08 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76And you tend to agree with my words.
That's all fine and good (and I tend to agree with you in general), but that has little bearing on the issue at hand. In fact, you're helping to make my point.
That's the difference with hetero and homo. When people see two men being in love, they think about the sex they have, not the love and romance. Because the love and romance is exactly the same. T hy homosexuals would tend to feel some level of discomfort with the way people look at them?
What you call 'disconfort' I label 'homophobia'. If someone cannot stand see two men or two women hand in hand strollong down the street, then they must be afraid of something (phobia). What is wrong? The hand holderners, or the afraiders?
What are they afraid of?
When I was a little boy and saw a black man for the first time. There aren't many black people in Sweden where I lived. Who did wrong? He, becase he showed himself before my eyes and made me afraid? Or me, who couldn't see a black man without crying? Or perhaps my parents who didn't say that "Get used to it, don't be a wimp!"?
Of course he has the right to be black. Would it cross anybodies mind that it is genetic and it can be cured eventually. Of course not. Neither should the same phobia strike any modern person, wanting them out of their eyesights.
I tend to classify everyone who is afraid of others sexual preference as homophobia, even if he/she is only afraid of their bedroom activities.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasMaybe homophobia comes from a fear 'I could perhaps fall into this too'.
And you tend to agree with my words.
What you call 'disconfort' I label 'homophobia'. If someone cannot stand see two men or two women hand in hand strollong down the street, then they must be afraid of something (phobia). What is wrong? The hand holderners, or the afraiders?
What are they afraid of?
When I was a little boy and saw a black man fo ...[text shortened]... l preference as homophobia, even if he/she is only afraid of their bedroom activities.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by sh76You say that homosexual people would change their sexuality if given the chance and I'm the reactionary!
It's sad that nobody can have a civilized discussion about issued involving homosexuality because reactionaries like you will immediately go bananas and throw around homophobia accusations like they're skittles.
I will concede that there are people out there who are as immature about this as you are and so would be offended by my assertion and that it theref ...[text shortened]... on and its answer is utterly irrelevant and completely devoid of practical ramifications.
That makes sense.
Please stop being a fool and making ignorant assumptions of what homosexual people want.
I see that you're making progresses though. Some time ago you thought that men that abused boys had to necessarily be homosexuals now you're in the smart group and realize that the two behaviors aren't correlated.
Maybe in a few years time you'll also grow and realize that most homosexuals are pretty comfortable with what they are. Maybe.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by adam warlock🙄
You say that homosexual people would change their sexuality if given the chance and I'm the reactionary!
That makes sense.
Please stop being a fool and making ignorant assumptions of what homosexual people want.
I see that you're making progresses though. Some time ago you thought that men that abused boys had to necessarily be homosexuals now yo ...[text shortened]... so grow and realize that most homosexuals are pretty comfortable with what they are. Maybe.
You really need to get a grip on this emotional nonsense.
Just discuss things like and adult and leave the childlike pouting to the children.
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by adam warlockOf course he does. There are a lots of them. Perhaps even his brother or sister is one. But he/she is afraid of thelling him because of the coming reaction.
Do you know any homosexual?
In every full bus, there is one (statistically).
In every large school class, there is one (statistically).
In every church during communion ceremony, there are a few (statistically).
Why don't they show themselves? Are they afraid? Of the reaction? Yes, probably.
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by sonhouseNo. Its not good enough. Not even close, and not even true.
The biggie: Genetic diversity. It's what has kept us relatively safe, one step ahead of the microbe predators. When you genetically mod some food plant and it all becomes one clone genetically speaking, if a microbe of some kind kills one, it soon spreads and kills the whole plantation. So if everyone wanted say, dark skin, and that became the norm, it woul ...[text shortened]... uld have taken place if our original genetic diversity had been left alone.
That good enough?
Africans do perfectly well with one eye color, one hair color, one skin color. In fact so do all other races except the Europeans.
Just because one specific attribute is selected for, it doesn't mean genetic diversity is lost.
Selective breeding is a very different thing from gene selection. If we were to select a given set of children from the whole population and kill off the rest, that would be quite different from selecting a given set of sperm and eggs from one couple and killing the rest off.
The only likely side effect would be reduced fertility as you would be selecting artificially, not based on first come first serve for the sperms and eggs. All other natural selection effects would not be interfered with.
09 Jul 10
Lets suppose we can create a number of embryos from a couples sperm and eggs. We can also read out their full DNA sequence. We also know what chemicals / drugs / hormones affect development in the womb and beyond.
This would theoretically allow a parent to choose some of their child's characteristics including:
1. Appearance such as eye color, hair color, possibly even skin color to some degree.
2. Avoid genetic diseases that would seriously impair the child's life, or seriously increase the risk of certain diseases (cancer, diabetes).
3. Certain behavioral tenancies. Intelligence, toboyism, homosexuality etc.
Should all such choice be banned? Some? Based on what criteria? Possibly:
a) Allow those choices that will increase life expectancy.
b) Ban those choices that are discriminatory.
If b) then what if we think our child will do better and have a happier life if he/she is more intelligent? What if we think the same applies if he/she is heterosexual?
09 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Sorry, i don't think it is.
6 of one; half a dozen of the other
You claimed discomfiture of homosexuality is innate, yet pre-Christianity the pratice of homosexuality, particularly in the form of pederasty, was considered completely socially acceptable. The Greek and the Roman dynasties were rife with this behaviour.
It was only with the spread of Christianity and it's extreme homophobic scriptures ie. Leviticus 20:13 that homosexual behaviour began to be swept aside.
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by adam warlockTrue, although to add, heterosexuals have less of a problem with holding hands in public, because of rampant homophobia.
Probably for the same reasons we don't go showing ourselves as heterosexuals: we don't have to.
No doubt many gay people would want to show themselves more (e.g. gay pride demonstrations) to show they are not afraid to be gay. Unfortunately some are still afraid.
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by lauseyBut my answer was only applied in the situations of Fabian's post.
No doubt many gay people would want to show themselves more (e.g. gay pride demonstrations) to show they are not afraid to be gay. Unfortunately some are still afraid.
Gay pride demonstrations are there for them to show that they are proud of being homosexuals, but in those normal day situations I think that they don't show themselves as homosexuals, exactly for the same reasons that an heterosexual doesn't show him(her)self as an heterosexual: there's no point (unlike on gay pride demonstrations where there is a big point to be made)
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by adam warlockOk, see your point. Makes sense.
But my answer was only applied in the situations of Fabian's post.
Gay pride demonstrations are there for them to show that they are proud of being homosexuals, but in those normal day situations I think that they don't show themselves as homosexuals, exactly for the same reasons that an heterosexual doesn't show him(her)self as an heterosexual: there's no point (unlike on gay pride demonstrations where there is a big point to be made)