News:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Main Menu

Opinions Wanted

Started by hooplala, December 15, 2009, 05:07:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hooplala

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?
"Soon all of us will have special names" — Professor Brian O'Blivion

"Now's not the time to get silly, so wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns." — Bob Dylan?

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
— Walt Whitman

Elder Iptuous

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.

Dimocritus

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).  
HOUSE OF GABCab ~ "caecus plumbum caecus"

LMNO

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.

Richter

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.)
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on May 22, 2015, 03:00:53 AM
Anyone ever think about how Richter inhabits the same reality as you and just scream and scream and scream, but in a good way?   :lulz:

Friendly Neighborhood Mentat

Captain Utopia

Well, aren't white people 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.





LMNO

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.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

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 don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

LMNO

Rat, that's an awfully non-agnostic position you're taking there...

Sir Squid Diddimus

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.

Elder Iptuous

Quote from: LMNO on December 15, 2009, 05:29:53 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....

P3nT4gR4m

Homosexuality is a fine practice and should be made compulsory. :troll:

I'm up to my arse in Brexit Numpties, but I want more.  Target-rich environments are the new sexy.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it's not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn't matter." -- Max Tegmark

Cainad (dec.)

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.

hooplala

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.
"Soon all of us will have special names" — Professor Brian O'Blivion

"Now's not the time to get silly, so wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns." — Bob Dylan?

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
— Walt Whitman

Captain Utopia

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard 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.
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.