2875 réponses à ce sujet

[Cadaveth]

Shawn Ogg wrote...

Dont see really why that can be offensive. But anyhow I bet most of these guys dont think it is offensive when it is them who approaches a girl, and why would they?. No matter who approaches who, as long as it is done nicely no one has to feel offended.
(I have to admit Im too shy on everything related with flirting so I would hardly ever do the first move)

Not even when you're drunk as f***?

[Lord Sullivan]

centauri2002 wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

OK, here is a fun puzzel with 3 senarios.

At the begining of times of Humans here on earth:

1- All humans both Males and females are "Heterosexuals"
2- Humans are equaly split between "Heterosexuals" and "Homosexuals"
3- All humans both Males and females are "Homosexuals"

Q: what the result of impact of each scenario on humanity?

Unless you've studied prehistory, this is a rather pointless question.

And, yes, I have. 

That is if we could take prehistoric study as fact, but we simply can't as theories are not fact.

[Jademoon121]

Tirigon wrote...

Jademoon121 wrote...

/sighs
....not this again.

Homosexuality is natural. Nature encompasses anything and everything in the Universe, if something was unnatural, it wouldn't exist. Homosexuality is biological at the very least.

[Sarcasm]

Maybe homosexuality was created artifically by the CIA.

LOL:O

[Seifz]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

OK, here is a fun puzzel with 3 senarios.

At the begining of times of Humans here on earth:

1- All humans both Males and females are "Heterosexuals"
2- Humans are equaly split between "Heterosexuals" and "Homosexuals"
3- All humans both Males and females are "Homosexuals"

Q: what the result of impact of each scenario on humanity?

1-Homosexuality will emerge.
2-Heterosexuals will become more frequent than homosexuals in the overall population, but homosexuality will not disappear.
3-Homosexuals will have heterosexual relationships to continue breeding until such a time that heterosexuality re-emerges, or the species will die out.

I have a better one, though.

4-Approximately 10-20% of humans are homosexual or bisexual, the other 80-90% are heterosexual.

Since #4 is much closer to reality than any of yours, I'll go with that one.  So far, it's working out great.  We've still got more than six billion humans around and we're still growing faster than we should be.

There's a lot of research on this topic.  Please educate yourself.  Please.

[AlanC9]

moilami wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Nor is there scientific evidence that homosexuality is natural. Observation that it exist are not scientific proof of it being natural. Logic however, dictates that it isn't. Logic dictates that it is different, a different path, not of the norm.

"Natural" = the norm? I'm nearsighted. My eyesight is unnatural?

Seriously, if we're going to be talking about what's "natural," we need a coherent definition of "natural."

That would be then your eyesight is not perfect, that is your eyesight would be faulty. You say how it translates to homosexuality. I bet homosexuals don't accept it as replacement for unnatural theory.

"Unnatural theory"? Meaning the theory that homosexuality is unnatural? I'm guessing here.

[Cadaveth]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

centauri2002 wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

OK, here is a fun puzzel with 3 senarios.

At the begining of times of Humans here on earth:

1- All humans both Males and females are "Heterosexuals"
2- Humans are equaly split between "Heterosexuals" and "Homosexuals"
3- All humans both Males and females are "Homosexuals"

Q: what the result of impact of each scenario on humanity?

Unless you've studied prehistory, this is a rather pointless question.

And, yes, I have. 

That is if we could take prehistoric study as fact, but we simply can't as theories are not fact.

Oh c'mon... This isn't even fun anymore. You can't seriously think that?

[moilami]

Tirigon wrote...

Jademoon121 wrote...

/sighs
....not this again.

Homosexuality is natural. Nature encompasses anything and everything in the Universe, if something was unnatural, it wouldn't exist. Homosexuality is biological at the very least.

[Sarcasm]

Maybe homosexuality was created artifically by the CIA.

Rofl do we need now those [sarcasm] tags?

[Centauri2002]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

That is if we could take prehistoric study as fact, but we simply can't as theories are not fact.

Why can we not? We're talking about the study of physical evidence here. What exactly are you basing your assumptions on?

[Cadaveth]

Seifz wrote...

3-Homosexuals will have heterosexual relationships to continue breeding until such a time that heterosexuality re-emerges, or the species will die out.

This answers the natural/unnatural "question" too, by the way.

[Lord Sullivan]

AngelicMachinery wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

OK, here is a fun puzzel with 3 senarios.

At the begining of times of Humans here on earth:

1- All humans both Males and females are "Heterosexuals"
2- Humans are equaly split between "Heterosexuals" and "Homosexuals"
3- All humans both Males and females are "Homosexuals"

Q: what the result of impact of each scenario on humanity?

I personally think option 4- All Human's are bisexual works best,  but, I 'm just a shallow greedy bisexual.  <_<

Did not exclude bi-sexuals on purpose, I apologize, did not mean to make feel left out

[Jademoon121]

Seifz wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

OK, here is a fun puzzel with 3 senarios.

At the begining of times of Humans here on earth:

1- All humans both Males and females are "Heterosexuals"
2- Humans are equaly split between "Heterosexuals" and "Homosexuals"
3- All humans both Males and females are "Homosexuals"

Q: what the result of impact of each scenario on humanity?

1-Homosexuality will emerge.
2-Heterosexuals will become more frequent than homosexuals in the overall population, but homosexuality will not disappear.
3-Homosexuals will have heterosexual relationships to continue breeding until such a time that heterosexuality re-emerges, or the species will die out.

I have a better one, though.

4-Approximately 10-20% of humans are homosexual or bisexual, the other 80-90% are heterosexual.

Since #4 is much closer to reality than any of yours, I'll go with that one.  So far, it's working out great.  We've still got more than six billion humans around and we're still growing faster than we should be.

There's a lot of research on this topic.  Please educate yourself.  Please.

This. Besides, same-sex couples already have kids with little to no aid from third parties now via surrogates, in-vitro, and maybe in the future through cloning playing with sex cells.

[sereture]

@ Lord Sullivan:

Why does it even matter if homosexuality is "unnatural"? (In the sense of the word you are using)

[Seifz]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

centauri2002 wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

OK, here is a fun puzzel with 3 senarios.

At the begining of times of Humans here on earth:

1- All humans both Males and females are "Heterosexuals"
2- Humans are equaly split between "Heterosexuals" and "Homosexuals"
3- All humans both Males and females are "Homosexuals"

Q: what the result of impact of each scenario on humanity?

Unless you've studied prehistory, this is a rather pointless question.

And, yes, I have. 

That is if we could take prehistoric study as fact, but we simply can't as theories are not fact.

Wait.  Are you one of those people that insists that evolution is only a theory and not proven?

[the_one_54321]

Whether or not homosexuality is natural is thoroughly unimportant in the face of the much larger and much easier to answer question of whether or not homosexuals are people.

Are homosexuals people? Do they deserve the same rights and treatment as people?

Simple as that.

[Jademoon121]

moilami wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Jademoon121 wrote...

/sighs
....not this again.

Homosexuality is natural. Nature encompasses anything and everything in the Universe, if something was unnatural, it wouldn't exist. Homosexuality is biological at the very least.

[Sarcasm]

Maybe homosexuality was created artifically by the CIA.

Rofl do we need now those [sarcasm] tags?

[sarcasm] makes everything better.

[Lord Sullivan]

centauri2002 wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

That is if we could take prehistoric study as fact, but we simply can't as theories are not fact.

Why can we not? We're talking about the study of physical evidence here. What exactly are you basing your assumptions on?

Physical evidence of what?... we weren't there?
Some bone fragment(s)? some rock(s)? And we figured it all?

Sorry if I'm not that easy to convince.

[Sazzle]

Sexuality is a mere drop in the units that compose an individual. Whether someone is gay or straight it does not make them the norm or extraordinary, nor should one define oneself by sexuality. I'm a straight woman, but the only time I think about that is when I'm filling out my census form! Besides, from a biological perspective, sexuality isn't dichotomous. Noone is 100% gay or 100% straight - it's a sliding scale. Same sex bonding is, in fact, one of the primary reasons humans have been so successful as a species: from a kin selection perspective, homosexuality has been key in the persistence of our species as a social and intelligent one. Sexual contact is the best way to build up a lasting reciprocal relationship with an individual in any species, be it with the opposite sex (in order to reproduce) or with the same sex (in order to encourage reciprocal care for those closely related to oneself). Noone is better than the other nor is independent of the other, and I think it's great that DA:O and DA2 offer all types of romance options - it's true to life after all. I don't understand the upset over it to be honest :-)

[moilami]

AlanC9 wrote...

moilami wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Nor is there scientific evidence that homosexuality is natural. Observation that it exist are not scientific proof of it being natural. Logic however, dictates that it isn't. Logic dictates that it is different, a different path, not of the norm.

"Natural" = the norm? I'm nearsighted. My eyesight is unnatural?

Seriously, if we're going to be talking about what's "natural," we need a coherent definition of "natural."

That would be then your eyesight is not perfect, that is your eyesight would be faulty. You say how it translates to homosexuality. I bet homosexuals don't accept it as replacement for unnatural theory.

"Unnatural theory"? Meaning the theory that homosexuality is unnatural? I'm guessing here.

Yes. Or belief, or policy. Whatever it is. Maybe it is all three.

[Shawn Ogg]

Cadaveth wrote...

Shawn Ogg wrote...

Dont see really why that can be offensive. But anyhow I bet most of these guys dont think it is offensive when it is them who approaches a girl, and why would they?. No matter who approaches who, as long as it is done nicely no one has to feel offended.
(I have to admit Im too shy on everything related with flirting so I would hardly ever do the first move)

Not even when you're drunk as f***?

Most of the times I end up bringing the car when I go out so I hardly drink .... anyway you dont wanna se me drunk I just cant stop laughing and that wont help for sure 

[Cadaveth]

Jademoon121 wrote...

moilami wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Jademoon121 wrote...

/sighs
....not this again.

Homosexuality is natural. Nature encompasses anything and everything in the Universe, if something was unnatural, it wouldn't exist. Homosexuality is biological at the very least.

[Sarcasm]

Maybe homosexuality was created artifically by the CIA.

Rofl do we need now those [sarcasm] tags?

[sarcasm] makes everything better.

Less people will get unintentionally butthurt with [sarcasm] -tags

[Lord Sullivan]

Cadaveth wrote...

Seifz wrote...

3-Homosexuals will have heterosexual relationships to continue breeding until such a time that heterosexuality re-emerges, or the species will die out.

This answers the natural/unnatural "question" too, by the way.

Oh and there I thought that "Homosexuality" was well... Homosexuality?

[Cadaveth]

Shawn Ogg wrote...

Cadaveth wrote...

Shawn Ogg wrote...

Dont see really why that can be offensive. But anyhow I bet most of these guys dont think it is offensive when it is them who approaches a girl, and why would they?. No matter who approaches who, as long as it is done nicely no one has to feel offended.
(I have to admit Im too shy on everything related with flirting so I would hardly ever do the first move)

Not even when you're drunk as f***?

Most of the times I end up bringing the car when I go out so I hardly drink .... anyway you dont wanna se me drunk I just cant stop laughing and that wont help for sure 

Yeah, I can imagine why it doesn't help...

[Cadaveth]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Cadaveth wrote...

Seifz wrote...

3-Homosexuals will have heterosexual relationships to continue breeding until such a time that heterosexuality re-emerges, or the species will die out.

This answers the natural/unnatural "question" too, by the way.

Oh and there I thought that "Homosexuality" was well... Homosexuality?

It doesn't destroy your genitals, last time I checked. Who knows though.

[Centauri2002]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Physical evidence of what?... we weren't there?
Some bone fragment(s)? some rock(s)? And we figured it all?

Sorry if I'm not that easy to convince.

I'm trying to be patient with you, really I am. But you're obviously talking about things you've clearly not looked into. There is more physical evidence out there than just bones and rocks. There's pottery, iconography, tools, tombs, entire villages, etc. There's a huge amount of evidence out there and quite a lot that hasn't even been uncovered yet.

We weren't physically there during the Greek classical period but we have a very good grasp on what their society was like. I'm using this merely as a well known example.

[sereture]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Whether or not homosexuality is natural is thoroughly unimportant in the face of the much larger and much easier to answer question of whether or not homosexuals are people. 

Agreed.
The discussion boils down to whether or not it's okay to have sex without trying to reproduce.