Homosexuality a trend?

[Geilinor]

You can tell me that until you're blue in the face, but I refuse to believe it. I steadfastly remain with my opinion that homosexuality is a perversion of the natural order, and that accepting it is harming society in the long run (which also happens to answer your second point).

Take this, Valc.
It is not a choice to be homosexual and I have the evidence. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

One of the more recent is a 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world's largest twin study) that appeared in The Archives of Sexual Behavior and concluded that "[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors." Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors."

The American Psychological Association (APA) acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no evidence has emerged that would allow scientists to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Still, the APA concludes that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

As to your second point that homosexuality harms society. From that same source:

No legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples

According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are."

All major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

You've been destroyed on every point, Valc. Your lies are blatant fabrications.

I don't understand how Valc can just call this entire post wrong and disbelieve it.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

YEAH, LOOK AT MY ENDLESS STEREOTYPICAL FEMININTY AND UNABASHED LOVE FOR PUSSY

KNEEL BEFORE FABULOUS ZOD!

Is Zod my lesbian lover?
If so, I will gladly kneel... between her thighs.

[Mavorpen]

YEAH, LOOK AT MY ENDLESS STEREOTYPICAL FEMININTY AND UNABASHED LOVE FOR PUSSY

KNEEL BEFORE FABULOUS ZOD!

Zod wins. Zod ALWAYS wins.

He also looks fabulous doing it.

[Pacifornia]

This what most homophobes think about "choice"

Wake up: *yawn* "I want to like guys/girls today and see how many people I can piss off!"
Bedtime, bruised up, bloody: "I did it for teh lulz. Trololololol"

Seems like a reasonable theory, NOT!!

[New Libertarian States]

KNEEL BEFORE FABULOUS ZOD!

Zod wins. Zod ALWAYS wins.

He also looks fabulous doing it.

Except when he gets his neck broken.

[Mavorpen]

Zod wins. Zod ALWAYS wins.

He also looks fabulous doing it.

Except when he gets his neck broken.

He planned that.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

It is a choice, but I also think that perhaps some people may be more inclined to make that choice, and I suspect DNA is involved with that. As I said, I could choose to be gay, but I do not. Other people choose and follow through, and I suspect that they have...weaker DNA...than the others.

Then choose to be gay.
Right now.
"Weaker DNA"
What?

At the moment - since one's sexual orientation is ingrained by DNA and we're still fairly encumbered by society, the idea of fully flipping from one to another may well be ridiculously difficult. But it won't last; in about fifty years someone will take up your challenge and succeed.

[Riiser-Larsen]

Except when he gets his neck broken.

He planned that.

At risk of looking ignorant, who is Zod?

[The Scientific States]

Then choose to be gay.
Right now.
"Weaker DNA"
What?

At the moment - since your sexual orientation is ingrained by DNA and we're still fairly encumbered by society, the idea of fully flipping from one to another may well be ridiculously difficult. But it won't last; in about fifty years someone will take up your challenge and succeed.

Again, won't happen. Nobody will truly ever change sexual orientations.

[Rawrckia]

Personally, I view it to be an extension of the civil rights movement to see how far people can go to get what they want from the government. As I said before, I suspect in a few decades or so we'll be having a similar debate regarding the merits of polygamy, zoophilia, incest, and pederasty.

The homosexuality slippery slope argument has no standing in the slightest and is obnoxiously fallacious.

Monogamous relationships were developed to produce children. Marriage enforced monogamy between men and women who wished to have children.

Taking away the "having and raising children" part of it warps the definition of marriage. And now it's just a loose term hinging on "consent" which is a lot more than age, and has a lot to do with emotional and mental development of the person. "Polygamy" removes monogamy from the equation completely, yet is designed to have (a lot of!) children and raise them communally. "Pedo-marriage/pedosexuality" is a misnomer - pedophilia is an attraction to very young children and it's doubtful you can have someone express consent when they haven't heard the word "consent" before. They're really just trying to lower the age of consent, and thus the age of legal marriage, it will likely end at "onset of puberty". You can't just pin a number on consent as everyone develops differently, and thus saying "it's illegal because something something number MURRICUH" is completely stupid. It's temporary and it's very likely that individual evaluations will be in place in the future to see who is REALLY able to consent.

These are not slippery slope at all. The term "marriage" has been changed and thus these must and will be recognized in the near future by the same logic that same-sex marriage was recognized.

[Geilinor]

He planned that.

At risk of looking ignorant, who is Zod?

A parody version of God. I think.

[New haven america]

Still waiting about the name calling thing, my reply to that is near the bottom of the 37th page.

My apologies, I went to brush and didn't see it.

Children aren't old enough to give consent, if you marry someone under 18, or two people under 18 get married in the US, It's illegal.
I don't give a fuck what happened in history, we're not in the 15th century anymore.
The IQ thing, they are adults over 18, they can consent.
No, I'm not in middle school, I'm an HS Sophomore and making a better argument than you.
Anything else you want?

"Children aren't old enough to give consent, if you marry someone under 18, or two people under 18 get married in the US, It's illegal."
"I don't give a fuck what happened in history, we're not in the 15th century anymore."
This is a ridiculous position to take. In the 15th century, someone like me might have said "mm I don't think it's moral to marry a prepubescent girl, she doesn't know what mature love is"
And this would be your response:
"But we're not in Stone Age times where monogamous couples existed just for children. This is the 15th century and it's perfectly fine to marry a 12 year old with no intention of having children for a couple years. We're new, we're modern, we're hip!"
Not to mention, you again treat the line between "minor" and "adult" like it's sacred and never should be touched. But in reality the number is just nonsense. You can be tried as an adult in criminal court at age 11 or even younger. You can drive a car (where I'm at at least) at 16. You can consent to sex at 16 here, and isn't that what this "marrying younger women" argument is all about? And you cannot consume alcohol until age 21? These numbers are fairly meaningless and you're taking them like they were carved on a mountain by God. Not to mention different, MODERN countries have all different ages for these. "It's illegal in the US to get married at 17" is a shitty, shitty argument. It was illegal before in this country for a black man to marry a white woman, it was punishable by death.
"The IQ thing, they are adults over 18, they can consent."
Again, garbage-tier logic. Just being 18 doesn't mean jack-shit. And to such a specific thing as marriage, when there's no real age limit for sex between minors? I've met adults in their late twenties who are no better than schoolchildren - they're irresponsible, they're lazy, they're rude, and they depend on other people's money to feed them. And I've met "children" in their early teens showing wisdom, logical thinking, intellect, and knowledge far beyond their years.
"No, I'm not in middle school, I'm an HS Sophomore and making a better argument than you."
Haha sure you are, keep telling yourself that. And 15 years old is middle school in Taiwan, and in my cousin's old school in Solon. Protip: People dislike "stereotypical Americans" for their pig-headedness and knowledge restricted to their backyard.

Yes I was making a good argument, And Most people where saying the same things I was, and Vice-Versa.
And yes, I am a Sophomore, in America.

[Mavorpen]

He planned that.

At risk of looking ignorant, who is Zod?

How can you not know the glory that is Zod?

[New Libertarian States]

He planned that.

At risk of looking ignorant, who is Zod?

Imagine a super strong Kim Jong Un.

[Riiser-Larsen]

Then choose to be gay.
Right now.
"Weaker DNA"
What?

At the moment - since one's sexual orientation is ingrained by DNA and we're still fairly encumbered by society, the idea of fully flipping from one to another may well be ridiculously difficult. But it won't last; in about fifty years someone will take up your challenge and succeed.

Given that most biologists and DNA researchers are former "nerds" or "geeks" which seems more likely?
-In a controversial move bringing social attention to them they decide to try and remove the genes causing homosexuality from the genome
-They try and do something pointlessly awesome, like creating a serum for naval soldiers that adds gills or fins, or something even weirder that I can't think of.

[New haven america]

He also said, that Mantis's eating their mates head after mating was a perversion too.

How...I mean...WHAT.
I'm completely lost in what he's saying.

IDK, He kill some of my brain-cells.

[Lantianguo]

So you are going for the global conspiracy involving millions then rather than you being wrong?

Supposedly there are three steps of thinking about someone with a opposing argument
-Ignorance-They don't have all the information
-Stupidity- They have all the information, but they can't put it together
-Evil- They have the information and they can put it together, but they're refusing to acknowledge what is "obvious" because they have some ulterior motive hidden.

Cognitive Dissonance is a powerful thing...

But yeah, there's a strong tendancy to engage in Out-Group thinking if the argument is especially strong/you're especially invested, or the person has a more authoritarian personality (in the sense of thinking of things in strict structure, order, black-and-white, etc, rather than the political term per se) - it's cognitively much easier to dismiss an entire argument on the basis of association than sift through the argument on an adhoc basis

And ignorance tends to be the more benevolent default. We all tend to use that to the largest degree unless the above criteria is filled. However, nonetheless, the more rational mind will first make sure they themselves are not ignorant. Less rational minds will likely succumb to confirmation bias here, whereas more rational minds still will generally prevail

[Geilinor]

The homosexuality slippery slope argument has no standing in the slightest and is obnoxiously fallacious.

Monogamous relationships were developed to produce children. Marriage enforced monogamy between men and women who wished to have children.

Taking away the "having and raising children" part of it warps the definition of marriage. And now it's just a loose term hinging on "consent" which is a lot more than age, and has a lot to do with emotional and mental development of the person. "Polygamy" removes monogamy from the equation completely, yet is designed to have (a lot of!) children and raise them communally. "Pedo-marriage/pedosexuality" is a misnomer - pedophilia is an attraction to very young children and it's doubtful you can have someone express consent when they haven't heard the word "consent" before. They're really just trying to lower the age of consent, and thus the age of legal marriage, it will likely end at "onset of puberty". You can't just pin a number on consent as everyone develops differently, and thus saying "it's illegal because something something number MURRICUH" is completely stupid. It's temporary and it's very likely that individual evaluations will be in place in the future to see who is REALLY able to consent.

These are not slippery slope at all. The term "marriage" has been changed and thus these must and will be recognized in the near future by the same logic that same-sex marriage was recognized.

Yeah, no. I don't think children below puberty will ever fully understand what marriage is.

[Riiser-Larsen]

Supposedly there are three steps of thinking about someone with a opposing argument
-Ignorance-They don't have all the information
-Stupidity- They have all the information, but they can't put it together
-Evil- They have the information and they can put it together, but they're refusing to acknowledge what is "obvious" because they have some ulterior motive hidden.

Cognitive Dissonance is a powerful thing...

But yeah, there's a strong tendancy to engage in Out-Group thinking if the argument is especially strong/you're especially invested, or the person has a more authoritarian personality (in the sense of thinking of things in strict structure, order, black-and-white, etc, rather than the political term per se) - it's cognitively much easier to dismiss an entire argument on the basis of association than sift through the argument on an adhoc basis

And ignorance tends to be the more benevolent default. We all tend to use that to the largest degree unless the above criteria is filled. However, nonetheless, the more rational mind will first make sure they themselves are not ignorant. Less rational minds will likely succumb to confirmation bias here, whereas more rational minds still will generally prevail

Read some interesting book called Crimes against Logic that went over this. The "Shut up, you're one to talk" argument.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Take this, Valc.
It is not a choice to be homosexual and I have the evidence. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths




As to your second point that homosexuality harms society. From that same source:






You've been destroyed on every point, Valc. Your lies are blatant fabrications.

I don't understand how Valc can just call this entire post wrong and disbelieve it.

Aye, 'tis useful to have a scientific basis for discussion. But I still think that we're definitely seeing a culturally-driven breakdown in set sexual orientations, and I dare say people might manage to fool themselves into changing their orientation before too long.

[Mavorpen]

Monogamous relationships were developed to produce children. Marriage enforced monogamy between men and women who wished to have children.

No, those relationships were developed to help raise those children.

Taking away the "having and raising children" part of it warps the definition of marriage.

That was never the definition to begin with.

And now it's just a loose term hinging on "consent" which is a lot more than age, and has a lot to do with emotional and mental development of the person.

No one said it isn't. However, 10 year olds cannot consent. You STILL haven't proven otherwise.

"Polygamy" removes monogamy from the equation completely, yet is designed to have (a lot of!) children and raise them communally.

And?

You can't just pin a number on consent as everyone develops differently, and thus saying "it's illegal because something something number MURRICUH" is completely stupid.

Which is precisely why no one is doing it. Don't blame us because you don't understand consent.

It's temporary and it's very likely that individual evaluations will be in place in the future to see who is REALLY able to consent.

Right, and 10 year olds won't be a part of that as you claim.

These are not slippery slope at all. The term "marriage" has been changed and thus these must and will be recognized in the near future by the same logic that same-sex marriage was recognized.

Stop fucking lying.

[The Scientific States]

I don't understand how Valc can just call this entire post wrong and disbelieve it.

Aye, 'tis useful to have a scientific basis for discussion. But I still think that we're definitely seeing a culturally-driven breakdown in set sexual orientations, and I dare say people might manage to fool themselves into changing their orientation before too long.

Then go ahead and try to be a sexual orientation you are not, go ahead and try

[Rawrckia]

Not to mention, you again treat the line between "minor" and "adult" like it's sacred and never should be touched. But in reality the number is just nonsense. You can be tried as an adult in criminal court at age 11 or even younger. You can drive a car (where I'm at at least) at 16. You can consent to sex at 16 here, and isn't that what this "marrying younger women" argument is all about? And you cannot consume alcohol until age 21? These numbers are fairly meaningless and you're taking them like they were carved on a mountain by God.

So what you're saying is, you don't have a shred of evidence to back up your claim that 10 year olds can consent.

But you don't know what I'm saying, because you didn't understand the post, or any of my other posts.

If a 10 year old is mentally and emotionally developed to certain standards, they should be able to consent.

If an "adult" (we'll assume that being 18 means you're an adult) is not mentally or emotionally developed to certain standards, they should NOT be able to consent.

Is this really a slippery slope?

[Riiser-Larsen]

So what you're saying is, you don't have a shred of evidence to back up your claim that 10 year olds can consent.

But you don't know what I'm saying, because you didn't understand the post, or any of my other posts.

If a 10 year old is mentally and emotionally developed to certain standards, they should be able to consent.

If an "adult" (we'll assume that being 18 means you're an adult) is not mentally or emotionally developed to certain standards, they should NOT be able to consent.

Is this really a slippery slope?

By that standard, should we also allow children to join the military if we believe they are physically and emotionally ready for that?

[Mavorpen]

If a 10 year old is mentally and emotionally developed to certain standards, they should be able to consent.

No, they aren't. They are incapable of giving informed consent. Prove otherwise or shut up.

If an "adult" (we'll assume that being 18 means you're an adult) is not mentally or emotionally developed to certain standards, they should NOT be able to consent.

No shit.

Is this really a slippery slope?

Yes. Now get an actual argument.