44 réponses à ce sujet

[Statulos]

cancausecancer wrote...

>1. If homosexuality is a simple genetic defect, should it be cured?

20000-30000 years ago I'd have said yes because we needed everyone to keep our species alive. Today we populate too fast so the abundance of gays/lesbians may be natures way of balancing.


It is a taboo act. It's like seeing a man and woman kiss in public when you've been living in Yemen your whole life. A man being kissed by another man relays a message of weakness and feminine qualities, that is not how we want to see ourselves. I'm a man and this used to affect me, mainly because I wasn't raised to consider girly men as normal. Now that I understand there are girly men, I don't feel offended because they're not men who became traitors against what us traditional men stand for, they are a new type of men, it'd be easier if we came up for a new term instead of 'men' because that's the reason we fight about it.

The abundance has been probably constant since the first ****** Sapiens rised in what nowdays is Ethiopia. The difference is that non-heteresexuals are not massively repressed nowdays like they used to be. Your first comment sound dangerously close to intelligent design theory and nature does not work like that.

For the second; it´s so culturaly bound and so relative in that sense that the notion of "traditional man" means close to nothing. Gender is constructed, performed and variable. It has always been. The term you´re refeering to is one of the big dilemas of poeple who have thought about what is generaly called "queer theory".

[Jewsapalewsa]

Daewan wrote...

1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation) ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate.  The nurturing behavior (where two creatures of the same gender band together for survival or to raise offspring when no mate of the opposite gender is available usually due to death or disease) also ensures that the species will continue.
Homosexual behaviors have been observed in almost every mammalian species on earth, and quite a few birds and lizards.
Only one species has decided to criminalize and revile it; but then, humans do that with a lot of perfectly natural behaviors.  Not really a big surprise there.
2. Western cultures are more likely to find lesbians attractive because western cultures like the appearance of scantily clad women.  Middle east and African cultures are not because they consider the female body much differently.  They usually condemn lesbians as witches and stone them to death.
3.  See #2 - the West is not the whole world.  Not everyone likes lesbian sex scenes.  The movie Ghost was banned in a lot of countries for the "lesbian" sex scene.
4.  I have no idea why people don't like to see two attractive people cuddling, regardless of gender.  I can't wrap my mind around that, sorry.  Good looking bodies are good.  Two good looking bodies together is also good.
5.  I'll have to come back to that one later.

You have some good points, but saying that having sex not for the sake of proccreating encouraages procreation is pretty fallacious.  While I don't think homosexuality is a defect, it is certainly not a positive survival adaptation.

[Godak]

Re-read his post. Same sex partners banding together to raise offspring = survival mechanism. You're welcome, apology accepted.

Modifié par Godak, 26 février 2010 - 10:08 .

[Godak]

I forgot to put in a smiley, so you would know that I'm not trying to be a douche. I'll get right on that.

[XyleJKH]

It has been proven that homosexuals are different in their anatomy. They have different chemicals being released. Now why does it happen? Well lets consider this. Every animal have homosexuals

in their race. Even fruitflies (heheh... fruit flies)

anyway, it could be nature controlling over population. Considering 1% of the human population is gay, would it be so hard to believe that those 1% wont reproduce? At least not in the natural sense

Just realize this, everyone is different. I know gay people that grew up in the Catholic church. They teach you will go to hell... no questions asked

One of my gay friends struggled with his identity. He didnt want to be gay. So, explain how that is a conscience dicesion?

[Jewsapalewsa]

Statulos wrote...

Apophis2412 wrote...

Homosexuality or same sex romance is a hotly debated topic on both the DAO and ME forums. Most of these topics however generally go off-topic and discuss homosexuality in real life. To solve that problem I decided to make this topic.

BUT PLEASE KEEP THIS DISCUSSION CIVIL. After browsing these forums the number of trolls, flamers etc. suprised me. I’m not sure if the people on these boards can handle a mature discussion. But please prove me wrong.
 
Some interesting points that came up during the discussion on the ME boards:

1.  If homosexuality is a simple genetic defect, should it be cured?
2.  Why are lesbians more accepted than gays?
3.  Why do men like to see lesbian sex scenes and women gay sex scenes?
4.  Some people don’t like seeing two men cuddle, kiss etc. in public. Is that homophobia or a simple dislike for a certain sexual preference?
5.  The first homosexual character in any work made by BW was Imoen. In the, reviled, Baldur’s Gate novels she was a lesbian. Jade Empire was the first game that introduced a gay and lesbian romances. What  do you think about the way Bioware has tackled this issue so far?

I´m gona be fast:

1.- That follows the same  pattern as inteligent design theory. Bigotry and prejudice born from religious sources look better with some pseudo-science paint. Sumarizing, BS.

2.-It´s in general dependant on Western ideology where traditionaly, women are more allowed to be emotional than men. Thus when that emotionality takes one step more, it´s less terrifying. Interestingly enough, the "nefandous crime" is sodomy between men, but not sex between women.

3.-Though there are some common tendencies, what turn people on is generaly personal (though often times, sared). Two women (or men for the fact) don´t turn me on; stockings and heels in a lady, do.

4.- What is what they do not like? The fact that they kiss in public or the fact that they´re two people of the same sex? If it´s the first, it´s simple dislike (the causes can be varied); if it´s the second, it´s homophobia. Of course, the first case can be amplified from it coming from two people of the same sex adding an aditional layer of homophobia.

5.- Why not? Romance stories are often times beautiful, often times tragic and others, fun. Of course all previous can be possible. The fact that they´re same sex or or different is irrelevant.

How can you say that being ****** as a genetic defenct follows intelligent disign theory, when nearly all major western religions condemn beig gay.  If it were intelligently designed, then god would have left out the but stuff?  I'm not trying to be stanfd-offish, I'm really just curious at your logic, because it just makes anti-sence to me.

[Jewsapalewsa]

Godak wrote...

Re-read his post. Same sex partners banding together to raise offspring = survival mechanism. You're welcome, apology accepted.

"1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual
behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation)
ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate."

That is a direct copy/paste of ghis post.  I agree with his secondary point about banding together, but his primary point of subtopic 1 is incorrect in my opinion. 

[Statulos]

Jewsapalewsa wrote...

Daewan wrote...

1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation) ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate.  The nurturing behavior (where two creatures of the same gender band together for survival or to raise offspring when no mate of the opposite gender is available usually due to death or disease) also ensures that the species will continue.
Homosexual behaviors have been observed in almost every mammalian species on earth, and quite a few birds and lizards.
Only one species has decided to criminalize and revile it; but then, humans do that with a lot of perfectly natural behaviors.  Not really a big surprise there.
2. Western cultures are more likely to find lesbians attractive because western cultures like the appearance of scantily clad women.  Middle east and African cultures are not because they consider the female body much differently.  They usually condemn lesbians as witches and stone them to death.
3.  See #2 - the West is not the whole world.  Not everyone likes lesbian sex scenes.  The movie Ghost was banned in a lot of countries for the "lesbian" sex scene.
4.  I have no idea why people don't like to see two attractive people cuddling, regardless of gender.  I can't wrap my mind around that, sorry.  Good looking bodies are good.  Two good looking bodies together is also good.
5.  I'll have to come back to that one later.

You have some good points, but saying that having sex not for the sake of proccreating encouraages procreation is pretty fallacious.  While I don't think homosexuality is a defect, it is certainly not a positive survival adaptation.

The survival mechanism is heavily reduced by the fact that humans work with a so calle K reproductive model in which the amount of births is not as relevant as improving the chances of survival in the offspring. Homosexuality is a minoritarian tendency in terms of species, so the threat to survival is close to inexistant.

[Godak]

Jewsapalewsa wrote...

Godak wrote...

Re-read his post. Same sex partners banding together to raise offspring = survival mechanism. You're welcome, apology accepted.

"1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual
behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation)
ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate."

That is a direct copy/paste of ghis post.  I agree with his secondary point about banding together, but his primary point of subtopic 1 is incorrect in my opinion. 

The human race is completely grounded in a strict familial structure of parents + kids. It is totally feasible that, somewhere along the line, men/women had come together in same sex pairs to raise the orphaned/unwanted offspring, with the knowledge that if they cared for the child, in the future they would receive care when they were elderly. And we still have some of that pop up in our genes, for whatever reason.

[Statulos]

That is what YOU think, Godak. There are plenty of historical examples of societies where the children were not rised by parents on a normal basis. Examples? Sparta.

[Jewsapalewsa]

Statulos wrote...

Jewsapalewsa wrote...

Daewan wrote...

1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation) ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate.  The nurturing behavior (where two creatures of the same gender band together for survival or to raise offspring when no mate of the opposite gender is available usually due to death or disease) also ensures that the species will continue.
Homosexual behaviors have been observed in almost every mammalian species on earth, and quite a few birds and lizards.
Only one species has decided to criminalize and revile it; but then, humans do that with a lot of perfectly natural behaviors.  Not really a big surprise there.
2. Western cultures are more likely to find lesbians attractive because western cultures like the appearance of scantily clad women.  Middle east and African cultures are not because they consider the female body much differently.  They usually condemn lesbians as witches and stone them to death.
3.  See #2 - the West is not the whole world.  Not everyone likes lesbian sex scenes.  The movie Ghost was banned in a lot of countries for the "lesbian" sex scene.
4.  I have no idea why people don't like to see two attractive people cuddling, regardless of gender.  I can't wrap my mind around that, sorry.  Good looking bodies are good.  Two good looking bodies together is also good.
5.  I'll have to come back to that one later.

You have some good points, but saying that having sex not for the sake of proccreating encouraages procreation is pretty fallacious.  While I don't think homosexuality is a defect, it is certainly not a positive survival adaptation.

The survival mechanism is heavily reduced by the fact that humans work with a so calle K reproductive model in which the amount of births is not as relevant as improving the chances of survival in the offspring. Homosexuality is a minoritarian tendency in terms of species, so the threat to survival is close to inexistant.

I agree that creatures of the same gender banding together has evolutionary advantages, but this: "1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual
behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation)
ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate" is the statement that I found to be contradictory.  This has nothing to do with k models or survivability rat.  You stated that gay sex improves the chances of heterosexual sex and procreation.  That makes no sense.

Modifié par Jewsapalewsa, 26 février 2010 - 10:24 .

[Jewsapalewsa]

Godak wrote...

Jewsapalewsa wrote...

Godak wrote...

Re-read his post. Same sex partners banding together to raise offspring = survival mechanism. You're welcome, apology accepted.

"1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual
behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation)
ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate."

That is a direct copy/paste of ghis post.  I agree with his secondary point about banding together, but his primary point of subtopic 1 is incorrect in my opinion. 

The human race is completely grounded in a strict familial structure of parents + kids. It is totally feasible that, somewhere along the line, men/women had come together in same sex pairs to raise the orphaned/unwanted offspring, with the knowledge that if they cared for the child, in the future they would receive care when they were elderly. And we still have some of that pop up in our genes, for whatever reason.

That is simply more justification for a premise I have already acceopted.  "1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation) ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate."   This staement is the one I have a preoblem with.  Make a resonable arguement that gay sex imoproves the chances of heterosexual sex and procreation.

[Godak]

Jewsapalewsa wrote...

Godak wrote...

Jewsapalewsa wrote...

Godak wrote...

Re-read his post. Same sex partners banding together to raise offspring = survival mechanism. You're welcome, apology accepted.

"1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual
behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation)
ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate."

That is a direct copy/paste of ghis post.  I agree with his secondary point about banding together, but his primary point of subtopic 1 is incorrect in my opinion. 

The human race is completely grounded in a strict familial structure of parents + kids. It is totally feasible that, somewhere along the line, men/women had come together in same sex pairs to raise the orphaned/unwanted offspring, with the knowledge that if they cared for the child, in the future they would receive care when they were elderly. And we still have some of that pop up in our genes, for whatever reason.

That is simply more justification for a premise I have already acceopted.  "1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation) ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate."   This staement is the one I have a preoblem with.  Make a resonable arguement that gay sex imoproves the chances of heterosexual sex and procreation.

By giving the unwanted children a chance at life. The children will grow up and produce more children heterosexually.

[Jewsapalewsa]

Godak wrote...

Jewsapalewsa wrote...

Godak wrote...

Jewsapalewsa wrote...

Godak wrote...

Re-read his post. Same sex partners banding together to raise offspring = survival mechanism. You're welcome, apology accepted.

"1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual
behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation)
ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate."

That is a direct copy/paste of ghis post.  I agree with his secondary point about banding together, but his primary point of subtopic 1 is incorrect in my opinion. 

The human race is completely grounded in a strict familial structure of parents + kids. It is totally feasible that, somewhere along the line, men/women had come together in same sex pairs to raise the orphaned/unwanted offspring, with the knowledge that if they cared for the child, in the future they would receive care when they were elderly. And we still have some of that pop up in our genes, for whatever reason.

That is simply more justification for a premise I have already acceopted.  "1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation) ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate."   This staement is the one I have a preoblem with.  Make a resonable arguement that gay sex imoproves the chances of heterosexual sex and procreation.

By giving the unwanted children a chance at life. The children will grow up and produce more children heterosexually.

That statement makes sense in itself, but it does not supoort this.  "The sexual behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for
procreation) ensures that the species will continue to have sex and
procreate."  In order for two people to raise a child, they need not enjoy sex for the sake of sex sex, it could be a nunnery who have never seen another peron naked who raise said child that will produce more offsrping.  Sex for the sake of sex does not improve the chances of procreation.

[Godak]

Jewsapalewsa wrote...

Godak wrote...

Jewsapalewsa wrote...

Godak wrote...

Jewsapalewsa wrote...

Godak wrote...

Re-read his post. Same sex partners banding together to raise offspring = survival mechanism. You're welcome, apology accepted.

"1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual
behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation)
ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate."

That is a direct copy/paste of ghis post.  I agree with his secondary point about banding together, but his primary point of subtopic 1 is incorrect in my opinion. 

The human race is completely grounded in a strict familial structure of parents + kids. It is totally feasible that, somewhere along the line, men/women had come together in same sex pairs to raise the orphaned/unwanted offspring, with the knowledge that if they cared for the child, in the future they would receive care when they were elderly. And we still have some of that pop up in our genes, for whatever reason.

That is simply more justification for a premise I have already acceopted.  "1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation) ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate."   This staement is the one I have a preoblem with.  Make a resonable arguement that gay sex imoproves the chances of heterosexual sex and procreation.

By giving the unwanted children a chance at life. The children will grow up and produce more children heterosexually.

That statement makes sense in itself, but it does not supoort this.  "The sexual behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for
procreation) ensures that the species will continue to have sex and
procreate."  In order for two people to raise a child, they need not enjoy sex for the sake of sex sex, it could be a nunnery who have never seen another peron naked who raise said child that will produce more offsrping.  Sex for the sake of sex does not improve the chances of procreation.

Yes, it does. If sex wasn't pleasurable, far less children would be born, I assure you. How many "accidents" happen? A lot. Still, we're propagating the species, are we not?

[Jewsapalewsa]

 [/quote]

That statement makes sense in itself, but it does not supoort this.  "The sexual behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for
procreation) ensures that the species will continue to have sex and
procreate."  In order for two people to raise a child, they need not enjoy sex for the sake of sex sex, it could be a nunnery who have never seen another peron naked who raise said child that will produce more offsrping.  Sex for the sake of sex does not improve the chances of procreation. [/quote]


Yes, it does. If sex wasn't pleasurable, far less children would be born, I assure you. How many "accidents" happen? A lot. Still, we're propagating the species, are we not?

[/quote]


Sorry, I misspoke.  Gay sex for the sake of gay sex does not improve the chances of preocreation.  Your point about accidents was valid, but nochance for accidents when you don;t have the right parts.

Modifié par Jewsapalewsa, 26 février 2010 - 10:46 .

[Godak]

Jewsapalewsa wrote...


Sorry, I misspoke.  Gay sex for the sake of gay sex does not improve the chances of preocreation.  Your point about accidents was valid, but nochance for accidents when you don;t have the right parts.

...You need to follow along, here. We are now talking about sex for pleasure, something that's ingrained into the human psyche, period, gay or straight. The fact that sex is pleasurable increases the chance of heterosexual couples propagating the species. Gay people will still have sex because it is pleasurable, but them having sex isn't what is propagating the species. Them taking care of orphans/unwanted children is how they propagate the species. Got it?

[Jewsapalewsa]

Godak wrote...

Jewsapalewsa wrote...


Sorry, I misspoke.  Gay sex for the sake of gay sex does not improve the chances of preocreation.  Your point about accidents was valid, but nochance for accidents when you don;t have the right parts.

...You need to follow along, here. We are now talking about sex for pleasure, something that's ingrained into the human psyche, period, gay or straight. The fact that sex is pleasurable increases the chance of heterosexual couples propagating the species. Gay people will still have sex because it is pleasurable, but them having sex isn't what is propagating the species. Them taking care of orphans/unwanted children is how they propagate the species. Got it?

.... you need to read his origianl post "1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation) ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate."  This is his response to if being GAY is a fgentic defect, meaning that GAY sex for the sake of GAY sex somehow propagates the species. 

[Godak]

Jewsapalewsa wrote...

Godak wrote...

Jewsapalewsa wrote...


Sorry, I misspoke.  Gay sex for the sake of gay sex does not improve the chances of preocreation.  Your point about accidents was valid, but nochance for accidents when you don;t have the right parts.

...You need to follow along, here. We are now talking about sex for pleasure, something that's ingrained into the human psyche, period, gay or straight. The fact that sex is pleasurable increases the chance of heterosexual couples propagating the species. Gay people will still have sex because it is pleasurable, but them having sex isn't what is propagating the species. Them taking care of orphans/unwanted children is how they propagate the species. Got it?

.... you need to read his origianl post "1.  It isn't a genetic defect, it's a survival mechanism.  The sexual behavior (enjoying sex for sex alone and not just for procreation) ensures that the species will continue to have sex and procreate."  This is his response to if being GAY is a fgentic defect, meaning that GAY sex for the sake of GAY sex somehow propagates the species. 

No, he is only explaining why they have the sex drive. It is a genetic device passed down to them by their straight parents.

[Stanley Woo]

I'm sorry, but this is one of those hot-button, real-world issues we don't allow on our boards. It's fine when it's directly related to one of our games, but when it comes to real-life, these issues can get out of hand extremely quickly. So in the interests of not keeping a ticking time bomb alive, I'm going to shut it down. Sorry, and thank you.



End of line.