NationStates

Tokos wrote:That has no bearing on the matter. Homosexuality, evolutionarily speaking, is as bad for the individual organism as sterility. No one argues that someone being born sterile is somehow beneficial to their genes. If we were ants, with workers intended to be sterile, maybe, but we're not.

Just because something exists doesn't mean it has a grand purpose. See: haemophilia.

When it exists in hundreds if not thousands of species separated by hundreds of millions of years of evolution in roughly the same percentage, there's probably a reason for it. And when said species almost all share another trait in common, one that would provide an evolutionary explanation for the existence of something, then it's even more likely there's a reason for it.

Homosexuality is innate; it is not a choice.

UCUMAY wrote:Wiki for the purpose of this thread is not considered a credible source.

Why not? It's a lot more credible that anything rupert murdoch runs.

Here is my view on gender identity. People who persistently identify as the opposite sex have it ingrained deep into their consciousness, so much so that is overwhelms physical evidence to the contrary. Even before there were such things as sex changes, people would attempt their best to correct it any way they could, either by crossdressing (and not all crossdressing is GID either), or living the opposite sex's gender roles.

But their true gender is what they feel because that is their hormonal balance leans towards. So a male with a female gender identity who is sexually attracted to women is a homosexual, if they are attracted to males, they're a heterosexual. I know that sounds convoluted but recognizing gender identities is an important breakthrough in the psychological field of science.

South Lorenya wrote:Homosexuality is innate; it is not a choice.

UCUMAY wrote:Wiki for the purpose of this thread is not considered a credible source.

Why not? It's a lot more credible that anything rupert murdoch runs.

Wikipedia is, by some (arguably flawed) metrics, as reliable as the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

In other words, it's basically worthless on any matter related to science.

South Lorenya wrote:Homosexuality is innate; it is not a choice.

UCUMAY wrote:Wiki for the purpose of this thread is not considered a credible source.

Why not? It's a lot more credible that anything rupert murdoch runs.

I always use wikipedia and if I can't use it as a source, I usually also use the footnotes anyway which direct me to more credible sources. I haven't really had a problem, though, with factual information on Wiki. A line here or there is obviously biased but it's actually been a while since I've seen an outright falsehood.

Xsyne wrote:

South Lorenya wrote:Homosexuality is innate; it is not a choice.



Why not? It's a lot more credible that anything rupert murdoch runs.

Wikipedia is, by some (arguably flawed) metrics, as reliable as the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

In other words, it's basically worthless on any matter related to science.

Yes the fact that uncredible people can post or edit is what makes it uncredible.

The Floridian Coast wrote:Here is my view on gender identity. People who persistently identify as the opposite sex have it ingrained deep into their consciousness, so much so that is overwhelms physical evidence to the contrary. Even before there were such things as sex changes, people would attempt their best to correct it any way they could, either by crossdressing (and not all crossdressing is GID either), or living the opposite sex's gender roles.

But their true gender is what they feel because that is their hormonal balance leans towards. So a male with a female gender identity who is sexually attracted to women is a homosexual, if they are attracted to males, they're a heterosexual. I know that sounds convoluted but recognizing gender identities is an important breakthrough in the psychological field of science.

Gender =/= sexuality.... Men who have sexual attraction to men do not necessarily have a female sexual identity (a la "gender"), and the same for women who have sexual attraction to other women.... That is Transsexualism, not homosexualism.

Tekania wrote:

The Floridian Coast wrote:Here is my view on gender identity. People who persistently identify as the opposite sex have it ingrained deep into their consciousness, so much so that is overwhelms physical evidence to the contrary. Even before there were such things as sex changes, people would attempt their best to correct it any way they could, either by crossdressing (and not all crossdressing is GID either), or living the opposite sex's gender roles.

But their true gender is what they feel because that is their hormonal balance leans towards. So a male with a female gender identity who is sexually attracted to women is a homosexual, if they are attracted to males, they're a heterosexual. I know that sounds convoluted but recognizing gender identities is an important breakthrough in the psychological field of science.

Gender =/= sexuality.... Men who have sexual attraction to men do not necessarily have a female sexual identity (a la "gender"), and the same for women who have sexual attraction to other women.... That is Transsexualism, not homosexualism.

That's exactly what I said.

Tekania wrote:Gender =/= sexuality.... Men who have sexual attraction to men do not necessarily have a female sexual identity (a la "gender"), and the same for women who have sexual attraction to other women.... That is Transsexualism, not homosexualism.

The terms aren't mutually exclusive. You can be a transsexual homosexual.

UCUMAY wrote:

Xsyne wrote:Wikipedia is, by some (arguably flawed) metrics, as reliable as the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

In other words, it's basically worthless on any matter related to science.

Yes the fact that uncredible people can post or edit is what makes it uncredible.

And highly competent people can remove the errors within minutes; meanwhile it's been close to two years and nobody canceled glenn beck's show yet.

South Lorenya wrote:

UCUMAY wrote:
Yes the fact that uncredible people can post or edit is what makes it uncredible.

And highly competent people can remove the errors within minutes; meanwhile it's been close to two years and nobody canceled glenn beck's show yet.

Please stop arguing about the format of this thread. If you don't like it leave.

I would think that it could be a combination of both.

The Floridian Coast wrote:

Tokos wrote:That has no bearing on the matter. Homosexuality, evolutionarily speaking, is as bad for the individual organism as sterility. No one argues that someone being born sterile is somehow beneficial to their genes. If we were ants, with workers intended to be sterile, maybe, but we're not.

It is good for the species as a whole.

If the human race had neither homosexuality or abortion, the vast majority of humanity would be starving to death right now on a irreparably polluted and bled dry Earth. Overpopulation is bad, mmkay?

By that logic, killing sprees are good too.

The Bleeding Roses wrote:

Nulono wrote:
Define "wrong".

And all that proves is a gay guy will have sex with a woman if it means getting out of this stupid experiment.

Biological norm is heterosexual.
Homosexuality serves no biological purpose, it's simply deviant behavior.

Nonsensical assumptions, and thus, nonsensical conclusion.

UCUMAY wrote:

South Lorenya wrote:
And highly competent people can remove the errors within minutes; meanwhile it's been close to two years and nobody canceled glenn beck's show yet.

Please stop arguing about the format of this thread. If you don't like it leave.

Why should I leave when it's quite likely that most of the people agree with my stance on wikipedia?

Also we really shouldn't be going off on a tangent like this, so I'd like to point out that the American Psychological Association thinks that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, and the Royal College of Psychiatrics thinks that it's nature, not nurture.

South Lorenya wrote:

UCUMAY wrote:
Please stop arguing about the format of this thread. If you don't like it leave.

Why should I leave when it's quite likely that most of the people agree with my stance on wikipedia?

That is considered thread jacking... It adds nothing to the topic and attempts to change focus.

Anyway I found an interesting article explaining why it might be nature.

http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/

UCUMAY wrote:

South Lorenya wrote:Why should I leave when it's quite likely that most of the people agree with my stance on wikipedia?

That is considered thread jacking... It adds nothing to the topic and attempts to change focus.

Ironically, I realized that and was adding focus while you were typing that up.

So enough with the pro-wikipedia/anti-wikipedia discussion, 'k?

EDIT: And you did the same while I was typing this up!

South Lorenya wrote:

UCUMAY wrote:
That is considered thread jacking... It adds nothing to the topic and attempts to change focus.

Ironically, I realized that and was adding focus while you were typing that up.

So enough with the pro-wikipedia/anti-wikipedia discussion, 'k?

EDIT: And you did the same while I was typing this up!

Because i found an interesting article. Not to apease you.

UCUMAY wrote:

South Lorenya wrote:
Ironically, I realized that and was adding focus while you were typing that up.

So enough with the pro-wikipedia/anti-wikipedia discussion, 'k?

EDIT: And you did the same while I was typing this up!

Because i found an interesting article. Not to apease you.

Which is why I commented as well.

For reference, http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supr ... _Brief.pdf is the APA statement (pages 2-3), and the much-shorter http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission ... ngland.pdf states the RCP's statement.

Nulono wrote:

The Floridian Coast wrote:
It is good for the species as a whole.

If the human race had neither homosexuality or abortion, the vast majority of humanity would be starving to death right now on a irreparably polluted and bled dry Earth. Overpopulation is bad, mmkay?

By that logic, killing sprees are good too.

Killing sprees affect people who already exist.

The Floridian Coast wrote:

Nulono wrote:By that logic, killing sprees are good too.

Killing sprees affect people who already exist.

So does abortion. What's your point?

Nulono wrote:

The Floridian Coast wrote:
Killing sprees affect people who already exist.

So does abortion. What's your point?

that this is very much not an abortion thread. Take it elsewhere.

Ashmoria wrote:it doesnt matter why someone is homosexual. there isnt anything wrong with it so its no more important that why someone is left handed.

Oh yes it does matter why. Even if you assume sexual orientation isn't a big deal in and of itself, views on what causes it can be used to gauge whose perspectives are more reasonable. If someone's answer to this question is far off enough then this reflects poorly on their understanding of the issue. To say it doesn't matter and sidestep the whole debate is questionable at best, especially when the Internet is used to debate even more trivial things.

DaWoad wrote:

Nulono wrote:So does abortion. What's your point?

that this is very much not an abortion thread. Take it elsewhere.

Oh, I'm sure we could get the abortion issue in regards to whether a fetus is a person resolved in two or three posts, tops.

Desperate Measures wrote:

DaWoad wrote:that this is very much not an abortion thread. Take it elsewhere.

Oh, I'm sure we could get the abortion issue in regards to whether a fetus is a person resolved in two or three posts, tops.

If by "resolved" you mean someone declares "I win, end of story!", I suppose you're right.

Hayteria wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:it doesnt matter why someone is homosexual. there isnt anything wrong with it so its no more important that why someone is left handed.

Oh yes it does matter why. Even if you assume sexual orientation isn't a big deal in and of itself, views on what causes it can be used to gauge whose perspectives are more reasonable. If someone's answer to this question is far off enough then this reflects poorly on their understanding of the issue. To say it doesn't matter and sidestep the whole debate is questionable at best, especially when the Internet is used to debate even more trivial things.

Untrue. A person's view on one issue can be true even if they're wrong on something else; to argue otherwise would be an ad hominem.