Homosexuality a trend?

[Rawrckia]

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.

Children enter puberty at different ages. I never said that we were suddenly going to have marriage with 4 year olds did I? And "onset of puberty" is a logical place to stop, I really don't think that it'll remain as blanket as that though. Again, personal evaluations are the most logical method.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

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

I doubt I'd manage to fool myself, and nor do I want to. But if I did want to, I'd certainly have a go.

[Aequalitia]

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.

Sexuality is not something you can chance. Its a fact that you not can chance someones feelings.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Why did anyone vote yes on this? Homosexuality is not a choice and is not a trend.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

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.

Neither, they're more likely to focus on useful things like better vision. But my point is that people will have test tube babies merely from the point of view of convenience. We'll see all the evolutionary pressures to have any sexual orientation at all vanish; and be replaced by people loving whoever they want.

[Chemung]

I am reluctant to say Homosexuality is entirely genetic, or else there would be much more solid evidence already. I believe it may have a factor on who is genetically disposed to homosexuality, just like some people may be genetically disposed to become alcoholics. However, there are other contributing conditions and that may include social environment. Increasingly, there is a noticeable lapse in traditional gender relations, even from a young age. While the decision may be barely conscious, or not conscious at all, it would seem that they were that way from birth, but it might not be true. With the trend in favor of Homosexual rights, developmental conditions may be more likely to trigger children's disposition towards Homosexuality. It would also go up from those "in-the-closet" coming out as well.

Technically, many Asexuals (like myself) choose to date a specific gender. Perhaps all children are born that way, but a combination of genetics, developmental factors, societal values, and in some cases subconscious or conscious choices may affect ones sexuality?

[Mavorpen]

And "onset of puberty" is a logical place to stop

No, it really isn't.

[Rawrckia]

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.

Wow, more focus on a specific age, surprise!

10 year old was an example I gave, I've used 11, 12, and 13 in other posts in this thread.

Theoretically a child could be mentally and emotionally developed to a standard by age 10. It depends where the standard is.

At the moment, people with an IQ of 50 (or even lower) can get married and have sexual relations.

You probably want a source on the mentally disabled getting married because you really have nothing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... place.html

nah I'm just kidding I'll give you an actual source. Same story, even

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mentally-disab ... d=19237103

Also, what is the original definition of marriage then if "monogamous relationship designed to produce and raise children" doesn't fit? Adoption didn't exist several thousand years ago.

[Genivaria]

And "onset of puberty" is a logical place to stop

No, it really isn't.

This is what I mean't earlier. Except instead of bestiality it seems this one wants to have sex with kids.

[Melungea]

I respectfully disagree with you. Homosexuality has "somewhat skyrocketed among teens" because it is now safer than ever to be openly gay. As society becomes increasingly tolerant of homosexuality, more gays will come out of the closet.

Now I'm not saying that no kid would ever pretend to be gay. It's attention seeking behavior, and that's what kids do.

[Aequalitia]

Why did anyone vote yes on this? Homosexuality is not a choice and is not a trend.

The people who voted yes are just silly and don't known anything about how sexuality works.

And I hoped everybody voted for No...

[New haven america]

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.

And me telling him to "Say something smart" was name-calling.

[Mavorpen]

10 year old was an example I gave, I've used 11, 12, and 13 in other posts in this thread.

I'm going to go with no for all of those.

Theoretically a child could be mentally and emotionally developed to a standard by age 10. It depends where the standard is.

Oh look, you're still refusing to prove this.

At the moment, people with an IQ of 50 (or even lower) can get married and have sexual relations.

...And?

You probably want a source on the mentally disabled getting married because you really have nothing.

No, I want a source that 10 year olds can consent.

Also, what is the original definition of marriage then if "monogamous relationship designed to produce and raise children" doesn't fit? Adoption didn't exist several thousand years ago.

Lrn2history.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Why did anyone vote yes on this? Homosexuality is not a choice and is not a trend.

The people who voted yes are just silly and don't known anything about how sexuality works.

And I hoped everybody voted for No...

I definitely don't think it's a trend now, but I vote yes about a century in advance, as I'm pretty sure it will be by then. It's best to get ahead of the trend if you can, it's more profitable.

[Mavorpen]

And me telling him to "Say something smart" was name-calling.

He just seriously claimed that adoption didn't exist thousands of years ago.

Anything he says shouldn't be taken seriously.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

The people who voted yes are just silly and don't known anything about how sexuality works.

And I hoped everybody voted for No...

I definitely don't think it's a trend now, but I vote yes about a century in advance, as I'm pretty sure it will be by then. It's best to get ahead of the trend if you can, it's more profitable.

Why the fuck would anyone choose to be gay? What is profitable about discrimination by the government and by society? Homosexuality is a crime in two dozen countries, punishable by death in several.

[Blasveck]

The people who voted yes are just silly and don't known anything about how sexuality works.

And I hoped everybody voted for No...

I definitely don't think it's a trend now, but I vote yes about a century in advance, as I'm pretty sure it will be by then. It's best to get ahead of the trend if you can, it's more profitable.

In a century it will be trendy to be gay?

Is that what you're saying?

Because until you've got any sources, that has no base in reality.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I definitely don't think it's a trend now, but I vote yes about a century in advance, as I'm pretty sure it will be by then. It's best to get ahead of the trend if you can, it's more profitable.

Why the fuck would anyone choose to be gay? What is profitable about discrimination by the government and by society? Homosexuality is a crime in two dozen countries, punishable by death in several.

...
Hipster cred?
I mean. maybe they're being ironic about it or something...I don't know...

[Aequalitia]

The people who voted yes are just silly and don't known anything about how sexuality works.

And I hoped everybody voted for No...

I definitely don't think it's a trend now, but I vote yes about a century in advance, as I'm pretty sure it will be by then. It's best to get ahead of the trend if you can, it's more profitable.

Got you any proof sexuality is a 'trend'?

[Rawrckia]

And "onset of puberty" is a logical place to stop

No, it really isn't.

repeating the same shit over and over again doesn't change that you're wrong in every reply to me and produce not one iota of logic, scholarly articles, or any remote form of argument to refute. Saying "lol ur wrong" is immature and bad logic.
Your application for a consent liscense has been denied based on: Poor cognitive development

"Onset of puberty" is a logical place to stop because if you go too far before puberty, sexual intercourse may cause severe internal damage to a girl. Arguably anal sex can also be harmful and transfers STDs much more easily. It IS possible to have a chastity law for couples that you may only have sexual relations at the onset of puberty. This is probably the easiest way to approach the idea of flexible marriage ages: A child may be sufficiently cognitively developed and may not be sufficiently physically developed.

As a side note, I don't support lowering the age of consent for marriage or otherwise, and I don't support polygamy. But your arguments that it is really a slippery slope and completely impossible is stupid, this IS possible and people are taking steps towards this.

[New haven america]

And me telling him to "Say something smart" was name-calling.

He just seriously claimed that adoption didn't exist thousands of years ago.

Anything he says shouldn't be taken seriously.

I'm guessing no.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Why the fuck would anyone choose to be gay? What is profitable about discrimination by the government and by society? Homosexuality is a crime in two dozen countries, punishable by death in several.

...
Hipster cred?
I mean. maybe they're being ironic about it or something...I don't know...

Choosing to be gay just to be a hipster is silly.

[Blasveck]

No, it really isn't.

repeating the same shit over and over again doesn't change that you're wrong in every reply to me and produce not one iota of logic, scholarly articles, or any remote form of argument to refute. Saying "lol ur wrong" is immature and bad logic.
Your application for a consent liscense has been denied based on: Poor cognitive development

"Onset of puberty" is a logical place to stop because if you go too far before puberty, sexual intercourse may cause severe internal damage to a girl. Arguably anal sex can also be harmful and transfers STDs much more easily. It IS possible to have a chastity law for couples that you may only have sexual relations at the onset of puberty. This is probably the easiest way to approach the idea of flexible marriage ages: A child may be sufficiently cognitively developed and may not be sufficiently physically developed.

As a side note, I don't support lowering the age of consent for marriage or otherwise, and I don't support polygamy. But your arguments that it is really a slippery slope and completely impossible is stupid, this IS possible and people are taking steps towards this.

I'm a little late on the conversation, but what are you arguing about Rawr?
Are you arguing about how gay marriage will lead to children marrying?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

I definitely don't think it's a trend now, but I vote yes about a century in advance, as I'm pretty sure it will be by then. It's best to get ahead of the trend if you can, it's more profitable.

In a century it will be trendy to be gay?

Is that what you're saying?

Because until you've got any sources, that has no base in reality.

It's also increasingly popular in most western countries, and since the West is trendy, whatever the West thinks is trendy will become trendy for the whole world. Just look at the food they eat in China and the clothes they wear. There's no escaping Western influence and the power of public opinion to change societal norms.

My proof for why people will be able to change their orientation: we'll see the breakdown of evolutionary constraints.

Is that enough? No? I'll just nip into my Tardis, now where did I park it? And where are my keys? Good gracious, stuck on Earth in this miserable century...

[Occupied Deutschland]

...
Hipster cred?
I mean. maybe they're being ironic about it or something...I don't know...

Choosing to be gay just to be a hipster is silly.

Well yes, but I thought that's what hipsters were all about?