Gay Marriage

[Tisme]

He'll change his mind now.

Did I break Princess Diana of Themyscira's lasso of truth, dammit!

 

[Value Collector]

You continue to base you arguments on some kind of minority status due to some furphy about gayness being genetic and innate. It's a choice, just like prisoners resort to it who would otherwise be heterosexual (or are criminals largely gay?).

The whole gene thing was a made up lie to garner recognition and the protection of the bleeding hearts:- the new global black american.

Bring on a full scale referendum with a clause that says the act cannot be revisited for a century.... that and daylight friggen saving referendums.

Again, it's statements like that, that make me think you are Bisexual, because you seem to be claiming that you find Men and women equally attractive, and you have had to "make a choice" to be straight.

 

[sydboy007]

You continue to base you arguments on some kind of minority status due to some furphy about gayness being genetic and innate. It's a choice, just like prisoners resort to it who would otherwise be heterosexual (or are criminals largely gay?).

The whole gene thing was a made up lie to garner recognition and the protection of the bleeding hearts:- the new global black american.

Bring on a full scale referendum with a clause that says the act cannot be revisited for a century.... that and daylight friggen saving referendums.

Evidence?

 

[sydboy007]

If two gays want to live with each other and have a binding relationship, how will a piece of paper keep them together/

If two heterosexual people want to live with each other and have a binding relationship, how will a piece of paper keep them together?

 

[sydboy007]

If I was to go on mannerisms and looks I'd say there was a more than two:

MT, PD, HG, JF, MK, NS ?

Is Penny Wong's partner on the Lib front bench?

And there you have that background discrimination. Not out yelling abuse, just a little tittering and finger pointing. You have very outdated view on masculinity and gender roles. What must you think of those fathers leaving work on time so they can see their children more and spend time with the family rather than down the pub drinking with the MEN.

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/is-there-a-gay-voice

 

[Value Collector]

This is Ingrid Nilsens coming out video, my girlfriend had been a fan of Ingrid who is a you tuber for the past couple of years, this coming out video is quite moving, and it shows 2 main things 1, she new she was gay from a very young age, she didn't choose it, she was born that way, and 2, society makes it very hard for gay people to be themselves.

I am happy Ingrid has come out, and I think allowing gay marriage will end a lot of stigma that young gay people feel,

At the end of the day, is there any good reason that Ingrid shouldn't be able to marry a future girlfriend, I don't think so.
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh7WRYXVh9M[/video]

 

[Knobby22]

So the PM is using this issue to wedge Turnbull.
He is on the same side!
This isn't student politics anymore. Why don't they get rid of him?

 

[Tisme]

Again, it's statements like that, that make me think you are Bisexual, because you seem to be claiming that you find Men and women equally attractive, and you have had to "make a choice" to be straight.

You subscribe to the Shakespeare protest principle.

Mate you know your latency, but refuse to accept it. It's no good trying to throw nonsense around when dealing with intelligent company.

Men and women are encoded with the procreation need. If you want to go against that and demand there are genes that are abnormal that's OK, but don't then try to say those people afflicted are just like me and every other normally functioning person, coz it just can't be the case if there's a defect.

Get real and forget about trying to bait me, I'm comfortable expressing my entrenched hetrosexuality and happy to practice it regularly, which appears to be something of a rarity amongst my similarly old peers.

 

[Tisme]

So the PM is using this issue to wedge Turnbull.
He is on the same side!
This isn't student politics anymore. Why don't they get rid of him?

He's clearing the decks of anyone who might contest leadership. It's what he does repeatably ... he was trained by Australia's own Bob Santamaria afterall.

e.g.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-choice-of-party/story-fn59niix-1226494801586

 

[Tisme]

And there you have that background discrimination. Not out yelling abuse, just a little tittering and finger pointing. You have very outdated view on masculinity and gender roles. What must you think of those fathers leaving work on time so they can see their children more and spend time with the family rather than down the pub drinking with the MEN.

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/is-there-a-gay-voice

Nothing to do with discrimination in the context you would like to apply.

By your entrenched yardstick of what "MEN" do I would suspect you have little understanding of what the majority hetrosexual men and their families get up to. I only recently started going to a pub (for the hour before QANDA) because I moved close to one and live alone after becoming widowed.... I'm way past the family building phase.

You are a clever bloke and I don't judge you on your persuasions, but I do expect you to be wise enough to understand none of us have to accept anything our natural instincts flag alarms over. That doesn't preclude friendships, it's just they are slightly different, just as most men have different friendship styles with women ... no biggy. And friends argue the point over lots of instransigent mindsets, they also agree on heaps of things..

 

[Tisme]

, she new she was gay from a very young age, she didn't choose it, she was born that way,

Proof? .... didn't think so

 

[Value Collector]

You subscribe to the Shakespeare protest principle.

Mate you know your latency, but refuse to accept it. It's no good trying to throw nonsense around when dealing with intelligent company.

Men and women are encoded with the procreation need. If you want to go against that and demand there are genes that are abnormal that's OK, but don't then try to say those people afflicted are just like me and every other normally functioning person, coz it just can't be the case if there's a defect.

Get real and forget about trying to bait me, I'm comfortable expressing my entrenched hetrosexuality and happy to practice it regularly, which appears to be something of a rarity amongst my similarly old peers.

Well stop saying being gay is a choice and I will stop thinking that you felt you had to make a choice.

I never said being gay was a defect, it obviously provides an evolutionary benefit to society or it would have been weeded out by natural selection, only those with the most simple minded view of evolution think it's a defect.

There are completely plausible hypothesis that suggest a gene pool that produces about 1% of its population gay, would have increased chances of survival as a group.

 

[SirRumpole]

I never said being gay was a defect, it obviously provides an evolutionary benefit to society or it would have been weeded out by natural selection, only those with the most simple minded view of evolution think it's a defect.

That assumes that the evolutionary process is now complete, which is nonsense as it continues indefinitely. A large number of genetic defects still exist , otherwise people would not continue to inherit genetic diseases.

Now that the human race has gained some influence in our own evolutionary processes, gays will most likely be bred out of society due to a combination of genetic information on fetuses and the fact that mothers and fathers would prefer to have heterosexual children so that they can pass on their genes through the generations.

There are completely plausible hypothesis that suggest a gene pool that produces about 1% of its population gay, would have increased chances of survival as a group.

Name some.

 

[sydboy007]

That assumes that the evolutionary process is now complete, which is nonsense as it continues indefinitely. A large number of genetic defects still exist , otherwise people would not continue to inherit genetic diseases.

Now that the human race has gained some influence in our own evolutionary processes, gays will most likely be bred out of society due to a combination of genetic information on fetuses and the fact that mothers and fathers would prefer to have heterosexual children so that they can pass on their genes through the generations.



Name some.

You weren't helping to create the Aryan race by chance? What else do you think is acceptable for parents to gene-ering into their children? Blond hair, blue eyes, minimum 178cm tall by chance?

The ethics of what you describe. Not much different to parents wanting a male child and drowning the baby girl that was born.

I bet most parents would prefer to count 10 fingers and 10 toes and have a child that grows up happy long before thinking about sexuality.

My Gran was saying how she doesn't understand the angst over gay marriage. Her attitude was they're (gays) no different to the rest of us and they should be able to love and be treated like everyone else. She's no liberal leftie either as she fondly remembers Howard, though a bit less fondly as I explain the economic ramifications of some of his policies.

 

[SirRumpole]

You weren't helping to create the Aryan race by chance? What else do you think is acceptable for parents to gene-ering into their children? Blond hair, blue eyes, minimum 178cm tall by chance?

The ethics of what you describe. Not much different to parents wanting a male child and drowning the baby girl that was born.

I bet most parents would prefer to count 10 fingers and 10 toes and have a child that grows up happy long before thinking about sexuality.

My Gran was saying how she doesn't understand the angst over gay marriage. Her attitude was they're (gays) no different to the rest of us and they should be able to love and be treated like everyone else. She's no liberal leftie either as she fondly remembers Howard, though a bit less fondly as I explain the economic ramifications of some of his policies.

I wasn't suggesting that I favour aborting children on the basis of any criteria, just stating what I think will happen in the future if tests for predisposition towards homosexuality are developed.

You yourself have stated that you would not have chosen to be born gay, I think parents will take it on themselves not to have gay children for the same reasons that you decided that being gay would not have been your choice.

That's the problem when society approves of abortion on demand, the reasons for the abortion become irrelevant. The mother either wants the baby or she does not. it's HER choice right ?

Certainly up to now people accept the odds of having a gay child and should love & care for them as much as any other child, but in the future if people don't have to play the odds but can decide them, what will they do ?

 

[Value Collector]

That assumes that the evolutionary process is now complete, which is nonsense as it continues indefinitely. A large number of genetic defects still exist , otherwise people would not continue to inherit genetic diseases.

Now that the human race has gained some influence in our own evolutionary processes, gays will most likely be bred out of society due to a combination of genetic information on fetuses and the fact that mothers and fathers would prefer to have heterosexual children so that they can pass on their genes through the generations.



.

Firstly gay individuals are present right across the spectrum of mammal species which suggests the genes that cause them are from a very distant ancestor species and have been around for a very long time, plenty of time for natural selection to weed them out if it was a damaging defect.

Secondly, even if you could test each foetus to find out whether it were gay, it would not help "breed" them out, because it's straight people that give birth to gays, every female on the planet carries the genes that mean that 1% of her babies will be born gay, this hasn't been bred out by natural selection, because it is likely that having 1% of the population gay doesn't reduce the survival of the population and probably has advantages.

 

[SirRumpole]

Secondly, even if you could test each foetus to find out whether it were gay, it would not help "breed" them out, because it's straight people that give birth to gays, every female on the planet carries the genes that mean that 1% of her babies will be born gay, this hasn't been bred out by natural selection, because it is likely that having 1% of the population gay doesn't reduce the survival of the population and probably has advantages.

That's pretty unintelligible to me and reliance on "probably" and "likely" without supporting evidence does not make for a convincing argument.

If you say there are hypotheses than a certain percentage of gays increases the survival ability of populations then you need to supply better evidence than "probably" or "likely".

Firstly gay individuals are present right across the spectrum of mammal species which suggests the genes that cause them are from a very distant ancestor species and have been around for a very long time, plenty of time for natural selection to weed them out if it was a damaging defect.

As I've pointed out there are plenty of genetically inherited "damaging" diseases still around so why haven't they been weeded out ?

 

[Value Collector]

Name some

I have been through this on this thread, but will explain it again.

Picture a female of a social species who develops a genetic mutation the causes 1% of her offspring to be gay, in every other way she is normal, so has no reduced chance of survival.

she has five children, due to only 1% chance of a gay child being produced, none of the five are gay but all carry the gene of their mother which means their children has a 1% chance, the 5 children each have another 5 children, so now the third generation has 25 members all carrying the gene that allows the production of gays, however again none are produced.

Those 25 children have five children each, so the fourth generation is 125 and by chance the first ever gay child is born, obviously the gene is no wide spread and doesn't rely on this gay individual to survive because it is being carried by 124 of his cousins, however the fact that this gay man or women is not going to want to start a family of his own, he may stay living with some of his brothers or sisters, helping to defend, feed, shelter and increasing the survival rate of his nephews, nieces and cousins all of whom carry this gene.

So even though the gay individual never breed, their existence would have increased the survival rate of the biological relatives who carried this gene that allowed gay individuals to be produced in future generations.

 

[SirRumpole]

I have been through this on this thread, but will explain it again.

Picture a female of a social species who develops a genetic mutation the causes 1% of her offspring to be gay, in every other way she is normal, so has no reduced chance of survival.

she has five children, due to only 1% chance of a gay child being produced, none of the five are gay but all carry the gene of their mother which means their children has a 1% chance, the 5 children each have another 5 children, so now the third generation has 25 members all carrying the gene that allows the production of gays, however again none are produced.

Those 25 children have five children each, so the fourth generation is 125 and by chance the first ever gay child is born, obviously the gene is no wide spread and doesn't rely on this gay individual to survive because it is being carried by 124 of his cousins, however the fact that this gay man or women is not going to want to start a family of his own, he may stay living with some of his brothers or sisters, helping to defend, feed, shelter and increasing the survival rate of his nephews, nieces and cousins all of whom carry this gene.

So even though the gay individual never breed, their existence would have increased the survival rate of the biological relatives who carried this gene that allowed gay individuals to be produced in future generations.

Well, you say it's better if gays don't breed but instead look after their relatives and help them to "survive" ?

I assume that means you are in favour of gays not having families of their own that case, because otherwise you would destroy your own argument ?

 

[Value Collector]

As I've pointed out there are plenty of genetically inherited "damaging" diseases still around so why haven't they been weeded out ?

Firstly genetic mutations happen all the time, so new genetic diseases will continually pop up, and will only be weeded out if we allow the person carrying the genes to die without passing them on. Eg if we treat a baby and allow it to survive (which is the right thing to do) then we are not going to weed them out.

Secondly, if it is a disease that doesn't show up until later in life, after breeding age, it will be very hard to weed out because the disease wont cause a weakness in an individual until after he or she has passed the gene to the next generation, eg the genetic disposition for certain cancers that pop up in people in their 50's or heart disease etc don't stop those people from breeding prolifically in their 20's