Santorum to kids of gay parents: You'd be better off with a dad in jail
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:36:42 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Santorum to kids of gay parents: You'd be better off with a dad in jail
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Author Topic: Santorum to kids of gay parents: You'd be better off with a dad in jail  (Read 13178 times)
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #175 on: January 09, 2012, 07:40:54 PM »

Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #176 on: January 09, 2012, 07:45:37 PM »

Living in a society which has gone pretty far in tolerance I can say that it obviously isn't generally true that homosexuals can't be accepted in society. Sweden decriminalized homosexuality at about the same time as the US but today has gay marriage and being bigoted against gays is certainly more controversial than being gay.

Sweden didn't decriminalize homosexuality until 2003?

Weird, I must have been mixing this up with something else. I could have sworn both Sweden and the US made this move in the early 70s (like a lot of social legislation) but apparently this was not the case with either country. Apologies and all that.

The main point remains unchanged though - bigotry can disappear rather quickly.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #177 on: January 09, 2012, 07:49:00 PM »

Living in a society which has gone pretty far in tolerance I can say that it obviously isn't generally true that homosexuals can't be accepted in society. Sweden decriminalized homosexuality at about the same time as the US but today has gay marriage and being bigoted against gays is certainly more controversial than being gay.

Sweden didn't decriminalize homosexuality until 2003?

Weird, I must have been mixing this up with something else. I could have sworn both Sweden and the US made this move in the early 70s (like a lot of social legislation) but apparently this was not the case with either country. Apologies and all that.

The main point remains unchanged though - bigotry can disappear rather quickly.

I believe the US Academy of Medicine (or whatever it is) stopped referring to homosexuality as a mental disorder in the early 1970s...
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #178 on: January 09, 2012, 07:53:44 PM »

Politico made it clear the prejudice he is describing is not his own view and he does have a point... most people my age and even my kids age especially her ein the South are very disturbed by homosexuality. Pointing out a prejudice does not make someone themselves prejudiced

You're in your late sixties, right? May I ask how old your kids are?

I think it's fair to be talking more about people your grandkids' age (if you have any), since they're the people who are undergoing the most shift and ending up with something like 70-75% acceptance of homosexuality and support for gay marriage.

I'm not as familiar with the South as you (obviously, since you live there), but I do have some familiarity with the greater Birmingham, Alabama area and from what I've seen the worst most people in their teens and twenties get these days is somewhat squeamish, and there are actually some settings--not many yet, to be sure, but some, and relatively easy to find if one tries--in the rural South, places like that one R+25 Congressional district or whatever the number is, where it's possible to be openly gay, which nobody would have expected even ten years ago.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #179 on: January 09, 2012, 07:56:08 PM »

Living in a society which has gone pretty far in tolerance I can say that it obviously isn't generally true that homosexuals can't be accepted in society. Sweden decriminalized homosexuality at about the same time as the US but today has gay marriage and being bigoted against gays is certainly more controversial than being gay.

Sweden didn't decriminalize homosexuality until 2003?

Weird, I must have been mixing this up with something else. I could have sworn both Sweden and the US made this move in the early 70s (like a lot of social legislation) but apparently this was not the case with either country. Apologies and all that.

The main point remains unchanged though - bigotry can disappear rather quickly.

I believe the US Academy of Medicine (or whatever it is) stopped referring to homosexuality as a mental disorder in the early 1970s...

Illinois was the first US state to decriminalize homosexuality, in 1965 I believe. It was the only state in the 60s, but quite a few other states did in the 70s, and some in the 80s and 90s. But it wasn't until Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 that all such laws in all states were struck down.
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #180 on: January 09, 2012, 08:04:15 PM »

Politico made it clear the prejudice he is describing is not his own view and he does have a point... most people my age and even my kids age especially her ein the South are very disturbed by homosexuality. Pointing out a prejudice does not make someone themselves prejudiced

You're in your late sixties, right? May I ask how old your kids are?

I think it's fair to be talking more about people your grandkids' age (if you have any), since they're the people who are undergoing the most shift and ending up with something like 70-75% acceptance of homosexuality and support for gay marriage.

I'm not as familiar with the South as you (obviously, since you live there), but I do have some familiarity with the greater Birmingham, Alabama area and from what I've seen the worst most people in their teens and twenties get these days is somewhat squeamish, and there are actually some settings--not many yet, to be sure, but some, and relatively easy to find if one tries--in the rural South, places like that one R+25 Congressional district or whatever the number is, where it's possible to be openly gay, which nobody would have expected even ten years ago.

Kids are all in 30s

I do not know anyone who would discriminate against a gay person... they are just disturbed or as you said "squeamish" Even 20 years ago, one of my project managers was gay- and this is in construction. He was a great man and great employee who sadly died  not long ago.  No one had a problem with him- he commanded respect of those he supervised. But there wer ejokes behind his back

There is a difference between someone finding homosexuality abnormal and someone who discriminates against homosexuals... the latter is unacceptable and the former is pretty common, that is what Politico was saying

For the record- I disagree with Santorum and I would rather see a child with a loving gay couple then a broken straight couple
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #181 on: January 09, 2012, 08:05:05 PM »

Politico,

As noted, homosexual behavior among species of animals has not resulted in their extinction. Homosexual play, courting, pair bonding and parenting has been observed in about 1500 living (not extinct) species, and nobody believes that the human species, should homosexual marriage be pervasively legally permitted, will suddenly revert tout court to homosexual pairing and thus result in its extinction.  So, what's the point of the "biological argument?"  

How does it follow, on the basis of what biological parents may or may or not want for their children, that a society should frown on what those children might want to make of their lives despite their parents' wishes?  I'm absolutely positive that, when I was born, my parents didn't want me to study philosophy; hell, my dad was horrified when I chose to pursue philosophy as a college major when I was 20.  Does that mean society should have ensure that I only be allowed to teach philosophy in just three American cities??  (Ok, maybe lots of people on this forum wish I'd seclude myself to a city without an internet connection so they wouldn't be subjected to my endless windbag posts, but that's beside the point.)  The argument is completely irrelevant.

What the hell difference does it make about what specific religiously conservative African American churches who might otherwise align themselves with Democrats might think about homosexuality at present?  This is not a partisan point, it's a moral one, in my view.  Whether it is Republicans or Democrats or Martians who reject the right of people to be treated equitably in society, regardless of sexual orientation, they are, in my view, wrong.  Period.  Barack Obama is not a whit less morally wrong about this issue, in my view, than is Pat Robertson--gay people should either have equal rights as citizens or they shouldn't.  Obama might be politically clever to avoid the issue right now, but he is still morally wrong to do so.  Those who disagree with me might be able to out-vote me at present, but that doesn't make them right.  (I'll bet you all the money in my pockets that Rick Santorum would say the exact same thing about abortion, by the way.)  However prevalent the rejection of equal rights for gay people may be now, it's wrong, and you yourself say it's wrong.  Majorities can easily be wrong, and subsequent generations can recognize them to have been wrong.

This is not about comparing the experience of gay people to African Americans. It's about the possibility of social change, the capacity of societies over time to re-evaluate their foregoing social and ethical judgments when confronted by brave people who call them on injustice.  The fact that you believe (I'm guessing) that eventual social change is possible when it comes to racial segregation, but impossible when it comes to equality of rights regardless of sexual orientation, is quite revealing.  All I can say is that it's a good thing that the universe didn't put you in charge of what's possible and what's not.

Your whole web of arguments is nothing more than a network of thinly veiled excuses to justify the social rejection of what should be equal rights for gay people.  You say it's wrong, but you think nothing can be, and thus ought to be, done about it, so you claim gay people should effectively ghettoize themselves.  So, as far as legal and social outcomes go, there's not much difference between you and conservative opponents of equal rights for gay people, is there?   But, as this thread very painfully demonstrates, you're impervious to persuasion on the matter, so I'll stop here.    

Good grief.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #182 on: January 09, 2012, 08:17:46 PM »
« Edited: January 09, 2012, 08:32:30 PM by Politico »

Politico,

As noted, homosexual behavior among species of animals has not resulted in their extinction. Homosexual play, courting, pair bonding and parenting has been observed in about 1500 living (not extinct) species, and nobody believes that the human species, should homosexual marriage be pervasively legally permitted, will suddenly revert tout court to homosexual pairing and thus result in its extinction.  So, what's the point of the "biological argument?"  

To explain the foundation of homophobia, which is the ultimate reason why homosexuality will never be accepted in the mainstream.

Again, an individual who only engages in homosexual behavior is not going to pass on their genes. Biologically, it is perceived as being about as favorable towards reproduction as being impotent. Heterosexual couples who have children do not want their children or their children's children, or their children's, children's, children to NOT continue the process. Whether they consciously recognize this or not is irrelevant; that is how it is. The survival of the genes is paramount. Obviously homosexuality is seen as a threat to the continuation of the process. This is ultimately the foundation of homophobia, IMHO.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Society does not exist. There are individuals, and most heterosexual people, whether or not they are willing to admit it, see homosexuality as being an unfavorable characteristic to possess much like being impotent. Why? Because it does not bode well for an individual's genes being passed along to offspring.

I do not know how to be more succinct.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #183 on: January 09, 2012, 08:26:45 PM »
« Edited: January 09, 2012, 08:30:53 PM by Politico »

Politico made it clear the prejudice he is describing is not his own view and he does have a point... most people my age and even my kids age especially her ein the South are very disturbed by homosexuality. Pointing out a prejudice does not make someone themselves prejudiced

You're in your late sixties, right? May I ask how old your kids are?

I think it's fair to be talking more about people your grandkids' age (if you have any), since they're the people who are undergoing the most shift and ending up with something like 70-75% acceptance of homosexuality and support for gay marriage.

I'm not as familiar with the South as you (obviously, since you live there), but I do have some familiarity with the greater Birmingham, Alabama area and from what I've seen the worst most people in their teens and twenties get these days is somewhat squeamish, and there are actually some settings--not many yet, to be sure, but some, and relatively easy to find if one tries--in the rural South, places like that one R+25 Congressional district or whatever the number is, where it's possible to be openly gay, which nobody would have expected even ten years ago.

Kids are all in 30s

I do not know anyone who would discriminate against a gay person... they are just disturbed or as you said "squeamish" Even 20 years ago, one of my project managers was gay- and this is in construction. He was a great man and great employee who sadly died  not long ago.  No one had a problem with him- he commanded respect of those he supervised. But there wer ejokes behind his back

There is a difference between someone finding homosexuality abnormal and someone who discriminates against homosexuals... the latter is unacceptable and the former is pretty common, that is what Politico was saying

Thanks, Clarence.

I would add that I, too, know some pretty homophobic people, but I still do not think they would ever discriminate against a homosexual (i.e., not hire/serve them or fire them simply because they are homosexual). This is why it particularly irks me when gay rights activists compare what gays go through with segregation. It is over-the-top and, really, a bit disrespectful. I can see why there is serious backlash among African-Americans.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #184 on: January 09, 2012, 08:43:20 PM »

Living in a society which has gone pretty far in tolerance I can say that it obviously isn't generally true that homosexuals can't be accepted in society. Sweden decriminalized homosexuality at about the same time as the US but today has gay marriage and being bigoted against gays is certainly more controversial than being gay.

Sweden didn't decriminalize homosexuality until 2003?

Weird, I must have been mixing this up with something else. I could have sworn both Sweden and the US made this move in the early 70s (like a lot of social legislation) but apparently this was not the case with either country. Apologies and all that.

The main point remains unchanged though - bigotry can disappear rather quickly.

I believe the US Academy of Medicine (or whatever it is) stopped referring to homosexuality as a mental disorder in the early 1970s...

Illinois was the first US state to decriminalize homosexuality, in 1965 I believe. It was the only state in the 60s, but quite a few other states did in the 70s, and some in the 80s and 90s. But it wasn't until Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 that all such laws in all states were struck down.

Ah, the mental disorder thing might be what I was thinking of then.
Logged
TheGlobalizer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,286
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #185 on: January 09, 2012, 09:18:46 PM »

Politico, you overstate the connection between genetic fitness and parental assessment of a gay child.  Trying to impute psychological behavior from some sort of scientist's-eye view of reproducibility is a significant error in your argument.  Fitness is merely a selective mechanism - if you were saying that people who a militantly anti-gay were more likely to produce offspring, and that was borne out by facts, and therefore gay-haters are selected for, you'd have a point.  But this "straights hate gays because of genetics" thing is pretty retarded on its face.  Put bluntly, people do not, in fact, think with their d**ks (DNA delivery systems).

That all said, there are a hell of a lot of gays.  Either they're not exactly selected against, or the genetics thing just doesn't have all that much to do with any of it.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #186 on: January 09, 2012, 09:27:21 PM »

Politico made it clear the prejudice he is describing is not his own view and he does have a point... most people my age and even my kids age especially her ein the South are very disturbed by homosexuality. Pointing out a prejudice does not make someone themselves prejudiced

You're in your late sixties, right? May I ask how old your kids are?

I think it's fair to be talking more about people your grandkids' age (if you have any), since they're the people who are undergoing the most shift and ending up with something like 70-75% acceptance of homosexuality and support for gay marriage.

I'm not as familiar with the South as you (obviously, since you live there), but I do have some familiarity with the greater Birmingham, Alabama area and from what I've seen the worst most people in their teens and twenties get these days is somewhat squeamish, and there are actually some settings--not many yet, to be sure, but some, and relatively easy to find if one tries--in the rural South, places like that one R+25 Congressional district or whatever the number is, where it's possible to be openly gay, which nobody would have expected even ten years ago.

Kids are all in 30s

I do not know anyone who would discriminate against a gay person... they are just disturbed or as you said "squeamish" Even 20 years ago, one of my project managers was gay- and this is in construction. He was a great man and great employee who sadly died  not long ago.  No one had a problem with him- he commanded respect of those he supervised. But there wer ejokes behind his back

There is a difference between someone finding homosexuality abnormal and someone who discriminates against homosexuals... the latter is unacceptable and the former is pretty common, that is what Politico was saying

Thanks, Clarence.

I would add that I, too, know some pretty homophobic people, but I still do not think they would ever discriminate against a homosexual (i.e., not hire/serve them or fire them simply because they are homosexual). This is why it particularly irks me when gay rights activists compare what gays go through with segregation. It is over-the-top and, really, a bit disrespectful. I can see why there is serious backlash among African-Americans.

You realise that's not why there's tensions between the LGBT community and the African American community, politically don't you?

As usual, Poli, you've taken a point about the existence of homophobic people... which is fact, some people will never deal with the idea, and given the number of wonderful homosexual people I know, that's their loss, but then extended it to an absurd degree. Just because there are homophobic people doesn't mean that efforts to reduce that (which have most certainly worked) should be stopped.

There has been a radical shift in the treatment and acceptance of homosexuality and homosexuals, it's beyond self-evident... and because there remains homophobia (albeit at reducing levels) that somehow negates that?

Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #187 on: January 09, 2012, 09:36:34 PM »
« Edited: January 09, 2012, 09:42:16 PM by Politico »

Politico made it clear the prejudice he is describing is not his own view and he does have a point... most people my age and even my kids age especially her ein the South are very disturbed by homosexuality. Pointing out a prejudice does not make someone themselves prejudiced

You're in your late sixties, right? May I ask how old your kids are?

I think it's fair to be talking more about people your grandkids' age (if you have any), since they're the people who are undergoing the most shift and ending up with something like 70-75% acceptance of homosexuality and support for gay marriage.

I'm not as familiar with the South as you (obviously, since you live there), but I do have some familiarity with the greater Birmingham, Alabama area and from what I've seen the worst most people in their teens and twenties get these days is somewhat squeamish, and there are actually some settings--not many yet, to be sure, but some, and relatively easy to find if one tries--in the rural South, places like that one R+25 Congressional district or whatever the number is, where it's possible to be openly gay, which nobody would have expected even ten years ago.

Kids are all in 30s

I do not know anyone who would discriminate against a gay person... they are just disturbed or as you said "squeamish" Even 20 years ago, one of my project managers was gay- and this is in construction. He was a great man and great employee who sadly died  not long ago.  No one had a problem with him- he commanded respect of those he supervised. But there wer ejokes behind his back

There is a difference between someone finding homosexuality abnormal and someone who discriminates against homosexuals... the latter is unacceptable and the former is pretty common, that is what Politico was saying

Thanks, Clarence.

I would add that I, too, know some pretty homophobic people, but I still do not think they would ever discriminate against a homosexual (i.e., not hire/serve them or fire them simply because they are homosexual). This is why it particularly irks me when gay rights activists compare what gays go through with segregation. It is over-the-top and, really, a bit disrespectful. I can see why there is serious backlash among African-Americans.

You realise that's not why there's tensions between the LGBT community and the African American community, politically don't you?

As usual, Poli, you've taken a point about the existence of homophobic people... which is fact, some people will never deal with the idea, and given the number of wonderful homosexual people I know, that's their loss, but then extended it to an absurd degree. Just because there are homophobic people doesn't mean that efforts to reduce that (which have most certainly worked) should be stopped.

There has been a radical shift in the treatment and acceptance of homosexuality and homosexuals, it's beyond self-evident... and because there remains homophobia (albeit at reducing levels) that somehow negates that?


There has always been adequate treatment and acceptance of most homosexuals, albeit not ones who talk about their proclivities. That is beyond self-evident. There is NOT acceptance of homosexuality nor will there ever be. Homosexuals deep down inside recognize this, and it is the root of their continued dissatisfaction with the way things are. Ultimately, they will never really be satisfied unless they accept that homosexuality will never be accepted in the mainstream the way that one prefers Pepsi over Coke, for example. It will always be seen in the back (or front) of the minds of heterosexuals as "abnormal", for lack of a better word, in the sense that it is viewed as an unfavorable characteristic from a biological standpoint. This will never ever change.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #188 on: January 09, 2012, 09:38:29 PM »

Politico made it clear the prejudice he is describing is not his own view and he does have a point... most people my age and even my kids age especially her ein the South are very disturbed by homosexuality. Pointing out a prejudice does not make someone themselves prejudiced

You're in your late sixties, right? May I ask how old your kids are?

I think it's fair to be talking more about people your grandkids' age (if you have any), since they're the people who are undergoing the most shift and ending up with something like 70-75% acceptance of homosexuality and support for gay marriage.

I'm not as familiar with the South as you (obviously, since you live there), but I do have some familiarity with the greater Birmingham, Alabama area and from what I've seen the worst most people in their teens and twenties get these days is somewhat squeamish, and there are actually some settings--not many yet, to be sure, but some, and relatively easy to find if one tries--in the rural South, places like that one R+25 Congressional district or whatever the number is, where it's possible to be openly gay, which nobody would have expected even ten years ago.

Kids are all in 30s

I do not know anyone who would discriminate against a gay person... they are just disturbed or as you said "squeamish" Even 20 years ago, one of my project managers was gay- and this is in construction. He was a great man and great employee who sadly died  not long ago.  No one had a problem with him- he commanded respect of those he supervised. But there wer ejokes behind his back

There is a difference between someone finding homosexuality abnormal and someone who discriminates against homosexuals... the latter is unacceptable and the former is pretty common, that is what Politico was saying

Thanks, Clarence.

I would add that I, too, know some pretty homophobic people, but I still do not think they would ever discriminate against a homosexual (i.e., not hire/serve them or fire them simply because they are homosexual). This is why it particularly irks me when gay rights activists compare what gays go through with segregation. It is over-the-top and, really, a bit disrespectful. I can see why there is serious backlash among African-Americans.

You realise that's not why there's tensions between the LGBT community and the African American community, politically don't you?

As usual, Poli, you've taken a point about the existence of homophobic people... which is fact, some people will never deal with the idea, and given the number of wonderful homosexual people I know, that's their loss, but then extended it to an absurd degree. Just because there are homophobic people doesn't mean that efforts to reduce that (which have most certainly worked) should be stopped.

There has been a radical shift in the treatment and acceptance of homosexuality and homosexuals, it's beyond self-evident... and because there remains homophobia (albeit at reducing levels) that somehow negates that?


There has always been adequate treatment and acceptance of most homosexuals, albeit not ones who talk about their proclivities. That is beyond self-evident. There is NOT acceptance of homosexuality nor will there ever be. Homosexuals deep down inside recognize this, and it is the root of their continued dissatisfaction with the way things are. Ultimately, they will never really be satisfied because homosexuality will never been accepted in the mainstream the way that one prefers Pepsi over Coke. It will always been seen by heterosexuals as "abnormal", for lack of a better word, in the sense that it is an unfavorable characteristic from a biological standpoint.

I could restart this... but it's not worth your time or mine...
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #189 on: January 09, 2012, 09:46:16 PM »
« Edited: January 09, 2012, 09:48:10 PM by Politico »

Politico, you overstate the connection between genetic fitness and parental assessment of a gay child.  Trying to impute psychological behavior from some sort of scientist's-eye view of reproducibility is a significant error in your argument.  Fitness is merely a selective mechanism - if you were saying that people who a militantly anti-gay were more likely to produce offspring, and that was borne out by facts, and therefore gay-haters are selected for, you'd have a point.  But this "straights hate gays because of genetics" thing is pretty retarded on its face.  Put bluntly, people do not, in fact, think with their d**ks (DNA delivery systems).

Look, if you or anybody on here really needs concrete proof about what I am talking about then go do a simple study where you interview parents of newborns in hospitals. Ask the parents one question with a promise of complete confidentiality/anonymity (and some sort of incentive for taking the time to participate in the study, of course): "Do you hope your newborn is homosexual?"

Personally, I think such a study would be a complete waste of time because I guarantee you will not get a single person answering in the affirmative.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that's a whole other can of worms. Who the heck has any idea what the cause of homosexuality is?
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #190 on: January 09, 2012, 09:50:26 PM »

Politico, you overstate the connection between genetic fitness and parental assessment of a gay child.  Trying to impute psychological behavior from some sort of scientist's-eye view of reproducibility is a significant error in your argument.  Fitness is merely a selective mechanism - if you were saying that people who a militantly anti-gay were more likely to produce offspring, and that was borne out by facts, and therefore gay-haters are selected for, you'd have a point.  But this "straights hate gays because of genetics" thing is pretty retarded on its face.  Put bluntly, people do not, in fact, think with their d**ks (DNA delivery systems).

Look, if you or anybody on here really needs concrete proof about what I am talking about then go do a simple study where you interview parents of newborns in hospitals. Ask the parents one question with a promise of complete confidentiality/anonymity (and some sort of incentive for taking the time to participate in the study, of course): "Do you hope your newborn is homosexual?"

Personally, I think such a study would be a complete waste of time because I guarantee you will not get a single person answering in the affirmative.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that's a whole other can of worms. Who the heck has any idea what the cause of homosexuality is?

OK... this is just bad from a statistical position...

There is a BIG, HUGE, MASSIVE difference between wanting your child to be gay and dealing with the fact that they are.
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #191 on: January 09, 2012, 09:52:03 PM »

Politico, you overstate the connection between genetic fitness and parental assessment of a gay child.  Trying to impute psychological behavior from some sort of scientist's-eye view of reproducibility is a significant error in your argument.  Fitness is merely a selective mechanism - if you were saying that people who a militantly anti-gay were more likely to produce offspring, and that was borne out by facts, and therefore gay-haters are selected for, you'd have a point.  But this "straights hate gays because of genetics" thing is pretty retarded on its face.  Put bluntly, people do not, in fact, think with their d**ks (DNA delivery systems).

Look, if you really need concrete proof about what I am talking about people can do a simple study where you interview parents of newborns in hospitals. Ask the parents one question with a promise of complete confidentiality/anonymity: "Do you hope your newborn is homosexual?"

Personally, I think such a study would be a complete waste of time because I guarantee you will not get a single person answering in the affirmative.

Because most parents of newborns are idiots?

And anyways, people would be far more likely to say they don't care if their child is heteronormative or not, than to say they hope that their child is gay.  Because hoping your child likes teh vagoo or teh cawk is stupid.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #192 on: January 09, 2012, 09:52:20 PM »

Again, an individual who only engages in homosexual behavior is not going to pass on their genes. Biologically, it is perceived as being about as favorable towards reproduction as being impotent. Heterosexual couples who have children do not want their children or their children's children, or their children's, children's, children to NOT continue the process. Whether they consciously recognize this or not is irrelevant; that is how it is. The survival of the genes is paramount. Obviously homosexuality is seen as a threat to the continuation of the process. This is ultimately the foundation of homophobia, IMHO.

Again, and again, and again, you launch these streams of absolute inanity.  I ask you: do you have any idea how evolution works?  Let me help you.  I'm going to give you some keywords that you should look up, and I'll even link you to the Wikipedia articles for them.  They are: sex-limited (and its umbrella category, polyphenism); pleiotropy; epistasis; and, perhaps most importantly of all for this particular discussion (and to contradict your point that evolution is ALL ABOUT HAVING CHILDREN), inclusive fitness.  You're right; good job.  There's not much of a consensus right now what the genetic cause of homosexuality is.  But there are plenty of ways to develop an explanation which directly contradict your ludicrous falsehoods about what the "purpose" of evolution is.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #193 on: January 09, 2012, 09:59:48 PM »

Politico, you overstate the connection between genetic fitness and parental assessment of a gay child.  Trying to impute psychological behavior from some sort of scientist's-eye view of reproducibility is a significant error in your argument.  Fitness is merely a selective mechanism - if you were saying that people who a militantly anti-gay were more likely to produce offspring, and that was borne out by facts, and therefore gay-haters are selected for, you'd have a point.  But this "straights hate gays because of genetics" thing is pretty retarded on its face.  Put bluntly, people do not, in fact, think with their d**ks (DNA delivery systems).

Look, if you or anybody on here really needs concrete proof about what I am talking about then go do a simple study where you interview parents of newborns in hospitals. Ask the parents one question with a promise of complete confidentiality/anonymity (and some sort of incentive for taking the time to participate in the study, of course): "Do you hope your newborn is homosexual?"

Personally, I think such a study would be a complete waste of time because I guarantee you will not get a single person answering in the affirmative.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that's a whole other can of worms. Who the heck has any idea what the cause of homosexuality is?

OK... this is just bad from a statistical position...

There is a BIG, HUGE, MASSIVE difference between wanting your child to be gay and dealing with the fact that they are.

Did you miss my other posts?
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #194 on: January 09, 2012, 10:03:47 PM »
« Edited: January 09, 2012, 10:11:10 PM by Politico »

Again, an individual who only engages in homosexual behavior is not going to pass on their genes. Biologically, it is perceived as being about as favorable towards reproduction as being impotent. Heterosexual couples who have children do not want their children or their children's children, or their children's, children's, children to NOT continue the process. Whether they consciously recognize this or not is irrelevant; that is how it is. The survival of the genes is paramount. Obviously homosexuality is seen as a threat to the continuation of the process. This is ultimately the foundation of homophobia, IMHO.

Again, and again, and again, you launch these streams of absolute inanity.  I ask you: do you have any idea how evolution works?  Let me help you.  I'm going to give you some keywords that you should look up, and I'll even link you to the Wikipedia articles for them.  They are: sex-limited (and its umbrella category, polyphenism); pleiotropy; epistasis; and, perhaps most importantly of all for this particular discussion (and to contradict your point that evolution is ALL ABOUT HAVING CHILDREN), inclusive fitness.  You're right; good job.  There's not much of a consensus right now what the genetic cause of homosexuality is.  But there are plenty of ways to develop an explanation which directly contradict your ludicrous falsehoods about what the "purpose" of evolution is.

Nobody wants to get inundated with biology 101. It is enough to say that, from a strictly biological standpoint, life is about surviving and reproducing. Even viruses, which are not life in the strictest sense, adhere to this. Adhering to "survive and reproduce" is necessary for genes to survive, or a species for that matter, and even then it's not necessarily enough. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Let's not attempt to use weapons of mass destruction to divert attention away from what we were discussing: The foundation of homophobia.

NOBODY on here has even proposed an alternative hypothesis to what I have suggested as being the foundation of homophobia. Do you really just gobble up a George W. Bush-style soundbite that "THEY JUST SCARED OF WHAT DIFFERENT!"?

Why do you suppose people have children? And why do you suppose people want their children to have children? And why do you suppose people want to stay alive (i.e., survive), not die? Ask yourself these questions and now think long and hard about this one: Why do you suppose parents generally do not want their children to be homosexual?
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #195 on: January 09, 2012, 10:09:37 PM »

Politico, you overstate the connection between genetic fitness and parental assessment of a gay child.  Trying to impute psychological behavior from some sort of scientist's-eye view of reproducibility is a significant error in your argument.  Fitness is merely a selective mechanism - if you were saying that people who a militantly anti-gay were more likely to produce offspring, and that was borne out by facts, and therefore gay-haters are selected for, you'd have a point.  But this "straights hate gays because of genetics" thing is pretty retarded on its face.  Put bluntly, people do not, in fact, think with their d**ks (DNA delivery systems).

Look, if you or anybody on here really needs concrete proof about what I am talking about then go do a simple study where you interview parents of newborns in hospitals. Ask the parents one question with a promise of complete confidentiality/anonymity (and some sort of incentive for taking the time to participate in the study, of course): "Do you hope your newborn is homosexual?"

Personally, I think such a study would be a complete waste of time because I guarantee you will not get a single person answering in the affirmative.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that's a whole other can of worms. Who the heck has any idea what the cause of homosexuality is?

OK... this is just bad from a statistical position...

There is a BIG, HUGE, MASSIVE difference between wanting your child to be gay and dealing with the fact that they are.

Did you miss my other posts?

No, but I think you've missed the overarching and fundamental differences.

You're saying that parents will never really accept their children's homosexuality... what I, and most others are saying is that a) that's utter rubbish and b) walking around asking parents if they 'hope' their child is gay, has nothing to do with acceptance.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #196 on: January 09, 2012, 10:15:48 PM »

Politico, you overstate the connection between genetic fitness and parental assessment of a gay child.  Trying to impute psychological behavior from some sort of scientist's-eye view of reproducibility is a significant error in your argument.  Fitness is merely a selective mechanism - if you were saying that people who a militantly anti-gay were more likely to produce offspring, and that was borne out by facts, and therefore gay-haters are selected for, you'd have a point.  But this "straights hate gays because of genetics" thing is pretty retarded on its face.  Put bluntly, people do not, in fact, think with their d**ks (DNA delivery systems).

Look, if you or anybody on here really needs concrete proof about what I am talking about then go do a simple study where you interview parents of newborns in hospitals. Ask the parents one question with a promise of complete confidentiality/anonymity (and some sort of incentive for taking the time to participate in the study, of course): "Do you hope your newborn is homosexual?"

Personally, I think such a study would be a complete waste of time because I guarantee you will not get a single person answering in the affirmative.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that's a whole other can of worms. Who the heck has any idea what the cause of homosexuality is?

OK... this is just bad from a statistical position...

There is a BIG, HUGE, MASSIVE difference between wanting your child to be gay and dealing with the fact that they are.

Did you miss my other posts?

No, but I think you've missed the overarching and fundamental differences.

You're saying that parents will never really accept their children's homosexuality... what I, and most others are saying is that a) that's utter rubbish and b) walking around asking parents if they 'hope' their child is gay, has nothing to do with acceptance.

Fundamentally, they will generally accept their status as a homosexual eventually, but homosexuality is never something they will accept as being a favorable characteristic to possess. I also suspect that parents with only one child have a tougher type coping with the status of their child's homosexuality than parents with multiple children.

I need to get off here. Hopefully I will find time in the future to revisit this thread, but I am going to be busy for the foreseeable future.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #197 on: January 09, 2012, 10:27:41 PM »

Again, an individual who only engages in homosexual behavior is not going to pass on their genes. Biologically, it is perceived as being about as favorable towards reproduction as being impotent. Heterosexual couples who have children do not want their children or their children's children, or their children's, children's, children to NOT continue the process. Whether they consciously recognize this or not is irrelevant; that is how it is. The survival of the genes is paramount. Obviously homosexuality is seen as a threat to the continuation of the process. This is ultimately the foundation of homophobia, IMHO.

Again, and again, and again, you launch these streams of absolute inanity.  I ask you: do you have any idea how evolution works?  Let me help you.  I'm going to give you some keywords that you should look up, and I'll even link you to the Wikipedia articles for them.  They are: sex-limited (and its umbrella category, polyphenism); pleiotropy; epistasis; and, perhaps most importantly of all for this particular discussion (and to contradict your point that evolution is ALL ABOUT HAVING CHILDREN), inclusive fitness.  You're right; good job.  There's not much of a consensus right now what the genetic cause of homosexuality is.  But there are plenty of ways to develop an explanation which directly contradict your ludicrous falsehoods about what the "purpose" of evolution is.

Nobody wants to get inundated with biology 101. It is enough to say that, from a strictly biological standpoint, life is about surviving and reproducing. Even viruses, which are not life in the strictest sense, adhere to this. Adhering to "survive and reproduce" is necessary for genes to survive, or a species for that matter, and even then it's not necessarily enough. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Let's not attempt to use weapons of mass destruction to divert attention away from what we were discussing: The foundation of homophobia.

NOBODY on here has even proposed an alternative hypothesis to what I have suggested as being the foundation of homophobia. Do you really just gobble up a George W. Bush-style soundbite that "THEY JUST SCARED OF WHAT DIFFERENT!"?

Why do you suppose people have children? And why do you suppose people want their children to have children? And why do you suppose people want to stay alive (i.e., survive), not die?

Oh, for God's sake, now you've completely misinterpreted what I'm saying.  I'm not saying that evolutionary psychology is hokum; that's Gully/Al/FallenMorgan's job.  It's likely that, in the main, people want to have children because the genes that predispose one to want to have children are perpetuated more readily than genes that don't.  I'm saying that homosexuality likely has a perfectly normal evolutionary foundation, thereby rendering your argument (that homosexuality is somehow hated because gays are defying the "natural inclination" to have children) ridiculous.

Perhaps people are gay because the genes that code for homosexuality only lead to homosexuality in certain combinations, while other combinations of similar genes lead to more copies of those genes being passed on (I know one recent theory of the evolutionary psychological origins of homosexuality posits that male homosexuality exists because genes that code for male homosexuality may lead to increased fertility when they exist in females); perhaps people are gay because the genes that lead to homosexuality are sex-specific, thereby allowing those genes to be passed on by members of the opposite sex (see also: hemophilia); and, like I mentioned as most important because most evolutionary psychological theories focus on it, perhaps people are gay because people who are gay can assist their siblings and other relatives in having more children or more children who live to reproductive age themselves who might have gay genes, thereby allowing for it to be passed on.

If you would like to make an actually reasonable argument for the idea that homophobia has been selected for, well, be my guest.  The idea isn't inherently stupid, but suffers some basic flaws; while homosexuality is seen across pretty much every culture, for example, homophobia is not.  Personally, I'd favor an explanation that treats homophobia as yet another example of an intergroup bias (yes, homophobes are just scared of what's different, just like racists and misogynists are, because members of excluded groups are in the "out-group" and are therefore undesirable).  But, given how superficially you're treating the idea of evolution right now, such that even a "Biology 101" standpoint bores you, I doubt you could formulate a coherent story.  You're why evolutionary psychologists can't go anywhere nice anymore Tongue
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #198 on: January 09, 2012, 10:34:46 PM »

NOBODY on here has even proposed an alternative hypothesis to what I have suggested as being the foundation of homophobia.

Why does 'the foundation' (if there is even one) matter? It isn't as though it necessarily follows that homophobia now has anything to do with the original roots (supposing that they can be so readily identified) of homophobia in Western societies. There's certainly no reason to assume that the 'roots' of it must have some kind of fundamental biological meaning, and plenty of reasons to assume otherwise. Its certainly quite clear that the main factor behind modern Western homophobia is the fact that homosexuality implicitly challenges certain deeply held cultural assumptions about gender and gender roles in our society. There is certainly nothing obviously 'biological' to that, and anyone that thinks otherwise is certainly an idiot.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because they want to have children, mostly. Sometimes there are also accidents. I'm sure that all of this was explained to you many years ago.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because being a grandparent is objectively enjoyable on some level because it involves spoiling children, and that is certainly objectively enjoyable.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mostly because you don't really want to end, and death is (no matter what religious beliefs you might or might not have) certainly some kind of end. Change is scary, as is finality. I really don't see what mortality has to do with homosexuality.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Deeply held cultural assumptions about gender and gender roles, etc.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #199 on: January 09, 2012, 10:40:08 PM »

There's no point to having this thread on the 2012 board.  It stopped being about the 2012 election 13 pages ago.  If you guys want to continue it, take it to another board.  This thread has spawned numerous mod reports, which I simply don't have time to deal with because I'm traveling, so I leave it up to Bacon King to deal with this mess.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.097 seconds with 13 queries.