02 Feb 09
5 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[/b]No, I meant what I said. Homosexuality affects other people and can cause an
[b]…There are some very rare examples such as hyperventilation/over-oxygenation where
decreased lung function may actually be a bonus.
…
I presume VERY rare! Smoking wouldn’t be recommended by any good doctor as a way of preventing such a thing -I am sure there are more suitable treatments.
…You may find long term smokers
where a d but, just like with homosexuality, NOT necessarily so.
-so why treat the two any different?
effect on individuals. I am happy for you to use the term 'effect' as long as you
qualify it with a conditional.
Good, are you sitting comfortably? Then we shall go on.
How is society prepared to deal with the adverse affects of homosexuality compared
to heterosexuality? Acceptance is a relatively new social phenomenon, unlike
heterosexuality. At the moment there is a great deal of paranoia around being
construed as homophobic so are people really speaking their mind and viewing
the situation objectively? The emphasis within homosexual culture seems to
be on sex a lot more so than heterosexuality. Why is this so readily discounted?
Transgender individuals give a much better account of a condition that is likely to
be genetic. The fixation is not so much on hedonistic pleasure as it is personal
identity. Genetic markers have been identified for transgenderism but as far as
I know, not for homosexuality. Shouldn't this be the case in hand when assessing
the cause of homosexuality?
02 Feb 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck…The emphasis within homosexual culture seems to
No, I meant what I said. Homosexuality affects other people and can cause an
effect on individuals. I am happy for you to use the term 'effect' as long as you
qualify it with a conditional.
Good, are you sitting comfortably? Then we shall go on.
How is society prepared to deal with the adverse affects of homosexuality compared
to heterosexualit ...[text shortened]... homosexuality. Shouldn't this be the case in hand when assessing
the cause of homosexuality?[/b]
be on sex a lot more so than heterosexuality. Why is this so readily discounted?
.…
“discounted” ? -I fail to see the relevance of it.
…Transgender individuals give a much better account of a condition that is likely to
be genetic.
….
In what way does ‘their account’ indicate that it is not likely to be genetic?
-I am NOT saying it IS genetic -I just don’t see the reason for your judgement that it isn‘t.
-and I also I fail to see the relevance of it if it isn't genetic.
….Genetic markers have been identified for transgenderism but as far as
I know, not for homosexuality. Shouldn't this be the case in hand when assessing
the cause of homosexuality?..…
Yes -if that is indeed the case -but what relevant has the ‘cause’ of homosexuality have?
-hypothetically, suppose it is eventually PROVEN with irrefutable evidence that homosexuality is NOT caused by genes but is totally caused by environment …..so? ...and.…..what now?….I mean, what relevance has this have and to what specific issue regarding homosexuality?
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe first point is relevent in respect to transgendered men.
[b]…The emphasis within homosexual culture seems to
be on sex a lot more so than heterosexuality. Why is this so readily discounted?
.…
“discounted” ? -I fail to see the relevance of it.
…Transgender individuals give a much better account of a condition that is likely to
be genetic.
….
In what way does ‘their account’ i ...[text shortened]... now?….I mean, what relevance has this have and to what specific issue regarding homosexuality?[/b]
If homosexuality is genetic and effects the hormone levels,
why don't we see a similar increase in sexual appetite that
we see with homosexuals?
I'm not saying that it is or isn't but I do believe the burden
of proof is on the homosexual. Twhitehead raised an interesting
point. Can it be genetically proven that paedophiles are genetically
attracted to children? Should we then make allowences for this
behaviour?
These are hugely important questions and I believe the answer should
greatly affect the way in which homosexuality is perceived.
For example. If a heterosexual male is found to be enjoying bondage
sessions or a similar fetish, it would go very much unpunished in
a work place when he received a right good ribbing for it.
However if the same treatment were applied to homosexuality, most
lawyers would bite your hand off to take the case.
So why, if we have not yet ascertained proof of this being a biological
influence are the cases treated so differently?
03 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ck…The first point is relevant in respect to transgender men.
The first point is relevent in respect to transgendered men.
If homosexuality is genetic and effects the hormone levels,
why don't we see a similar increase in sexual appetite that
we see with homosexuals?
I'm not saying that it is or isn't but I do believe the burden
of proof is on the homosexual. Twhitehead raised an interesting
point. Can it be ...[text shortened]... ascertained proof of this being a biological
influence are the cases treated so differently?
If homosexuality is genetic and effects the hormone levels,
why don't we see a similar increase in sexual appetite that
we see with homosexuals?
.…
How do you know that “we don't see a similar increase in sexual appetite that
we see with homosexuals”?
Has “sexual appetite” ever been scientifically “measured” in any group!!!! -and, if so, how?
…I'm not saying that it is or isn't but I do believe the burden
of proof is on the homosexual.
….
“burden of proof”? -what, are all homosexuals trying desperately to convince us that it is genetic? -if so, why?
-I fail to see why they need to “prove” what the cause of their sexuality is when this is irrelevant. -suppose the cause was proven to be environmental -so what?
….Twhitehead raised an interesting
point. Can it be genetically proven that paedophiles are genetically
attracted to children?
..…
Ok -lets supposed it can be -
….Should we then make allowances for this
behaviour?
...…
No. Necessarily harmful behaviour is still necessarily harmful regardless of its cause. Therefore, its cause is TOTALLY irrelevant to the issue of “Should we then make allowances for this behaviour”.
Just because a behaviour is genetic doesn’t mean we should tolerate it -suppose murder is sometimes genetic!? (not that I think it is)
…So why, if we have not yet ascertained proof of this being a biological
influence are the cases treated so differently?
...…
Because the cause is irrelevant!
04 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'm going to have to limit my Googling to stay on topic I'm afraid,
[b]…The first point is relevant in respect to transgender men.
If homosexuality is genetic and effects the hormone levels,
why don't we see a similar increase in sexual appetite that
we see with homosexuals?
.…
How do you know that “we don't see a similar increase in sexual appetite that
we see with homosexuals”?
Has “sexual appe ...[text shortened]... fluence are the cases treated so differently?
...…[/b]
Because the cause is irrelevant![/b]
less I get pelted with gay porn pop-ups for the next month.
You are more than welcome to find this information yourself but
I would say that prevalence of STD's is a strong indicator.
I think a large proportion of gay men do consider their sexuality
to be a kind of natural force that they have had to admit to and
reorientate themselves to. I would find it hard to belive that
many, if not most, would not believe this to be a biological trait.
You raised a good point in your last post.
If paedophilia were a genetic disorder, it could then be characterised
as such before 'necessarily harmful' behaviour took place. In this
scenario, maybe the paedophile should be looked upon with sympathy,
as a victim of his own genetic makeup. But, as we know, this isn't
very likely to be a genetic disorder. It is more than likely to be
a social and psychological disorder, characterised by compulsive and
self-gratuitous behaviour.
I'm going to restrain myself from googling pyschopaths and heritability,
I really don't want to know what the ad men have got under that combination.
04 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck…I would find it hard to believe that
I'm going to have to limit my Googling to stay on topic I'm afraid,
less I get pelted with gay porn pop-ups for the next month.
You are more than welcome to find this information yourself but
I would say that prevalence of STD's is a strong indicator.
I think a large proportion of gay men do consider their sexuality
to be a kind of natural force tha itability,
I really don't want to know what the ad men have got under that combination.
many, if not most, would not believe this to be a biological trait.
.…
Why would you find that hard to believe?
Why don’t you test this assumption by asking a few to see if they think that it is a biological trait for them?
I personally know in real life of a gay that has clearly said to me that it is obviously a biological trait for him -I mean, what else could the cause be if not biological!!!? -he says he is uncertain if it is genetically caused or an environmental caused biological trait and presumably he doesn’t care which it is -why should he?
…You raised a good point in your last post.
If paedophilia were a genetic disorder, it could then be characterised
as such before 'necessarily harmful' behaviour took place. In this
scenario, maybe the paedophile should be looked upon with SYMPATHY,
as a victim of his own genetic makeup.
…. (my emphasis)
If it was genetic, why should we look upon them with “SYMPATHY” any more or less that we look upon them with “SYMPATHY” if it was cause my environment and not their genes?
-they don’t have control over either.
Of course, regardless of whether the causes are genetic or environmental, this doesn’t imply that we SHOULD show “SYMPATHY” for those of them that actually do paedophilic acts -unlike with homosexuality, as their behaviour is necessarily harmful, they should control their behaviour to the point that they don’t do any actual paedophilic acts.
….But, as we know, this isn't
very likely to be a genetic disorder. It is more than likely to be
a social and psychological disorder,
...…
-which is caused by some yet unknown environmental factors?
-if not, then what is it that causes this disorder in your opinion?
….I'm going to restrain myself from goggling psychopaths and habitability,
I really don't want to know what the ad men have got under that combination.
...…
Suppose, very hypothetically, it is scientifically PROVEN that the causes of psychopath is genetic!
-in what way would this mean we think or treat psychopaths any differently if it was scientifically PROVEN that the causes of psychopath is environmental?
In other words, and this is the most critical question that I hope you can answer here for I hope it would shed light on me on your position, why whether the cause of some necessarily harmful behaviour is genetic or environmental should effect out attitude towards that behaviour?
04 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonJust to add to that, heterosexuality is a biological condition that causes males to become attracted to females - often quite strongly so. This does not mean that rape is permissible or that we should show sympathy to a rapist.
Of course, regardless of whether the causes are genetic or environmental, this doesn’t imply that we SHOULD show “SYMPATHY” for those of them that actually do paedophilic acts -unlike with homosexuality, as their behaviour is necessarily harmful, they should control their behaviour to the point that they don’t do any actual paedophilic acts.
04 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou took my 'sympathy' out of context. I meant it in
[b]…I would find it hard to believe that
many, if not most, would not believe this to be a biological trait.
.…
Why would you find that hard to believe?
Why don’t you test this assumption by asking a few to see if they think that it is a biological trait for them?
I personally know in real life of a gay that has clearly said to me that ...[text shortened]... ul behaviour is genetic or environmental should effect out attitude towards that behaviour?[/b]
the absence of an offence having been committed.
What we are talking about here is the ability to
recognise a genetic disorder, diagnose it and treat
it successfully so that the patient and society are
spared unneccesary duress. This would be a good example
of why it is important to recognise the causes of
a disorder and why it is important that those suffering
from a biological disorder are treated differently.
A paedophile is not a good example here whereas a transgendered
person would be. It is commonly accepted that these people
can turn up to work after a period of absence as a different
gender. If I were to tell my boss that I wanted to turn up
to work dressed as a woman just 'because I felt like it', I don't
expect the same treatment. People with biologically determined
differences are treated differently to those with social differences.
as their behaviour is necessarily harmful, they should
control their behaviour to the point that they don’t do any actual
(homosexual) acts.
Interesting to hear you say that. I wonder if those very
words were uttered not too long ago about homosexuality?
In Britain today, a bill was recently drawn up to put young children
who display anti-social tendencies onto the DNA database.
I for one have no doubt that if genetic markers for anti-social
behaviour were identified in Britain today, they'd be first in
line for 'the database'.
Re : your question if a behaviour is genetic or environmental.
Please be more specific with what you mean by environmental.
I get the feeling you use your hands a lot when speaking...
04 Feb 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck…People with biologically determined
You took my 'sympathy' out of context. I meant it in
the absence of an offence having been committed.
What we are talking about here is the ability to
recognise a genetic disorder, diagnose it and treat
it successfully so that the patient and society are
spared unneccesary duress. This would be a good example
of why it is important to recogn you mean by environmental.
I get the feeling you use your hands a lot when speaking...
differences are treated differently to those with social differences.
.…
Firstly, what is the premise for this above assertion - I have certainly not seen any evidence for this that I am aware of -if somebody acts like a jerk, people wouldn’t normally care a dam whether the cause is “biological” or “social” or both.
Secondly, regardless of whether a persons sexuality is biologically determined or not, it is surely true that ALL differences in sexuality are “social” differences -right?
I mean, a persons sexual orientation does generally give that person his SOCIAL predisposition to who and how he has sex -right?
I am sure there is a vast amount of scientific evidence to show “biologically determined differences” CAN and DO cause some “social differences” thus the causes for somebody’s behaviour can be BOTH “biological” AND “social” thus making the distinction as if it cannot be both erroneous.
…as their behaviour is necessarily harmful, they should
control their behaviour to the point that they don’t do any actual
(homosexual) acts. ….
...…[/b]
Hay!!!
Stop putting words in by mouth!!!
My actual quote was:
….Of course, regardless of whether the causes are genetic or environmental, this doesn’t imply that we SHOULD show “SYMPATHY” for those of them that actually do paedophilic acts -unlike with homosexuality, as their behaviour is necessarily harmful, they should control their behaviour to the point that they don’t do any actual paedophilic acts.
...…
-thank you!
I did NOT say nor imply in any way that homosexual acts are necessarily harmful and you know it. in fact, I made it clear in a previous post that homosexual acts are NOT necessarily harmful just as heterosexual acts are NOT necessarily harmful.
…your question if a behaviour is genetic or environmental.
Please be more specific with what you mean by environmental. ...…
Any environmental factors that can effect sexual preferences.
For example, there is some evidence that the environment in the womb before birth may effect the child’s sexuality later non in life -in particular, the various amounts of sex hormones that manage to pass through the mothers placenta to the unborn child can effect brain development and sex drives later on in life.
There may be environmental factors after birth influencing sexual development such as the complex effect of the child’s complex social environment etc ( -so “environmental” encompasses the “social environment“ )
05 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou're chewing up the facts and they're dribbling
[b]…People with biologically determined
differences are treated differently to those with social differences.
.…
Firstly, what is the premise for this above assertion - I have certainly not seen any evidence for this that I am aware of -if somebody acts like a jerk, people wouldn’t normally care a dam whether the cause is “biological” or ...[text shortened]... ld’s complex social environment etc ( -so “environmental” encompasses the “social environment“ )[/b]
out your mouth as a culpid pulp.
So what are you trying to tell me?
Dyslexics should be treated like highschool dropouts and
people with tourrettes should be treated like yobs?
05 Feb 09
Here's a scenario for you. I'm at work and my boss tells me I have
to travel some 240 miles with one of my work colleagues.
One is a raging queen who talks incessantly about sex with men and
fancy dress. The other is a testosterone fueled twat that talks non-stop
about football and his gun collection.
I give my reasons to the boss why I'd rather walk over hot coals for each.
Which one is he more likely to be able to fire me over?
05 Feb 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckNeither if he is reasonable.
Here's a scenario for you. I'm at work and my boss tells me I have
to travel some 240 miles with one of my work colleagues.
One is a raging queen who talks incessantly about sex with men and
fancy dress. The other is a testosterone fueled twat that talks non-stop
about football and his gun collection.
I give my reasons to the boss why I'd rather walk over hot coals for each.
Which one is he more likely to be able to fire me over?
If you cannot stand someone’s habits then that is not your fault.