[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]True, and that argument will never be solved. But we do know that those children we have found who have been completely isolated from society and from humans in general (the last one was found in Russia in the late 19th century) didn't have any prejudices or hates towards any humans, once they got over the fear aspect. That lends credence to the nurture argument.[/QUOTE]
Interesting! Personally, I'm pro-nurture, because being pro-nature can lead people to believe that surroundings have a limited influence on children. I just can't buy the idea that people can be inherently good/evil/understanding/bigoted, etc. I believe they're born neutral, and that surroundings are the majority of what determines what kind of views a person will hold. For me, "nature" virtually stops at skin colour and sexuality. Genetics have their role, but minimally. This is a scientifically uninformed opinion, but hey, I'm entited to one anyway.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]True, and that argument will never be solved. But we do know that those children we have found who have been completely isolated from society and from humans in general (the last one was found in Russia in the late 19th century) didn't have any prejudices or hates towards any humans, once they got over the fear aspect. That lends credence to the nurture argument.[/QUOTE]
Interesting! Personally, I'm pro-nurture, because being pro-nature can lead people to believe that surroundings have a limited influence on children. I just can't buy the idea that people can be inherently good/evil/understanding/bigoted, etc. I believe they're born neutral, and that surroundings are the majority of what determines what kind of views a person will hold. For me, "nature" stops at skin colour and sexuality.
[/QUOTE]
Then we are in total agreement...like usual. Thanks for playing Devil's advocate though...:-)
Interesting! Personally, I'm pro-nurture, because being pro-nature can lead people to believe that surroundings have a limited influence on children. I just can't buy the idea that people can be inherently good/evil/understanding/bigoted, etc. I believe they're born neutral, and that surroundings are the majority of what determines what kind of views a person will hold. For me, "nature" stops at skin colour and sexuality.
[/QUOTE]
Then we are in total agreement...like usual. Thanks for playing Devil's advocate though...:-)
If gay marriage should not be tolerated on the grounds of stability and faith...that would cancel out 99% of all celebrity weddings.
I'm for it! If they are happy then that is that! they are just normal people... I blame society!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]jasen101 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If gay marriage should not be tolerated on the grounds of stability and faith...that would cancel out 99% of all celebrity weddings.[/QUOTE]
And a large number of regular weddings. Isn't the heterosexual divorce rate now at 60% or so?
And a large number of regular weddings. Isn't the heterosexual divorce rate now at 60% or so?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]jasen101 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If gay marriage should not be tolerated on the grounds of stability and faith...that would cancel out 99% of all celebrity weddings.[/QUOTE]
And a large number of regular weddings. Isn't the heterosexual divorce rate now at 60% or so?[/QUOTE]
In the US...hovering right around 50% actually.
And a large number of regular weddings. Isn't the heterosexual divorce rate now at 60% or so?[/QUOTE]
In the US...hovering right around 50% actually.
I actually believe it is highly likely that sexuality is more "nurture" than "nature". My argument is that any sexuality beyond 50% homosexuality would be severely detrimental to an individual's ability to reproduce. Therefore, according to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would have been eliminated a long time ago. However, with my theory, it is possible that genetics may only play so much a part as to give an individual a greater chance of being so effected as to increase his or her homosexuality factor.
I support the rights of gays and lesbians in same sex marriage.
Basically I believe it is nobody's business if two consenting human non-related adults choose to marry.
It has no effect on anybody's life but the two people getting hitched.
Basically I believe it is nobody's business if two consenting human non-related adults choose to marry.
It has no effect on anybody's life but the two people getting hitched.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I actually believe it is highly likely that sexuality is more "nurture" than "nature". My argument is that any sexuality beyond 50% homosexuality would be severely detrimental to an individual's ability to reproduce. Therefore, according to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would have been eliminated a long time ago. However, with my theory, it is possible that genetics may only play so much a part as to give an individual a greater chance of being so effected as to increase his or her homosexuality factor.[/QUOTE]
Good point, MusicMan. And I agree with you for the most part. I think there are several kinds of homosexuality though. I think some people fall into it because of a "nurture" side of the argument, or because circumstances seem to produce the situation. But, in the gay men I've known, it's been entirely a nature issue. Studies are coming out of Europe right now that are showing that in many cases it's actually the result of a defect within a certain chromosome. It's been shown that most gay men have several brothers, and it's known that the female body, when pregnent, responds to male fetus' as intruders and enemies more than female ones, and this could be where the defect comes in. Studies have also shown that gay men, when exposed to the female sex pheremone, have absolutely no brain response in the areas that correspond with love and desire. However, when they are exposed to the male sex pheremone, they are just like female brains, and respond in the love and desire areas.
But not allowing these people to get married is rediculous. Not just from the ludicracy of the religious argument against it, but also from the standpoint that it's denying a group of citizens rights that are extended to others, and thus a violation of their rights to be free from discrimination.
Good point, MusicMan. And I agree with you for the most part. I think there are several kinds of homosexuality though. I think some people fall into it because of a "nurture" side of the argument, or because circumstances seem to produce the situation. But, in the gay men I've known, it's been entirely a nature issue. Studies are coming out of Europe right now that are showing that in many cases it's actually the result of a defect within a certain chromosome. It's been shown that most gay men have several brothers, and it's known that the female body, when pregnent, responds to male fetus' as intruders and enemies more than female ones, and this could be where the defect comes in. Studies have also shown that gay men, when exposed to the female sex pheremone, have absolutely no brain response in the areas that correspond with love and desire. However, when they are exposed to the male sex pheremone, they are just like female brains, and respond in the love and desire areas.
But not allowing these people to get married is rediculous. Not just from the ludicracy of the religious argument against it, but also from the standpoint that it's denying a group of citizens rights that are extended to others, and thus a violation of their rights to be free from discrimination.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I actually believe it is highly likely that sexuality is more "nurture" than "nature". My argument is that any sexuality beyond 50% homosexuality would be severely detrimental to an individual's ability to reproduce. Therefore, according to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would have been eliminated a long time ago. However, with my theory, it is possible that genetics may only play so much a part as to give an individual a greater chance of being so effected as to increase his or her homosexuality factor.[/QUOTE]
Interesting thoughts. And I always take your words seriously, as you're one of the wisest people I've ever known. So then I have a question, assuming your theory would be true:
Do you think that if we teach young children to be tolerant of homosexuals and that there's nothing wrong with being gay, are we planting potential seeds of encouragement for them to "become" homosexual?
As for my take on your theory... I don't really buy it, because a homosexual still has the biological ability to procreate. Lesbians can have children, and gay males can still do their thing. Their lifestyle just doesn't happen to include reproducing in most cases.
Interesting thoughts. And I always take your words seriously, as you're one of the wisest people I've ever known. So then I have a question, assuming your theory would be true:
Do you think that if we teach young children to be tolerant of homosexuals and that there's nothing wrong with being gay, are we planting potential seeds of encouragement for them to "become" homosexual?
As for my take on your theory... I don't really buy it, because a homosexual still has the biological ability to procreate. Lesbians can have children, and gay males can still do their thing. Their lifestyle just doesn't happen to include reproducing in most cases.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=660066>Fredlilah<h6>OscrMeyr wrote: [/QUOTENAME] I made a survey at school, asking people what their opinions on that subject were. It's a VERY controversial subject, so much so that I had to add a new option besides "for", "against", and "neutral". I had to add "not comfortable speaking about it". :/
In fact, when I asked someone to pass the survey to the person behind them, they refused to because they didn't want to be assosiated with it. This one kid had the nerve to whisper and point at me. When I said, "What?" he shook his head as if to say, "nothing!". I was surprised at how ignorant they were, too. A few actually said ( whispered, actually ), "But.. if you put "for", it mean you're *gay*!"
So I would like to know your opinions. Are you for it? Are you against it? Are you neutral? Or are you just not comfortable talking about it? Please give explanations ( except if you've chosen "not comfortable" ).
AND PLEASE POST ONLY ONCE. I want to tally up the results, and it'll make it a lot simpler. Thank you! :-)[/QUOTE]
I dont care, But it shouldn't be called Marrage because that Is apparently against me reliegeon....
Call it Gayrige or something and it would work
In fact, when I asked someone to pass the survey to the person behind them, they refused to because they didn't want to be assosiated with it. This one kid had the nerve to whisper and point at me. When I said, "What?" he shook his head as if to say, "nothing!". I was surprised at how ignorant they were, too. A few actually said ( whispered, actually ), "But.. if you put "for", it mean you're *gay*!"
So I would like to know your opinions. Are you for it? Are you against it? Are you neutral? Or are you just not comfortable talking about it? Please give explanations ( except if you've chosen "not comfortable" ).
AND PLEASE POST ONLY ONCE. I want to tally up the results, and it'll make it a lot simpler. Thank you! :-)[/QUOTE]
I dont care, But it shouldn't be called Marrage because that Is apparently against me reliegeon....
Call it Gayrige or something and it would work
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=George>YouMayBelieveInHeaven wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I dont care, But it shouldn't be called Marrage because that Is apparently against me reliegeon....
Call it Gayrige or something and it would work[/QUOTE]
You're 13. Maybe one day you'll realize that religion doesn't have to control what you think, no matter what anyone says.
Call it Gayrige or something and it would work[/QUOTE]
You're 13. Maybe one day you'll realize that religion doesn't have to control what you think, no matter what anyone says.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I actually believe it is highly likely that sexuality is more "nurture" than "nature". My argument is that any sexuality beyond 50% homosexuality would be severely detrimental to an individual's ability to reproduce. Therefore, according to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would have been eliminated a long time ago. However, with my theory, it is possible that genetics may only play so much a part as to give an individual a greater chance of being so effected as to increase his or her homosexuality factor.[/QUOTE]
Interesting thoughts. And I always take your words seriously, as you're one of the wisest people I've ever known. So then I have a question, assuming your theory would be true:
Do you think that if we teach young children to be tolerant of homosexuals and that there's nothing wrong with being gay, are we planting potential seeds of encouragement for them to "become" homosexual?
As for my take on your theory... I don't really buy it, because a homosexual still has the biological ability to procreate. Lesbians can have children, and gay males can still do their thing. Their lifestyle just doesn't happen to include reproducing in most cases.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone chooses to become homosexual, and I think that this is fairly obvious to anyone who has ever heard the plight of a homosexual or who has ever spent any time with them. Therefore, you can't "encourage" them to become homosexual. What you are doing, however, is allowing them to be unrestricted in discovering what is their true sexuality.
My "nurture" argument was a bit misleading, too, when considering CMU's post. I categorized genetic defects with "nurture," although I realize that that is not correct. What I meant to say was that homosexuality is likely not a genetic phenotype that is typically past down from one generation to the next. Which leaves the options that it could be a genetic abnormality, a genetic predisposition, or it could be entirely environmental.
As for your take on my theory, I can see where you're going, but I would have figured that homosexuality would have been eliminated long before societal norms have been set up, and perhaps before a correlation between sex and procreation was known. Therefore, a homosexual person would have no pressure to procreate, and with no reason (whether internal or external), he would be satisfied to simply abstain from heterosexual intercourse.
Interesting thoughts. And I always take your words seriously, as you're one of the wisest people I've ever known. So then I have a question, assuming your theory would be true:
Do you think that if we teach young children to be tolerant of homosexuals and that there's nothing wrong with being gay, are we planting potential seeds of encouragement for them to "become" homosexual?
As for my take on your theory... I don't really buy it, because a homosexual still has the biological ability to procreate. Lesbians can have children, and gay males can still do their thing. Their lifestyle just doesn't happen to include reproducing in most cases.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone chooses to become homosexual, and I think that this is fairly obvious to anyone who has ever heard the plight of a homosexual or who has ever spent any time with them. Therefore, you can't "encourage" them to become homosexual. What you are doing, however, is allowing them to be unrestricted in discovering what is their true sexuality.
My "nurture" argument was a bit misleading, too, when considering CMU's post. I categorized genetic defects with "nurture," although I realize that that is not correct. What I meant to say was that homosexuality is likely not a genetic phenotype that is typically past down from one generation to the next. Which leaves the options that it could be a genetic abnormality, a genetic predisposition, or it could be entirely environmental.
As for your take on my theory, I can see where you're going, but I would have figured that homosexuality would have been eliminated long before societal norms have been set up, and perhaps before a correlation between sex and procreation was known. Therefore, a homosexual person would have no pressure to procreate, and with no reason (whether internal or external), he would be satisfied to simply abstain from heterosexual intercourse.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=George>YouMayBelieveInHeaven wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=660066>Fredlilah<h6>OscrMeyr wrote: [/QUOTENAME] I made a survey at school, asking people what their opinions on that subject were. It's a VERY controversial subject, so much so that I had to add a new option besides "for", "against", and "neutral". I had to add "not comfortable speaking about it". :/
In fact, when I asked someone to pass the survey to the person behind them, they refused to because they didn't want to be assosiated with it. This one kid had the nerve to whisper and point at me. When I said, "What?" he shook his head as if to say, "nothing!". I was surprised at how ignorant they were, too. A few actually said ( whispered, actually ), "But.. if you put "for", it mean you're *gay*!"
So I would like to know your opinions. Are you for it? Are you against it? Are you neutral? Or are you just not comfortable talking about it? Please give explanations ( except if you've chosen "not comfortable" ).
AND PLEASE POST ONLY ONCE. I want to tally up the results, and it'll make it a lot simpler. Thank you! :-)[/QUOTE]
I dont care, But it shouldn't be called Marrage because that Is apparently against me reliegeon....
Call it Gayrige or something and it would work[/QUOTE]
How about we let those of your type and "reliegeon" practice "Marrage," and the rest of us, heterosexual or not, will practice "marriage."
In fact, when I asked someone to pass the survey to the person behind them, they refused to because they didn't want to be assosiated with it. This one kid had the nerve to whisper and point at me. When I said, "What?" he shook his head as if to say, "nothing!". I was surprised at how ignorant they were, too. A few actually said ( whispered, actually ), "But.. if you put "for", it mean you're *gay*!"
So I would like to know your opinions. Are you for it? Are you against it? Are you neutral? Or are you just not comfortable talking about it? Please give explanations ( except if you've chosen "not comfortable" ).
AND PLEASE POST ONLY ONCE. I want to tally up the results, and it'll make it a lot simpler. Thank you! :-)[/QUOTE]
I dont care, But it shouldn't be called Marrage because that Is apparently against me reliegeon....
Call it Gayrige or something and it would work[/QUOTE]
How about we let those of your type and "reliegeon" practice "Marrage," and the rest of us, heterosexual or not, will practice "marriage."
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=George>YouMayBelieveInHeaven wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I dont care, But it shouldn't be called Marrage because that Is apparently against me reliegeon....[/QUOTE]
You're 13. Maybe one day you'll realize that religion doesn't have to control what you think[/QUOTE]
... or how you spell.
You're 13. Maybe one day you'll realize that religion doesn't have to control what you think[/QUOTE]
... or how you spell.