it never existed in the first place.
unless you're a gay serial killer. in which case 'surprise butt stab'?

Nett result is the same - population control. You think Homosexuals are like serial killers - you bastard! I'm preemptively offended :argh!:


 :lulz:

There's no winning with such people.

Next time you're stuck in a room with one of them just tell them their epidermis is showing and, in the confusion, make your escape.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 15, 2009, 06:21:13 pm
In my personal opinion, based on my personal experiences and what I've read... I would not be surprised to find the entire basis of the argument to be faulty. It seems to me that the most simple explanation MIGHT be that humans, by default,  are wired for bi-sexual behavior. Depending on the society in which they live and the life experiences they have, they may become solely attracted to one sex, to the exclusion of the other. That is, it may be genetic, social and experiential... rather than only genetic. Of course, we would still need evidence for that position as well. Personally, its my favorite hypothesis to consider.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on December 15, 2009, 06:22:34 pm
At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

I don't think so.  I mean, it's clear that *I* am a genetic mistake, and you don't seem to hold it against me.  You certainly haven't tried to prevent me from having sex.  This may have been a grave error on your part, as I have managed to propagate that error not once but twice.

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).

Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Hoopla on December 15, 2009, 06:30:17 pm

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).


Christ, I never considered this.  Brilliant and completely reasonable.



*edited to fix quotes*
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 15, 2009, 06:34:50 pm
At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

I don't think so.  I mean, it's clear that *I* am a genetic mistake, and you don't seem to hold it against me.  You certainly haven't tried to prevent me from having sex.  This may have been a grave error on your part, as I have managed to propagate that error not once but twice.

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).



It's a possibility, though the study was not conclusive. Another study indicated that when women had periods of High Stress, they had less male hormones in their body and the ration of homosexual males from those women were greater. This COULD be evidence of a safety valve. It could also be evidence of a genetic error, or a suboptimal womb for a male to develop in.

At best we have correlation on these studies, we have yet to really hit on causation.


EDIT: Also, most instances of General Adaptive Syndrome are considered negative. The rat studies from the 1930's supported the idea that homosexual behavior was a pathology, because they saw it as caused by stress etc. It was not supportive of the position that the Rats necessarily were doing what was best for the survival of the group, but possibly best for their personal survival in their social position... noting that the rats low on the social order tended to have more illness due to stress and were mostly homosexual (he claimed, due to this same stress). (Ian McHarg)
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Vaudeville Vigilante on December 15, 2009, 06:47:33 pm
I agree with that statement about adding workers without adding mouths.  I'm not sure that the inability to procreate (in a homosexual relationship) should be classified as a mistake.  In this day and age, I'd consider it an advantage.  If humans continue to procreate at the rate we are now indefinitely, it will arguably hasten our extinction.  From that angle, the increasing frequency of homosexuality could be seen as a positive adaptive development.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Elder Iptuous on December 15, 2009, 06:49:51 pm
I agree with that statement about adding workers without adding mouths.  I'm not sure that the inability to procreate (in a homosexual relationship) should be classified as a mistake.  In this day and age, I'd consider it an advantage.  If humans continue to procreate at the rate we are now indefinitely, it will arguably hasten our extinction.  From that angle, the increasing frequency of homosexuality could be seen as a positive adaptive development.

So, same as serial killers, then?
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Captain Utopia on December 15, 2009, 06:52:05 pm
I agree with that statement about adding workers without adding mouths.  I'm not sure that the inability to procreate (in a homosexual relationship) should be classified as a mistake.  In this day and age, I'd consider it an advantage.  If humans continue to procreate at the rate we are now indefinitely, it will arguably hasten our extinction.  From that angle, the increasing frequency of homosexuality could be seen as a positive adaptive development.
There are three domains you're conflating - the genetic, the individual and the communal. An advantage or disadvantage in one domain does not necessarily confer the same to another domain.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 15, 2009, 06:58:06 pm
Ah and I found the New Scientist article I recalled from my last forray into this topic:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html)

It discusses examples of behavior among macaques and among humans (including the benevolent Uncle theory). It also discusses health options and the bi-sexual possibility... noting that in societies where homosexual behavior was acceptable, it was often not exclusive... which also seems to be a common observation among animals.


Final analysis, inconclusive.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Richter on December 15, 2009, 07:02:20 pm
I always liked Aurthur C. Clarke's take on it in "Songs of a Distant Earth", where he mentioned that most folks are at least a bit predisposed towards bisexuality, regardless of what acts they do or don't during their lives.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2009, 07:14:07 pm
I am in agreement with TGRR... actually, we've discussed this in the past. I think it is a tribal survival mechanism... a trait that we are all capable of to some degree, activated by environmental factors. When populations are low, it's useless, so there are few homosexuals. When populations are high, it becomes advantageous.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Vaudeville Vigilante on December 15, 2009, 07:35:19 pm
So, same as serial killers, then?
Quote from: FP
There are three domains you're conflating - the genetic, the individual and the communal. An advantage or disadvantage in one domain does not necessarily confer the same to another domain.
I was speaking purely from a genetic standpoint, if we were to accept the hypothesis that it is genetically based.  I'm not entirely sure, but from the research I've come across, evidence is suggestive that it is genetic.  I'm not sure I have any reason to believe serial killers are genetically determined, but then again, a genetically predisposed homosexual may experience enough anti-homosexual conditioning to live a heterosexual lifestyle... I think Penn & Teller covered this once, and also see: But I'm a Cheerleader, or google: "Ex-gay"

Individually, I have no doubt homosexual intercourse is as positive as heterosexual, assuming we're talking about consensual adult relations.
For most people I know, gay or otherwise, the  main function of sex on the individual level is for pleasure, not for procreation.  

I'd guess that communal implications would be somewhat circumstantial.  Exclusivity is a factor, as noted by that article above, but I was suggesting that statistically gays may be less likely to procreate, more likely to adopt (less costly), and with enough increase in its occurence, could potentially offset problems associated with high population density within a larger community.  I'm not sure if homosexuality is actually more common today, or gays have just become more vocal, but I seem to knowingly encounter more of them today than I recall ten or fifteen years ago.  

Maybe I'm speaking a bit too far off the cuff.  I thought I'd offer a different slant on the op, but if you're suggesting that there is insufficient evidence to consider it either a genetic mistake or benefit conclusively, I do not disagree.  I simply agree with TGRR/TRRN that it may offer advantages; in which case, it would be that much more difficult to call it a mistake.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: LMNO on December 15, 2009, 07:38:59 pm
ARE THERE ANY QUEERS IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT!?
                                     \
(http://www.thewallanalysis.com/Pictures/MovieShots/FullSizeShots/Flesh2-11.JPG)
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 15, 2009, 07:41:10 pm
"theatre"

...Just sayin
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: LMNO on December 15, 2009, 07:43:07 pm
...dammit...


Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 15, 2009, 07:48:40 pm
To be fair the movie version did say "audience" but you aint gonna side with Geldoff now are you?
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 15, 2009, 07:49:16 pm
So, same as serial killers, then?
Quote from: FP
There are three domains you're conflating - the genetic, the individual and the communal. An advantage or disadvantage in one domain does not necessarily confer the same to another domain.
I was speaking purely from a genetic standpoint, if we were to accept the hypothesis that it is genetically based.  I'm not entirely sure, but from the research I've come across, evidence is suggestive that it is genetic.  I'm not sure I have any reason to believe serial killers are genetically determined, but then again, a genetically predisposed homosexual may experience enough anti-homosexual conditioning to live a heterosexual lifestyle... I think Penn & Teller covered this once, and also see: But I'm a Cheerleader, or google: "Ex-gay"

Individually, I have no doubt homosexual intercourse is as positive as heterosexual, assuming we're talking about consensual adult relations.
For most people I know, gay or otherwise, the  main function of sex on the individual level is for pleasure, not for procreation.  

I'd guess that communal implications would be somewhat circumstantial.  Exclusivity is a factor, as noted by that article above, but I was suggesting that statistically gays may be less likely to procreate, more likely to adopt (less costly), and with enough increase in its occurence, could potentially offset problems associated with high population density within a larger community.  I'm not sure if homosexuality is actually more common today, or gays have just become more vocal, but I seem to knowingly encounter more of them today than I recall ten or fifteen years ago.  

Maybe I'm speaking a bit too far off the cuff.  I thought I'd offer a different slant on the op, but if you're suggesting that there is insufficient evidence to consider it either a genetic mistake or benefit conclusively, I do not disagree.  I simply agree with TGRR/TRRN that it may offer advantages; in which case, it would be that much more difficult to call it a mistake.

I agree... there MAY be advantages.... Or, it may be a result of the Mother's stress levels and have little to do with actual advantage. Or it may be that we're all (or most but not all) bi-sexual and any strong preference is influenced as much by social rules and personal experiences (4th Circuit imprint ala Leary).

It could be some wild combination of causes and not any single one of these... the key bit here is that we simply do not know. We do not yet have the evidence, nor do we have strong predictive power with any of our theories (though apparently we can stress Momma rats out enough to make homosexual babies). It seems reasonable to suggest that there may not be a single cause for homosexuality... but rather there may be many causes, some people may  be genetically hardwired, some may have had a mother that was under heavy stress and low on Testosterone, others may have had experiences which strongly imprinted their sexual behavior and still others might choose to have homosexual encounters.

Conclusions are just where you stop thinking ;-)
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 15, 2009, 07:53:31 pm
So, same as serial killers, then?
Quote from: FP
There are three domains you're conflating - the genetic, the individual and the communal. An advantage or disadvantage in one domain does not necessarily confer the same to another domain.
I was speaking purely from a genetic standpoint, if we were to accept the hypothesis that it is genetically based.  I'm not entirely sure, but from the research I've come across, evidence is suggestive that it is genetic.  I'm not sure I have any reason to believe serial killers are genetically determined, but then again, a genetically predisposed homosexual may experience enough anti-homosexual conditioning to live a heterosexual lifestyle... I think Penn & Teller covered this once, and also see: But I'm a Cheerleader, or google: "Ex-gay"

Individually, I have no doubt homosexual intercourse is as positive as heterosexual, assuming we're talking about consensual adult relations.
For most people I know, gay or otherwise, the  main function of sex on the individual level is for pleasure, not for procreation. 

I'd guess that communal implications would be somewhat circumstantial.  Exclusivity is a factor, as noted by that article above, but I was suggesting that statistically gays may be less likely to procreate, more likely to adopt (less costly), and with enough increase in its occurence, could potentially offset problems associated with high population density within a larger community.  I'm not sure if homosexuality is actually more common today, or gays have just become more vocal, but I seem to knowingly encounter more of them today than I recall ten or fifteen years ago. 

Maybe I'm speaking a bit too far off the cuff.  I thought I'd offer a different slant on the op, but if you're suggesting that there is insufficient evidence to consider it either a genetic mistake or benefit conclusively, I do not disagree.  I simply agree with TGRR/TRRN that it may offer advantages; in which case, it would be that much more difficult to call it a mistake.

I agree... there MAY be advantages.... Or, it may be a result of the Mother's stress levels and have little to do with actual advantage. Or it may be that we're all (or most but not all) bi-sexual and any strong preference is influenced as much by social rules and personal experiences (4th Circuit imprint ala Leary).

It could be some wild combination of causes and not any single one of these... the key bit here is that we simply do not know. We do not yet have the evidence, nor do we have strong predictive power with any of our theories (though apparently we can stress Momma rats out enough to make homosexual babies). It seems reasonable to suggest that there may not be a single cause for homosexuality... but rather there may be many causes, some people may  be genetically hardwired, some may have had a mother that was under heavy stress and low on Testosterone, others may have had experiences which strongly imprinted their sexual behavior and still others might choose to have homosexual encounters.

Conclusions are just where you stop thinking ;-)


Lies, Lies, lies! It's the devil that's responsible

(http://brotherpeacemaker.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/god-hates-fags.jpg)
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Cramulus on December 15, 2009, 08:06:46 pm
(http://iamwriteherelol.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/homosexuals_are_gay.jpg)
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: East Coast Hustle on December 15, 2009, 08:24:33 pm
Well, aren't white people (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/16/dna-mutation-account.html) a "mistake" also? Meaning - you can't easily label some evolutionary dead-ends until you're looking at the overall picture with the benefit of hindsight.





White People are ABSOLUTELY a mistake. One that should be remedied (read: eradicated) as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: LMNO on December 15, 2009, 08:25:37 pm
:looks down at hands:


:omg:
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: East Coast Hustle on December 15, 2009, 08:29:17 pm
At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

I don't think so.  I mean, it's clear that *I* am a genetic mistake, and you don't seem to hold it against me.  You certainly haven't tried to prevent me from having sex.  This may have been a grave error on your part, as I have managed to propagate that error not once but twice.

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).



if this is the case, why isn't the Gaza Strip the most flamingly gay place on earth? I mean, it should make Ibiza look like, well, the Gaza Strip.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: themenniss on December 15, 2009, 08:36:21 pm
At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

I don't think so.  I mean, it's clear that *I* am a genetic mistake, and you don't seem to hold it against me.  You certainly haven't tried to prevent me from having sex.  This may have been a grave error on your part, as I have managed to propagate that error not once but twice.

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).



if this is the case, why isn't the Gaza Strip the most flamingly gay place on earth? I mean, it should make Ibiza look like, well, the Gaza Strip.
not openly gay maybe?
because they get killed for that over there?
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2009, 08:38:09 pm
At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

I don't think so.  I mean, it's clear that *I* am a genetic mistake, and you don't seem to hold it against me.  You certainly haven't tried to prevent me from having sex.  This may have been a grave error on your part, as I have managed to propagate that error not once but twice.

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).



if this is the case, why isn't the Gaza Strip the most flamingly gay place on earth? I mean, it should make Ibiza look like, well, the Gaza Strip.

Maybe these articles will help answer your question. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3211772.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2826963.stm
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/world/israel/isnews006.htm

Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on December 15, 2009, 08:38:51 pm
At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

I don't think so.  I mean, it's clear that *I* am a genetic mistake, and you don't seem to hold it against me.  You certainly haven't tried to prevent me from having sex.  This may have been a grave error on your part, as I have managed to propagate that error not once but twice.

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).



if this is the case, why isn't the Gaza Strip the most flamingly gay place on earth? I mean, it should make Ibiza look like, well, the Gaza Strip.

Who says it isn't?  Wouldn't know, haven't been there (closest I ever got to Gaza was the Sinai).  I do know that if I was a gay guy in that community, I'd keep it nice and quiet.

But yeah, they do fit all the requirements for Generic Adaptative Syndrome.  Crowded, no territory, little chance to mate, etc.  They have the crazy thing down, but I haven't seen any evidence of excessive homosexuality.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Elder Iptuous on December 15, 2009, 08:40:54 pm
Blowing yourself up is so gay....
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Mangrove on December 15, 2009, 08:50:32 pm
1. Hoops - definitely not a homophobe.
2. The 'science of homosexuality' is far from complete or conclusive.
3. 'Pre-emptively offended' is a wonderful  phrase which I am yoinking and using at the next opportunity.
4. (Cock & repost) Had I seen this thread earlier I was going to suggest that 'anomaly' was a better word than 'mistake'.
5. Your co-worker is a moron.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Chief Uwachiquen on December 15, 2009, 09:01:40 pm
At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

I don't think so.  I mean, it's clear that *I* am a genetic mistake, and you don't seem to hold it against me.  You certainly haven't tried to prevent me from having sex.  This may have been a grave error on your part, as I have managed to propagate that error not once but twice.

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).


Slightly off topic but:

I think I remember reading about that study, Roger. Didn't the studies in the rats show that once population crowding kept going cannibalism started up?

At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

I don't think so.  I mean, it's clear that *I* am a genetic mistake, and you don't seem to hold it against me.  You certainly haven't tried to prevent me from having sex.  This may have been a grave error on your part, as I have managed to propagate that error not once but twice.

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).



if this is the case, why isn't the Gaza Strip the most flamingly gay place on earth? I mean, it should make Ibiza look like, well, the Gaza Strip.
not openly gay maybe?
because they get killed for that over there?


I think it's the same deal with China. They've got strict anti-homosexuality laws and the homosexuals there are afraid to let the proverbial cat out of the proverbial prada handbag. Yet they're overpopulated as fuck.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Captain Utopia on December 15, 2009, 09:02:27 pm
1. Hoops - definitely not a homophobe.
2. The 'science of homosexuality' is far from complete or conclusive.
3. 'Pre-emptively offended' is a wonderful  phrase which I am yoinking and using at the next opportunity.
4. (Cock & repost) Had I seen this thread earlier I was going to suggest that 'anomaly' was a better word than 'mistake'.
5. Your co-worker is a moron.
As good a summary as we're likely to find.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: AFK on December 15, 2009, 09:03:36 pm
What I learned:  Don't go to lunch with co-workers.

Correct motorcycle. 
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on December 15, 2009, 09:06:16 pm
So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak,

No.  It is my considered opinion that you should poke this coworker at every conceivable opportunity.  Don't stop til she's convinced you're a fucking pig.

Then ask her out to lunch again.


TGRR,
Channeling Redman.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: BabylonHoruv on December 15, 2009, 09:12:41 pm
I don't think viewing homosexuality as a genetic mistake makes you a homophobe,  you neither fear nor dislike gay people.  On the other hand it is awfully rude. 

As an example, I view blue eyes as a genetic mistake.  I'll say that here because this boards tolerance for rudeness is a lot higher than most places, and I think people know it doesn't mean i think less of any people out there with blue eyes.  But saying that to someone, blue or brown eyed, in real life, is a pretty rude thing to say.

Whether being gay is a genetic mistake or not is the sort of thing that I think could make an interesting debate, but only with someone I am comfortable enough with that i know feelings won't get high.  I personally think it is genetically advantageous. (not to the gay individual, who isn't reproducing, but to their genetic line as it causes them to serve as extra support for their heterosexual relatives.  Also to their species, as high populations densities tend to correlate with homosexuality, which leads to less reproduction, which is good at high population densities.)
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: BabylonHoruv on December 15, 2009, 09:23:12 pm
i also think that the gene could have a purpose: population control, if everybody was heterosexual then wouldn't that cause a massive increase in the growth or our population where it would become rapidly too big for the limited resources we have on earth?

So it's fair to say that homosexuals are like serial killers in that respect?
not quite. serial killers kill people.
homosexuals don't kill anything as it never existed in the first place.
unless you're a gay serial killer. in which case 'surprise butt stab'?

homosexual serial killers (assuming they are killing homosexuals) would be a genetic mistake, since they are not taking breeders out of the gene pool.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Fuquad on December 15, 2009, 09:28:57 pm
I agree with that statement about adding workers without adding mouths.  I'm not sure that the inability to procreate (in a homosexual relationship) should be classified as a mistake.  In this day and age, I'd consider it an advantage.  If humans continue to procreate at the rate we are now indefinitely, it will arguably hasten our extinction.  From that angle, the increasing frequency of homosexuality could be seen as a positive adaptive development.

So, same as serial killers, then?
Homosexuals are workers that don't add extra mouths. Serial Killers subtract workers and extra mouths.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 15, 2009, 09:29:58 pm
i also think that the gene could have a purpose: population control, if everybody was heterosexual then wouldn't that cause a massive increase in the growth or our population where it would become rapidly too big for the limited resources we have on earth?

So it's fair to say that homosexuals are like serial killers in that respect?
not quite. serial killers kill people.
homosexuals don't kill anything as it never existed in the first place.
unless you're a gay serial killer. in which case 'surprise butt stab'?

homosexual serial killers (assuming they are killing homosexuals) would be a genetic mistake, since they are not taking breeders out of the gene pool.

Homosexual serial killers (assuming the serial killer is homosexual) would reduce the population but not spawn a subsequent generation of serial killers thus avoiding population control spiraling into genocide.

Ergo: Homosexual serial killers aren't as bad as heterosexual ones
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 15, 2009, 09:31:13 pm
i also think that the gene could have a purpose: population control, if everybody was heterosexual then wouldn't that cause a massive increase in the growth or our population where it would become rapidly too big for the limited resources we have on earth?

So it's fair to say that homosexuals are like serial killers in that respect?
not quite. serial killers kill people.
homosexuals don't kill anything as it never existed in the first place.
unless you're a gay serial killer. in which case 'surprise butt stab'?

homosexual serial killers (assuming they are killing homosexuals) would be a genetic mistake, since they are not taking breeders out of the gene pool.

Homosexual serial killers (assuming the serial killer is homosexual) would reduce the population but not spawn a subsequent generation of serial killers thus avoiding population control spiraling into genocide.

Ergo: Homosexual serial killers aren't as bad as heterosexual ones

Unless the heterosexual ones killed their infant offspring.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 15, 2009, 09:33:56 pm
Why do you hate teh gays?  :x
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Triple Zero on December 15, 2009, 09:48:33 pm
I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality? 



Well personally, gays absolutely terrify me to no end. Genetically speaking however, I think they're the best thing since spliced bread.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: East Coast Hustle on December 15, 2009, 09:50:07 pm
I don't think viewing homosexuality as a genetic mistake makes you a homophobe,  you neither fear nor dislike gay people.  On the other hand it is awfully rude.  

As an example, I view blue eyes as a genetic mistake.

I'm not the least bit offended, I'm just curious as to what brought you to such an idiotic-seeming conclusion.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 15, 2009, 09:52:11 pm
I don't think viewing homosexuality as a genetic mistake makes you a homophobe,  you neither fear nor dislike gay people.  On the other hand it is awfully rude.  

As an example, I view blue eyes as a genetic mistake.

I'm not the least bit offended, I'm just curious as to what brought you to such an idiotic-seeming conclusion.

Because blue eyes are a genetic error caused by missing both copies of the gene that makes brown eyes.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2009, 09:53:44 pm
I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality? 



Well personally, gays absolutely terrify me to no end. Genetically speaking however, I think they're the best thing since spliced bread.
:lulz:
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 15, 2009, 09:55:23 pm
I don't think viewing homosexuality as a genetic mistake makes you a homophobe,  you neither fear nor dislike gay people.  On the other hand it is awfully rude. 

As an example, I view blue eyes as a genetic mistake.

I'm not the least bit offended, I'm just curious as to what brought you to such an idiotic-seeming conclusion.

Because blue eyes are a genetic error caused by missing both copies of the gene that makes brown eyes.

Quick - Someone tell der fuhrer - the Aryan template needs urgent revising!
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 15, 2009, 09:57:51 pm
I don't think viewing homosexuality as a genetic mistake makes you a homophobe,  you neither fear nor dislike gay people.  On the other hand it is awfully rude. 

As an example, I view blue eyes as a genetic mistake.

I'm not the least bit offended, I'm just curious as to what brought you to such an idiotic-seeming conclusion.

Because blue eyes are a genetic error caused by missing both copies of the gene that makes brown eyes.

Quick - Someone tell der fuhrer - the Aryan template needs urgent revising!

ROFL, genetics beats Hitler... hadn't thought of that!
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Hoopla on December 15, 2009, 10:07:39 pm
I don't think viewing homosexuality as a genetic mistake makes you a homophobe,  you neither fear nor dislike gay people.  On the other hand it is awfully rude.  

Why?

 I don't think the rest of your post went into detail about why stating an opinion is rude.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Da6s on December 15, 2009, 10:12:06 pm
I don't think viewing homosexuality as a genetic mistake makes you a homophobe,  you neither fear nor dislike gay people.  On the other hand it is awfully rude.  

As an example, I view blue eyes as a genetic mistake.


What draws the line between what's rude and what's not on the subject of genetic mistakes?

Is a tranny a genetic mistake? A midget? Downsyndrome? Left handers? It's very broad.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Shibboleet The Annihilator on December 15, 2009, 10:20:43 pm
At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

Are you a homophobe? I have no idea, you'd know best. Do gay people scare you or otherwise make you uncomfortable?
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Hoopla on December 15, 2009, 10:23:23 pm
No.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Jasper on December 15, 2009, 10:26:16 pm
I'd not worry.  The only mistakes here were her overreacting and your unfortunate choice of words.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Shibboleet The Annihilator on December 15, 2009, 10:41:39 pm
Well, there's your answer.

I will say that you're not a particularly good scientist. Homosexuality can cut down on population growth, which can devastate a population if left unchecked.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Hoopla on December 15, 2009, 10:43:13 pm
Yes, that was something I had not considered.  It is duly noted now.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on December 15, 2009, 11:15:24 pm
I don't think viewing homosexuality as a genetic mistake makes you a homophobe,  you neither fear nor dislike gay people.  On the other hand it is awfully rude.  

As an example, I view blue eyes as a genetic mistake.

I thought it was green.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Igor on December 15, 2009, 11:48:35 pm
There's a thorough round-up of most of the ideas on gay genes in this big article: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

Here's one bit:
Quote
Possible explanations abound, but an ingenious one was recently put to the test. Perhaps, the theory goes, some genes, when found in men, make them more likely to be gay and when found in women make them more likely to have children. (“Fecund” is the word the researchers use.) The increased number of grandchildren that a parent might have through such a superfertile daughter would offset whatever loss of genetic posterity comes from having a gay son.

Oh and speaking as a rampant homosexual, I have no problem with being called a genetic mistake. Most humans are. Hell, if I understand evolution, most organisms are.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: BabylonHoruv on December 16, 2009, 12:56:40 am
I don't think viewing homosexuality as a genetic mistake makes you a homophobe,  you neither fear nor dislike gay people.  On the other hand it is awfully rude.  

As an example, I view blue eyes as a genetic mistake.

I'm not the least bit offended, I'm just curious as to what brought you to such an idiotic-seeming conclusion.

What rat said about the missing gene, also according to tests people with blue eyes are not able to perceive as many different shades of color as people with brown eyes.  (allowing for individual variance in visual acuity for other reasons)
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: BabylonHoruv on December 16, 2009, 12:59:14 am
I don't think viewing homosexuality as a genetic mistake makes you a homophobe,  you neither fear nor dislike gay people.  On the other hand it is awfully rude.  

As an example, I view blue eyes as a genetic mistake.


What draws the line between what's rude and what's not on the subject of genetic mistakes?

Is a tranny a genetic mistake? A midget? Downsyndrome? Left handers? It's very broad.

I'd say calling anyone a genetic mistake is pretty rude.  There's shades to it obviously, but I'd also say that homosexuality is pretty clearly something that you are going to get some heated reactions from calling a mistake. 
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Brotep on December 16, 2009, 01:35:05 am
I don't think viewing homosexuality as a genetic mistake makes you a homophobe,  you neither fear nor dislike gay people.  On the other hand it is awfully rude.  

As an example, I view blue eyes as a genetic mistake.


What draws the line between what's rude and what's not on the subject of genetic mistakes?

Is a tranny a genetic mistake? A midget? Downsyndrome? Left handers? It's very broad.

I'd say calling anyone a genetic mistake is pretty rude.  There's shades to it obviously, but I'd also say that homosexuality is pretty clearly something that you are going to get some heated reactions from calling a mistake. 

"Please accept my apologies, my good sir.  I was aiming for your sister."
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Triple Zero on December 16, 2009, 01:10:58 pm
Do gay people scare you or otherwise make you uncomfortable?

Only if they sound gay.

- triple zero,
homophonophobe.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Vaudeville Vigilante on December 16, 2009, 02:47:21 pm
Do gay people scare you or otherwise make you uncomfortable?

Only if they sound gay.

- triple zero,
homophonophobe.
That's not cool man.   :argh!:

Is it possible that you are really just afraid that you sound gay?
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Hoopla on December 16, 2009, 03:09:19 pm
Do gay people scare you or otherwise make you uncomfortable?

Only if they sound gay.

- triple zero,
homophonophobe.
That's not cool man.   :argh!:

Is it possible that you are really just afraid that you sound gay?

That was clearly a joke, did you not notice he typed "homophonophobe", and not 'homophobe'?
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Jenne on December 16, 2009, 03:12:22 pm
It was actually a pretty damned clever play on words.  And very tongue in cheek.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Richter on December 16, 2009, 03:22:20 pm
It was actually a pretty damned clever play on words.  And very tongue in cheek.

 :lmnuendo:
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 16, 2009, 03:24:59 pm
Do gay people scare you or otherwise make you uncomfortable?

Only if they sound gay.

- triple zero,
homophonophobe.
That's not cool man.   :argh!:

Is it possible that you are really just afraid that you sound gay?

That was clearly a joke, did you not notice he typed "homophonophobe", and not 'homophobe'?

Re-read VV's reply - pretty clear he got the joke from where I'm sitting
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Hoopla on December 16, 2009, 03:28:34 pm
Do gay people scare you or otherwise make you uncomfortable?

Only if they sound gay.

- triple zero,
homophonophobe.
That's not cool man.   :argh!:

Is it possible that you are really just afraid that you sound gay?

That was clearly a joke, did you not notice he typed "homophonophobe", and not 'homophobe'?

Re-read VV's reply - pretty clear he got the joke from where I'm sitting

Re-read several times before I posted.  I felt it was clear he didn't.  Meh, I'm not too worried about it.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Vaudeville Vigilante on December 16, 2009, 03:29:47 pm
Humor + Humor.  I was joking too.   :wink:
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 16, 2009, 03:33:09 pm
Lemme spell it out for the slow readers and in the interests of totally murdering the funnay

homophonophobe - someone who's afraid of the delicate sound of gay, right?

VV - you're just afraid you sound gay

Ah, fuck it, I give up - flame on!
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Hoopla on December 16, 2009, 03:37:03 pm
Lemme spell it out for the slow readers and in the interests of totally murdering the funnay

homophonophobe - someone who's afraid of the delicate sound of gay, right?

VV - you're just afraid you sound gay

Ah, fuck it, I give up - flame on!

It's the exact same joke, and Trip Zip made it first.  Not seeing it.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Vaudeville Vigilante on December 16, 2009, 03:38:47 pm
lol  I was being tongue-in-cheek as well, not mega hilarious.

Sorry for the derail/troll.  Unintended consequences.  :p
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 16, 2009, 03:40:41 pm
Lemme spell it out for the slow readers and in the interests of totally murdering the funnay

homophonophobe - someone who's afraid of the delicate sound of gay, right?

VV - you're just afraid you sound gay

Ah, fuck it, I give up - flame on!

It's the exact same joke, and Trip Zip made it first.  Not seeing it.

I never said it was subtle
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Hoopla on December 16, 2009, 03:41:35 pm
lol  I was being tongue-in-cheek as well, not mega hilarious.

Sorry for the derail/troll.  Unintended consequences.  :p

Ah, sorry it failed to penetrate through to my grey matter.  T'is the nature of printed funnay.

And, I already got what I wanted out of this thread, derail away...
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Captain Utopia on December 16, 2009, 04:03:55 pm
I'm just going to sound as if I'm derailing the thread.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 16, 2009, 04:07:19 pm
I will say that you're not a particularly good scientist. Homosexuality can cut down on population growth, which can devastate a population if left unchecked.

Err... cause promoting a hypothesis without evidence is good science!  :lulz:
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Requia ☣ on December 16, 2009, 04:26:19 pm
But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).

I can't find anything about this under 'generic adaptative syndrome'*, you know it by any other terms?

*There is a 'general adaptation syndrome', but that refers to all stress, not just overcrowding.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Hoopla on December 16, 2009, 04:27:05 pm
I will say that you're not a particularly good scientist. Homosexuality can cut down on population growth, which can devastate a population if left unchecked.

Err... cause promoting a hypothesis without evidence is good science!  :lulz:

Yes, whenever I have a science question I bring it to Slanket.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: LMNO on December 16, 2009, 04:27:39 pm
Requia, not for nothing, but overcrowding can cause high levels of stress.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 16, 2009, 08:31:03 pm
But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).

I can't find anything about this under 'generic adaptative syndrome'*, you know it by any other terms?

*There is a 'general adaptation syndrome', but that refers to all stress, not just overcrowding.

That is what the study with the Rats was based on... and it was tied to high stress = lower male hormones.

To LMNO's point, High Stress COULD be due to overcrowding or lack of resources... Although, one survey on humans found the stress induced by Wartime correlated with a greater number of homosexual males.

However, and this is the key bit... at best we now have a correlation between a lack of proper hormones in the mother and homosexual behavior. What we do not have, is evidence that it this drop in hormones is an evolutionary advantage. Also, it doesn't seem to affect females at all, so it only exists as a correlation for homosexual tendencies in males. Of course, if we base our argument on this position, we must argue that homosexual behavior is not genetic. Rather this theory claaims that the behaavior is determined by hormonal levels of the mother while pregnant.

So what that would mean is that when it is not a good time for the Mother to be pregnant, the child may be homosexual. That doesn't seem to necessarily support the idea that it is a positive evolutionary trait... evidence and testing may someday find support, but currently we don't got it.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: LMNO on December 16, 2009, 08:44:57 pm
I think something I kind of mentioned, yet hasn't been stated head on, is the possibility that homosexuality as genetic coding has not really been proven.

That said, I am of the firm opinion that IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER OR NOT GENETICS MAKES A MAN WANT TO SUCK COCK, OR A WOMAN TO EAT PUSSY.  The physical and emotional attachments one human has for another is not dictated by God, and it shouldn't bother anyone except the people involved in the relationship.  In a way, it seems to be edging close to some sort of apologetics to "explain" homosexuality by saying "oh, they can't help it, they were born that way."



THERE'S NOTHING TO HELP, FUCKOS.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Nast on December 16, 2009, 08:46:01 pm
I think something I kind of mentioned, yet hasn't been stated head on, is the possibility that homosexuality as genetic coding has not really been proven.

That said, I am of the firm opinion that IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER OR NOT GENETICS MAKES A MAN WANT TO SUCK COCK, OR A WOMAN TO EAT PUSSY.  The physical and emotional attachments one human has for another is not dictated by God, and it shouldn't bother anyone except the people involved in the relationship.  In a way, it seems to be edging close to some sort of apologetics to "explain" homosexuality by saying "oh, they can't help it, they were born that way."



THERE'S NOTHING TO HELP, FUCKOS.




LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.

This!
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 16, 2009, 08:48:05 pm
I think something I kind of mentioned, yet hasn't been stated head on, is the possibility that homosexuality as genetic coding has not really been proven.

That said, I am of the firm opinion that IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER OR NOT GENETICS MAKES A MAN WANT TO SUCK COCK, OR A WOMAN TO EAT PUSSY.  The physical and emotional attachments one human has for another is not dictated by God, and it shouldn't bother anyone except the people involved in the relationship.  In a way, it seems to be edging close to some sort of apologetics to "explain" homosexuality by saying "oh, they can't help it, they were born that way."



THERE'S NOTHING TO HELP, FUCKOS.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.

THIS is the correct motorcycle:

(http://www.puppethead.com/photoblog/photos/2007/P1000807.jpg)
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: rygD on December 16, 2009, 09:50:40 pm
I think I remember reading about that study, Roger. Didn't the studies in the rats show that once population crowding kept going cannibalism started up?

Does anyone want to share recipes?
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: rygD on December 16, 2009, 09:54:12 pm
I agree with that statement about adding workers without adding mouths.  I'm not sure that the inability to procreate (in a homosexual relationship) should be classified as a mistake.  In this day and age, I'd consider it an advantage.  If humans continue to procreate at the rate we are now indefinitely, it will arguably hasten our extinction.  From that angle, the increasing frequency of homosexuality could be seen as a positive adaptive development.

So, same as serial killers, then?
Homosexuals are workers that don't add extra mouths. Serial Killers subtract workers and extra mouths.

Wouldn't serial killers then be beneficial when there is an over abundance of workers in an area?  Perhaps, from a population control perspective, they would be even more beneficial if they only kill heterosexuals.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on December 16, 2009, 09:55:15 pm
I think something I kind of mentioned, yet hasn't been stated head on, is the possibility that homosexuality as genetic coding has not really been proven.

That said, I am of the firm opinion that IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER OR NOT GENETICS MAKES A MAN WANT TO SUCK COCK, OR A WOMAN TO EAT PUSSY.  The physical and emotional attachments one human has for another is not dictated by God, and it shouldn't bother anyone except the people involved in the relationship.  In a way, it seems to be edging close to some sort of apologetics to "explain" homosexuality by saying "oh, they can't help it, they were born that way."



THERE'S NOTHING TO HELP, FUCKOS.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.

(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x90/fredapeople/animated/Applause-2.gif)
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: rygD on December 16, 2009, 09:57:13 pm
I think something I kind of mentioned, yet hasn't been stated head on, is the possibility that homosexuality as genetic coding has not really been proven.

That said, I am of the firm opinion that IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER OR NOT GENETICS MAKES A MAN WANT TO SUCK COCK, OR A WOMAN TO EAT PUSSY.  The physical and emotional attachments one human has for another is not dictated by God, and it shouldn't bother anyone except the people involved in the relationship.  In a way, it seems to be edging close to some sort of apologetics to "explain" homosexuality by saying "oh, they can't help it, they were born that way."



THERE'S NOTHING TO HELP, FUCKOS.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.



I feel the same way with what you are saying on genetics.  As for the rest, I strongly agree with that, as well.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Fuquad on December 17, 2009, 12:11:26 am
Wouldn't serial killers then be beneficial when there is an over abundance of workers in an area?  Perhaps, from a population control perspective, they would be even more beneficial if they only kill heterosexuals.
As there is more to a person than their status as a worker I find it hard to agree that killing workers is beneficial.

I'm also not convinced that sociopaths and psychotics are going to kill in societies optimal benefit.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: rygD on December 17, 2009, 02:02:02 am
When evaluating the benefit to society of a worker purely as a resource to be exploited, I think the other things would likely be ignored, as we are looking merely at statistics.

I was only trying to point out that it might be helpful to reduce the number of people who are using up limited resources while unable to provide anything for society, when dealing with overpopulation.  Someone who is removing these people from the population may have a positive impact on the whole of the society, regardless of their intentions, especially if they were only killing breeders. 

I think I might have missed your point, though.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Elder Iptuous on December 17, 2009, 02:28:16 am
I think something I kind of mentioned, yet hasn't been stated head on, is the possibility that homosexuality as genetic coding has not really been proven.

That said, I am of the firm opinion that IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER OR NOT GENETICS MAKES A MAN WANT TO SUCK COCK, OR A WOMAN TO EAT PUSSY.  The physical and emotional attachments one human has for another is not dictated by God, and it shouldn't bother anyone except the people involved in the relationship.  In a way, it seems to be edging close to some sort of apologetics to "explain" homosexuality by saying "oh, they can't help it, they were born that way."


THERE'S NOTHING TO HELP, FUCKOS.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.

IAWTP
....
but what ... if there is some fellow who is attracted to other men, but wants to be straight (for whatever reason)...  is there something to 'help' at that point? is it his desires that should be 'helped', or his desire to change his desires that should be 'helped'?
certainly there is some problem in that scenario...
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Fuquad on December 17, 2009, 03:06:26 am
When evaluating the benefit to society of a worker purely as a resource to be exploited, I think the other things would likely be ignored, as we are looking merely at statistics.
I'm not evaluating a worker purely as a resource to be exploited. Nor am I merely looking at statistics. And those other things that you are wanting to ignore in order to do so may be those very things that are of a greater benefit to society than the capacity as a "worker".

I was only trying to point out that it might be helpful to reduce the number of people who are using up limited resources while unable to provide anything for society, when dealing with overpopulation.  Someone who is removing these people from the population may have a positive impact on the whole of the society, regardless of their intentions, especially if they were only killing breeders.
So you see fear and distrust as things that make society stronger or are you unaware of what impact even just one murder can have in a society let alone a string of them? Those that were in Seattle when Zapata was murdered can tell exactly what impact that had on the scene. About the part in bold: By your own admission you are doing that by completely ignoring any other benefit to society that person may have.


I think I might have missed your point, though.
You missed that homosexuality is not like serial killing?
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: GreaseMonkey on December 17, 2009, 03:31:53 am
At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

This happened in a class I took in college.  I studied antho and was trying to get some gen eds out of the way and took a sociology class.  Boy, talk about the wrong environment to say such a thing.  I am not homophobic.  But strictly looking at reproduction and advancing your genes, it isn't ideal to be gay.  Granted, you can have a surrogate these days and still reproduce.  But animal instinct is about advancing our own genes.  We choose mates that we find attractive in some way in order to reproduce, whether we do or not is another discussion. 
I know what you meant, but I think it just wasn't worded correctly.  And with some people once you misstep with them, they don't let you explain your true meaning.
I would say that your co-worker is the one who crossed the line with the name calling.  If this happened at work, they would be in bigger shit for calling you a homophobe.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Triple Zero on December 17, 2009, 12:33:32 pm
(http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/1069/roflbot9qws.jpg)
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Cait M. R. on December 17, 2009, 01:39:19 pm
(http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/1069/roflbot9qws.jpg)
:crankey:
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Hoopla on December 17, 2009, 02:16:27 pm
:golfclap:
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Template on December 18, 2009, 12:00:47 am
I think something I kind of mentioned, yet hasn't been stated head on, is the possibility that homosexuality as genetic coding has not really been proven.

That said, I am of the firm opinion that IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER OR NOT GENETICS MAKES A MAN WANT TO SUCK COCK, OR A WOMAN TO EAT PUSSY.  The physical and emotional attachments one human has for another is not dictated by God, and it shouldn't bother anyone except the people involved in the relationship.  In a way, it seems to be edging close to some sort of apologetics to "explain" homosexuality by saying "oh, they can't help it, they were born that way."


THERE'S NOTHING TO HELP, FUCKOS.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.

Hear, hear.  The Declaration of Independence, for example, asserts a right to pursuit of happiness.  Not solely genetically-defined/inherited happiness.  Nor conditioned happiness, nor Really Real Happiness (TM).  Knowing the exact cause(es) of homosexuality wouldn't mitigate the wrongness of forbidding it(s expression).


IAWTP
....
but what ... if there is some fellow who is attracted to other men, but wants to be straight (for whatever reason)...  is there something to 'help' at that point? is it his desires that should be 'helped', or his desire to change his desires that should be 'helped'?
certainly there is some problem in that scenario...

Ah.  The problem is not the subject's sexual preferences.  It's his attachment to labels in forming his identity.  And you call yourself a discordian.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: rygD on December 18, 2009, 12:02:31 am
When evaluating the benefit to society of a worker purely as a resource to be exploited, I think the other things would likely be ignored, as we are looking merely at statistics.
I'm not evaluating a worker purely as a resource to be exploited. Nor am I merely looking at statistics. And those other things that you are wanting to ignore in order to do so may be those very things that are of a greater benefit to society than the capacity as a "worker".

I was only trying to point out that it might be helpful to reduce the number of people who are using up limited resources while unable to provide anything for society, when dealing with overpopulation.  Someone who is removing these people from the population may have a positive impact on the whole of the society, regardless of their intentions, especially if they were only killing breeders.
So you see fear and distrust as things that make society stronger or are you unaware of what impact even just one murder can have in a society let alone a string of them? Those that were in Seattle when Zapata was murdered can tell exactly what impact that had on the scene. About the part in bold: By your own admission you are doing that by completely ignoring any other benefit to society that person may have.


I think I might have missed your point, though.
You missed that homosexuality is not like serial killing?

I think you are taking this too seriously.  I make jokes.  Frequently they include the death of humans.  I dislike humans.  Too me, those people are merely workers.  If there are too many of them to actually keep them all employed, I want them to die and stop using the limited resources.  If many die, all the better.  Hell, If most humans die, and I happen to be around, I will celebrate.  To put things into perspective for you, I value human lives the same or less than the lives of non-human animals.  Don't forget that humans are animals, and don't start to think they are in any way "better".  Just more destructive.

Perhaps instead of allowing others to kill people we could just set up a lottery and harvest parts and use the rest for food, while telling everyone we are sending them to a wonderful island or something.  Then we solve several problems, and we don't have the pathetic fucks being scared.  But what then do we do with violent criminals who cannot be rehabilitated?

No, I never thought homosexuality was like homicide, but I do see benefits of both.  I sure would love to see all the heterosexuals killed though.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Triple Zero on December 18, 2009, 12:04:01 am
homicide is also pretty scary for a homophonophobe.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: rygD on December 18, 2009, 12:09:11 am
That is why we tell them things that sound happy.

Suggestions for alternate terms?

Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Nast on December 18, 2009, 05:33:37 am
(http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/1069/roflbot9qws.jpg)

:mittens:
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Triple Zero on December 18, 2009, 12:30:50 pm
I have no idea why the bottom half line fell off btw, but everybody knows what it says anyway.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: AFK on December 18, 2009, 01:29:47 pm
I have no idea why the bottom half line fell off btw, but everybody knows what it says anyway.

Surprise Circumcision
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 01:45:39 pm
I think something I kind of mentioned, yet hasn't been stated head on, is the possibility that homosexuality as genetic coding has not really been proven.

That said, I am of the firm opinion that IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER OR NOT GENETICS MAKES A MAN WANT TO SUCK COCK, OR A WOMAN TO EAT PUSSY.  The physical and emotional attachments one human has for another is not dictated by God, and it shouldn't bother anyone except the people involved in the relationship.  In a way, it seems to be edging close to some sort of apologetics to "explain" homosexuality by saying "oh, they can't help it, they were born that way."


THERE'S NOTHING TO HELP, FUCKOS.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.

Hear, hear.  The Declaration of Independence, for example, asserts a right to pursuit of happiness.  Not solely genetically-defined/inherited happiness.  Nor conditioned happiness, nor Really Real Happiness (TM).  Knowing the exact cause(es) of homosexuality wouldn't mitigate the wrongness of forbidding it(s expression).


IAWTP
....
but what ... if there is some fellow who is attracted to other men, but wants to be straight (for whatever reason)...  is there something to 'help' at that point? is it his desires that should be 'helped', or his desire to change his desires that should be 'helped'?
certainly there is some problem in that scenario...

Ah.  The problem is not the subject's sexual preferences.  It's his attachment to labels in forming his identity.  And you call yourself a discordian.


I just wanted to point out that the authors of the two quotes above are switched around.

Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2009, 02:44:33 pm
I think something I kind of mentioned, yet hasn't been stated head on, is the possibility that homosexuality as genetic coding has not really been proven.

That said, I am of the firm opinion that IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER OR NOT GENETICS MAKES A MAN WANT TO SUCK COCK, OR A WOMAN TO EAT PUSSY.  The physical and emotional attachments one human has for another is not dictated by God, and it shouldn't bother anyone except the people involved in the relationship.  In a way, it seems to be edging close to some sort of apologetics to "explain" homosexuality by saying "oh, they can't help it, they were born that way."


THERE'S NOTHING TO HELP, FUCKOS.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.

Hear, hear.  The Declaration of Independence, for example, asserts a right to pursuit of happiness.  Not solely genetically-defined/inherited happiness.  Nor conditioned happiness, nor Really Real Happiness (TM).  Knowing the exact cause(es) of homosexuality wouldn't mitigate the wrongness of forbidding it(s expression).


IAWTP
....
but what ... if there is some fellow who is attracted to other men, but wants to be straight (for whatever reason)...  is there something to 'help' at that point? is it his desires that should be 'helped', or his desire to change his desires that should be 'helped'?
certainly there is some problem in that scenario...

Ah.  The problem is not the subject's sexual preferences.  It's his attachment to labels in forming his identity.  And you call yourself a discordian.

I just wanted to point out that the authors of the two quotes above are switched around.


Yeah, that's weird.  how would that happen if not deliberately?
anyways....
in response to  yhnmzw, perhaps i'm displaying my ignorance, but i'm not quite sure what you are saying by his attachment to labels being the problem...

also, i only call myself a discordian to those that don't know what that means.  Really Real Discordians would know that i'm bluffing...

Iptuous,
attached to labels and likes it.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 18, 2009, 05:05:59 pm
That is why we tell them things that sound happy.

Suggestions for alternate terms?



Population control.

Environmental Protection.

Dolphin Salvation.
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: rygD on December 18, 2009, 07:11:30 pm
Dolphin Sex?
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 18, 2009, 08:31:23 pm
Srsly old meme...

(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i312/P3nT4gR4m/dolphins.jpg)
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Jenne on December 18, 2009, 08:42:35 pm
:x
Title: Re: Opinions Wanted
Post by: Template on December 18, 2009, 09:25:38 pm
Sorry about the switched quotes.  i was trying to separate the quotes, and I moved the wrong [quote tag to the bottom.  The bit about labels was part silliness, but I have trouble why someone would want to want something they don't want without outside pressure or a recognized lack of experience or case of depression or similar.