Civil Unions Debate - Jacksonville, FL

Discuss the national Civil Unions debate in Jacksonville, FL.

Are Civil Unions Enough?

Jacksonville thinks marriage is between a man and a woman
Marriage is bet...
 
145
No, gay marriag...
 
22
Yes, that's plenty
 
4

Vote now in Jacksonville:

Comments
81 - 100 of 103 Comments Last updated -
Chris

Yaphank, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
Dec 2, 2012
 
just because monkeys have sex with the same sex doesnt make it genetic or scientific. it means they are animals and if we act like them, having same sex sex then we are no better then animals ourselves. THATS what that means
smarks2

Binghamton, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
Dec 2, 2012
 
Actually it does offer a potential link to why humans have some homosexual tendencies. Clearly you didn't even LOOK at the link I just posted... we're very closely related to apes genetically. Some of their behaviors certainly correspond to some of ours. Not all, but some. Here's a site that shows some of the differences:
http://listverse.com/2012/02/14/10-comparison...
Facial expressions, sex, walking upright...

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84
Dec 2, 2012
 
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>That's not true at all.
What's not true?

Be specific please.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
Dec 2, 2012
 
smarks2 wrote:
@Rainbow sunset - you're arguing a lost cause here. I'm trying to advocate for gay rights. You're trying to argue for the restriction of rights we've already been granted.

@FLBeaver - it has not yet been proven that homosexuality is or is not based in science. Here is a sight that more or less tells explains the details : http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/geneti...

In addition, there are many cases of homosexuality in many different animal species including our closest ancestors, the monkeys.(If you question the legitamecy of this article there are plenty of others online for you to view)
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Homosexuality-...
Sorry, while the godsendscience site is ok in some areas, I'll say in my view it has problems in others.

Basic tenant of evolution is that those traits that help a species survive also survive. Those traits that hurt survival don't survive. Pretty foundational for basic evolution.

So unless you can explain how homosexual behavior increased a species chances of survival millions of years before mammals and then humans showed up, it's either a choice or an abnormality (think of albinos).

Given those options I think most would pick choice.
smarks2

Binghamton, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#86
Dec 4, 2012
 
Generally speaking that is true. However there are some mutations that occur without reason (in fact, all mutations occur that way). Generally speaking, the only ones that stay are the ones that help the species survive. However, we are no longer in a society where evolutionary biology follows the exact same laws as it does in nature. With advancements in medicine and human rights and things of that nature, people who in prehistoric times would have died/been exiled now can exist. So it is certainly possible that the 'gay' mutation, IF there is one to be found, has reappeared. In addition, the vast majority of society is considered to be heterosexual, so that IS the dominant trait that has survived and been passed along.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87
Dec 5, 2012
 
smarks2 wrote:
Generally speaking that is true. However there are some mutations that occur without reason (in fact, all mutations occur that way). Generally speaking, the only ones that stay are the ones that help the species survive. However, we are no longer in a society where evolutionary biology follows the exact same laws as it does in nature. With advancements in medicine and human rights and things of that nature, people who in prehistoric times would have died/been exiled now can exist. So it is certainly possible that the 'gay' mutation, IF there is one to be found, has reappeared. In addition, the vast majority of society is considered to be heterosexual, so that IS the dominant trait that has survived and been passed along.
Agree. But if homosexuality is both a recent mutation and at the same time goes against basic evolution, why should it be celebrated and taught as something that is normal? Why not put it in the same classification as something like autism or albinoism; something that shouldn't be attacked but also something that shouldn't be considered normal?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88
Dec 5, 2012
 
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
What's not true?
Be specific please.
Unchosen homosexuality being impossible if evolution is true.

Not only does this assume that the only options are pure choice or pure genetics, which is silly (no one thinks sexuality is so simple as a GAY/STRAIGHT allele), it ignores the totally viable hypothesis that homosexuals provide extra support structure to the group without bringing competitive discord.

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89
Dec 5, 2012
 
You are both so wrong...if you think gay people can't have children....then it is YOU who doesn't know basic biology.
smarks2

Binghamton, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90
Dec 5, 2012
 
@FLBever - We still don't actually know whether or not being homosexual is based in evolution or not. My completely unscientific guess would be that there are some people with more homosexual tendencies that ARE based somewhere either in genetics or hormone imbalances or something along those lines, but it certainly has something to do with choice as well. And because it has something to do with choice, and we live in America where free will and choice are ideals that this nation is founded upon, it's not being classified as something to be shunned. You're right though; IF it is proven to be something purely genetic/a mutation of a sort, it SHOULD be put in the same category as albinoism.

@Selecia Jones- JAX FL - I think it's understood that gay's can either adopt or, if they chose to procreate with the opposite sex for a brief amount of time, could actually have children of their own, or they could artificially inseminate eggs outside their bodies or things like that, then they can certainly have children. However, without the current technologies available, if gays did NOT choose to procreate with the opposite sex, then physically they cannot have children. Man + man cannot make a child, and neither can woman + woman.

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#91
Dec 5, 2012
 
I have so many friends who have children by sperm meets egg that it is not funny....and parthenogenesis is something you need to check out.
smarks2

Binghamton, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92
Dec 5, 2012
 
By "friends who have children by sperm meets egg" I'm assuming your friends that you're referring to are gay?

Sure, all technicalities aside homosexuals can reproduce the same way as anyone else if they want to. But technically speaking if you are purely homosexual, and have absolutely no bisexual tendencies, its highly unlikely that you will procreate with a member of the opposite sex. That is just the generalization; your friends could be exceptions if they really REALLY want children or something of that sort.

As for parthenogenesis, I am aware of what it is. It's a form of asexual reproduction. It happens in some plants, some fish, a few amphibians and I believe maybe one or two bird species. We, however, are not discussing animals though. There has never been a documented case of parthenogenesis in humans though. And the general trend is to go from producing asexually to producing sexually evolutionary speaking, so if you're going to suggest that we will eventually start producing asexually that is highly unlikely.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#93
Dec 5, 2012
 
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Unchosen homosexuality being impossible if evolution is true.

Not only does this assume that the only options are pure choice or pure genetics, which is silly (no one thinks sexuality is so simple as a GAY/STRAIGHT allele), it ignores the totally viable hypothesis that homosexuals provide extra support structure to the group without bringing competitive discord.
They could have provided support and even been good fighters. They still wouldn't have reproduced and the homosexual trait would have died out long before mammals showed up, much less humans.

Start with 100 dinosaurs, including two homosexual males. Now explain how the homosexual trait will continue through the generations, into the next set of animals (birds?) an on and on and on over millions of years before humans show up.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94
Dec 5, 2012
 
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
They could have provided support and even been good fighters. They still wouldn't have reproduced and the homosexual trait would have died out long before mammals showed up, much less humans.
Start with 100 dinosaurs, including two homosexual males. Now explain how the homosexual trait will continue through the generations, into the next set of animals (birds?) an on and on and on over millions of years before humans show up.
Again, you're oversimplifying it. Sexuality just isn't that simple.

Let's say, hypothetically, that there are 10 "gay" genes that have significant sway over sexuality, and they only have 2 alleles each: off and on.

If you get 8 or more out of 10 of them on, you're probably going to be gay.
Maybe 5-7 out of 10, you're likely to be bisexual.

You could have 3 out of 10 and be a straight guy and reproduce and those genes would all be passed on.

Another alternative would be that the "gay" genes are recessive, so they would be passed on by straight people.

Of course, even these scenarios are purely genetic and ignore other non-choice factors. For example, are you aware that a man gets more and more likely to be gay the more older brothers he has? The hypothesis is that a woman's body carries the pregnancies differently as she has more and more sons, giving the later sons some predisposition towards homosexuality via hormones.
smarks2

Binghamton, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95
Dec 6, 2012
 
Lets not forget though that homosexuality is not just genetic (if it is proven to be that at all). It certainly has to do with experiences; for example, people who are sexually abused have a higher chance of becoming gay. One of my close friends was sexually abused by a member of the opposite sex. She had previously had bisexual tendencies, and after that experience, she refuses to even consider a member of the opposite sex as a sexual partner. She isn't even attracted to them anymore.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#96
Dec 6, 2012
 
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
You are both so wrong...if you think gay people can't have children....then it is YOU who doesn't know basic biology.
We aren't talking about the physical ability to procreate. Pay attention please.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97
Dec 6, 2012
 
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Again, you're oversimplifying it. Sexuality just isn't that simple.

Let's say, hypothetically, that there are 10 "gay" genes that have significant sway over sexuality, and they only have 2 alleles each: off and on.

If you get 8 or more out of 10 of them on, you're probably going to be gay.
Maybe 5-7 out of 10, you're likely to be bisexual.

You could have 3 out of 10 and be a straight guy and reproduce and those genes would all be passed on.

Another alternative would be that the "gay" genes are recessive, so they would be passed on by straight people.

Of course, even these scenarios are purely genetic and ignore other non-choice factors. For example, are you aware that a man gets more and more likely to be gay the more older brothers he has? The hypothesis is that a woman's body carries the pregnancies differently as she has more and more sons, giving the later sons some predisposition towards homosexuality via hormones.
You are the one who is oversimplifying things. First, go way back millions of years ago. Think of the dinosaurs if that makes it easier. Second if one is "born" gay then we aren't talking recessive genes but primary, driving factors. At the beginning (prior to humans) there were just a few things that made the difference between survival and extinction and sex drive was certainly one of them.

As I keep saying, if you are going to make your case, start with the dinosaurs, not people.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98
Dec 7, 2012
 
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one who is oversimplifying things. First, go way back millions of years ago. Think of the dinosaurs if that makes it easier.
Why would we start with dinosaurs if we're not aware of any dinosaurs being gay?
FLBeaver wrote:
Second if one is "born" gay then we aren't talking recessive genes but primary, driving factors.
Why not?[Intentional oversimplification alert] Man M has a gay gene gG and a straight gene gS. Woman W has a gay gene and a straight gene. The straight gene is dominant, so both M and W are straight. They mate. They have four children. One is gSgS (straight), one is gSgG (straight), one is gGgS (straight), one is gGgG (gay).

This straight couple has had a gay child and two more of their straight children carry a 'gay gene' and will pass it along when they reproduce.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99
Dec 7, 2012
 
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would we start with dinosaurs if we're not aware of any dinosaurs being gay?
<quoted text>
Why not?[Intentional oversimplification alert] Man M has a gay gene gG and a straight gene gS. Woman W has a gay gene and a straight gene. The straight gene is dominant, so both M and W are straight. They mate. They have four children. One is gSgS (straight), one is gSgG (straight), one is gGgS (straight), one is gGgG (gay).
This straight couple has had a gay child and two more of their straight children carry a 'gay gene' and will pass it along when they reproduce.
If you can't start with the dinosaurs and advance homosexuality through millions of years of evolution, then by definition it isn't normal.

If homosexuality is thus a recent mutation and at the same time goes against basic evolution, why should it be celebrated and taught as something that is normal? Why not put it in the same classification as something like autism or albinoism; something that shouldn't be attacked but also something that shouldn't be considered normal?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100
Dec 7, 2012
 
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't start with the dinosaurs and advance homosexuality through millions of years of evolution, then by definition it isn't normal.
That doesn't make any sense. If we were discussing the evolution of the human brain with regards to making tools, would we have to think about dinosaurs making tools? No.
FLBeaver wrote:
If homosexuality is thus a recent mutation and at the same time goes against basic evolution
What do you mean,'goes against basic evolution'?
FLBeaver wrote:
why should it be celebrated and taught as something that is normal? Why not put it in the same classification as something like autism or albinoism; something that shouldn't be attacked but also something that shouldn't be considered normal?
Frankly, I don't care if homosexuality is considered normal in the sense of 'standard'.

My stances are that it is not ethically wrong nor a choice.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101
Dec 7, 2012
 
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't make any sense. If we were discussing the evolution of the human brain with regards to making tools, would we have to think about dinosaurs making tools? No.
<quoted text>
What do you mean,'goes against basic evolution'?
<quoted text>
Frankly, I don't care if homosexuality is considered normal in the sense of 'standard'.
My stances are that it is not ethically wrong nor a choice.
If homosexuality is not a choice, than one is born that way. And if one is born that way, then that particular trait had to survive millions of years of evolution. Basic evolution is that idea that those things that increase one's chances of survival (fight/flight/procreation) are passed on from generation to generation and species to species. Those things that hurt the basics (fight/flight/procreation) eventually die off and no longer exist. Think of an elephant. It is not very fast but it is huge. So while it can't run away its size makes it hard to kill off. Now make the elephant the size of a puppy but no faster. Small and slow. That's lunch unless it develops some other survival mechanism. Homosexuality creates a lack of procreation. By definition that goes against basic evolution - it doesn't help a species survive, it hurts the chances of survival. Adam and Steve go off, set up a home and have a wonderful life. But they never procreate and eventually the "gay" gene dies off. That's why I bring up the dinosaurs. If they are born that way then the homosexual trait had to survive tens of millions of years and millions of animal generations before humans ever came around.

Another problem that we haven't even started talking about has to do with math. Best estimates are that less then 2% of the population is homosexual. Go back 50,000-100,000 years when humans were just starting out and the population was very limited in size and location. So in a tribe of 100 there were 2 homosexuals. They join but don't procreate. Again, homosexuality dies out long before we ever get to modern man when the world's population made that small percentage a big number.

That's the challenge. Create a plausable explanation of your belief that homosexuality isn't a choice.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jacksonville Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]