Elton john wants.... - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-13-2006, 09:53 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
And comparing blacks to homosexuals isn't smart either. I know you're doing it to take a jab at me, but a lifestyle and a race are two different things. Don't use them to try to make a counter argument.
Really?

Where is the black gene? Chromosome and locus, please.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 11-13-2006, 09:59 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
Apples to oranges, indra.
How so? Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both sexual orientations, so if one is chosen then the other must also be chosen. So I repeat the question -- when did you decide to become a heterosexual?
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 10:32 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus

It's not up to me to prove that burden. Noted anthropologist, Margaret Mead, was able to disprove the old axiom that teenage rebellion was genetic by finding a non-Western culture that had no teenage rebellion whatsoever. In other words, "an exception to the rule" disproves the rule completely.
I didn't say there were exceptions to the rule exactly, I just didn't say all homosexuals are that way because of those two reasons. I'm sure there are other environmental reasons.


Quote:

For what it's worth, anthropology doesn't believe that a "gay gene" will ever be found, believing that we're all inherently bisexual, after long observations of non-Western cultures. A cursory glance at ancient Greece and Rome would probably confirm that too.
I'm not willing to base anything on a cursory glance at history.

Quote:

On the other hand, the fact that there are people who are exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual tends to leave a gaping hole in their argument for inherent bisexuality.
Yes.


Quote:

Your views on homosexuality are colored with Freudian stereotypes of psychosis and mental illness (which is precisely where you got those notions of sexual abuse and distant fathers from), which, when stacked up to the sum total of human knowledge, is an aberration in itself. Rest assured, though, those Freudian theories on sexuality were disproven long ago, and homosexuality hasn't been listed as a mental illness since the early 1970s.
That's not actually precisely where I got the notions of sexual abuse and distant fathers -- that came primarily from the homosexuals I've known or met in my life, or those I've heard speak who are not homosexual anymore. I've also read it in a few places. Also, I never said it was a mental illness. Again, that's putting words in my mouth.

Quote:

Methinks someone needs to take a cultural sensitivity course, if you can't see why I would find that insulting.
If you're referring to the terms "blacks," that's actually the preferred term. I'm a reporter so I rely heavily on the Associated Press style guide. When writing stories, it tells reporters/writers to use the term "black" over "African American." This is the guide newspapers and magazines use across the country.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 10:35 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


How so? Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both sexual orientations, so if one is chosen then the other must also be chosen. So I repeat the question -- when did you decide to become a heterosexual?
I believe we're born heterosexual. I believe there's a purposeful design to the penis and vagina.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 10:37 PM   #35
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
 
UberBeaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the most serious...douch hammer ever
Posts: 20,318
Local Time: 02:12 PM
So instead of hating gays we need to hate the religious now? Gah. Noted.

Is any keeping a log of this? I friggin never know who I'm supposed to hate week to week. Jesus.
__________________
UberBeaver is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 10:41 PM   #36
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
I didn't say there were exceptions to the rule exactly, I just didn't say all homosexuals are that way because of those two reasons. I'm sure there are other environmental reasons.
So this is an excuse to deny homosexuals marriage rights then? Because *some* of them might be gay for "environmental reasons"?

Quote:
I'm not willing to base anything on a cursory glance at history.
A cursory glance of history will reveal plenty about the nature of homosexuality. An in-depth study of history will more than confirm that nature several times over.

Quote:
That's not actually precisely where I got the notions of sexual abuse and distant fathers -- that came primarily from the homosexuals I've known or met in my life, or those I've heard speak who are not homosexual anymore. I've also read it in a few places. Also, I never said it was a mental illness. Again, that's putting words in my mouth.
"Heard speak who are not homosexual anymore." Should've known you got infected by the "Focus on the Family" crowd. Those are the exact two arguments that Dobson uses to explain the existence of homosexuals: sexual abuse and distant fathers.

Never mind that both arguments are considered nonsense in the eyes of credible psychology and psychiatry. Like I said, go to a U2 concert sometime and you'll probably find that half the arena is full of heterosexuals who had experienced either sexual abuse or distant fathers. In fact, look at your average television sitcom and you'll find nothing but distant fathers. That is, after all, the stereotype of the heterosexual father.

That's why your argument and the entire underlying philosophy of the "ex-gay" movement is nothing but crap--and why credible psychologists and psychiatrists formally dismissed these exact same arguments nearly 35 years ago.

Quote:
If you're referring to the terms "blacks," that's actually the preferred term. I'm a reporter so I rely heavily on the Associated Press style guide. When writing stories, it tells reporters/writers to use the term "black" over "African American." This is the guide newspapers and magazines use across the country.
I think Elton John was right. Religion should be banned completely.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 10:50 PM   #37
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Here's why I laugh at the entire concept of "ex-gays," BTW:

Quote:
From the point of view of ex-gay groups, a change in the sexual behavior of an individual from homosexuality to either celibacy or heterosexuality is generally regarded as "change," irrespective of any actual change in the underlying sexual orientation. Many ex-gays live celibate lives. Although the wisdom and moral necessity of doing so is hotly contested, the capacity of homosexuals to do so if they so choose is not disputed. Other ex-gays marry opposite-sex spouses and remain faithful to their spouses within their marriages. As a matter of morality, it is generally regarded that the spouse must be made aware of one's past and/or ongoing struggles with same-sex attractions before the marriage takes place. Some married ex-gays acknowledge that their sexual attractions remain primarily homosexual, but seek to make their marriages work anyway.

Because of the way that ex-gay groups regard homosexuality and because of the way they define the term "ex-gay" itself, "relapses" into homosexual behavior are hardly surprising to ex-gay groups. Since one may be "ex-gay" without having experienced a total, or even any, change in sexual orientation, that some ex-gays may "fall back" into "old patterns of behavior" is seen as something to be expected. Ex-gay groups regard embarrassing exposures of their leaders engaged in homosexual behavior in the same way that an Alcoholics Anonymous or similar group might regard the exposure of one of its leaders to have taken up drinking again.
So, basically, these people are "heterosexual" in the way that Brad Pitt can be "homosexual" in a Hollywood film: they're pretending.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 10:50 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


So this is an excuse to deny homosexuals marriage rights then? Because *some* of them might be gay for "environmental reasons"?
No, it's because they're all environmental, not just some.


Quote:

A cursory glance of history will reveal plenty about the nature of homosexuality. An in-depth study of history will more than confirm that nature several times over.
That doesn't mean it's natural.


Quote:

"Heard speak who are not homosexual anymore." Should've known you got infected by the "Focus on the Family" crowd. Those are the exact two arguments that Dobson uses to explain the existence of homosexuals: sexual abuse and distant fathers.
Actually, I destest Dobson. I'm in no way a Right-wing Christian.

Quote:

Never mind that both arguments are considered nonsense in the eyes of credible psychology and psychiatry. Like I said, go to a U2 concert sometime and you'll probably find that half the arena is full of heterosexuals who had experienced either sexual abuse or distant fathers. In fact, look at your average television sitcom and you'll find nothing but distant fathers. That is, after all, the stereotype of the heterosexual father.
Credible psychology and psychiatry are claiming there's no evidence of a gay gene either. Also, I didn't claim all people who were abused or neglected become gay.


Quote:

That's why your argument and the entire underlying philosophy of the "ex-gay" movement is nothing but crap--and why credible psychologists and psychiatrists formally dismissed these exact same arguments nearly 35 years ago.
Then why are these people happy? (And no, I don't mean gay. )
Why are they glad to be out of the lifestyle? Why do they go places speaking about their change?
Quote:

I think Elton John was right. Religion should be banned completely.
Like I said, I'm not even bringing up religion in my reasoning for this. Nor politics.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 10:51 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus
Here's why I laugh at the entire concept of "ex-gays," BTW:



So, basically, these people are "heterosexual" in the way that Brad Pitt can be "homosexual" in a Hollywood film: they're pretending.
It's not as simple as pretending.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 10:56 PM   #40
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
It's not as simple as pretending.
Yes, it is. It's pretending. It's putting on a show, pretending to be someone you're not. The underlying sexual orientation is completely unchanged, and while they're pretending to have sex with their wives, all they can do is think about men.

That's not "ex-gay" anything. It's window dressing to fit in with a group of people who have nothing but vile contempt for everything about you.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 11:10 PM   #41
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen

No, it's because they're all environmental, not just some.
Pray tell, who do you cite for this nugget of wisdom?

Quote:
That doesn't mean it's natural.
Homosexuality occurring in nature isn't natural? Better tell those gay penguins to pray to Jesus then.

Quote:
Actually, I destest Dobson. I'm in no way a Right-wing Christian.
You're citing from his play book, whether you know it or not. Those are, nearly word-for-word, arguments that he has used, and, as a result, he's the most prominent figure in "ex-gay ministries."

Quote:
Credible psychology and psychiatry are claiming there's no evidence of a gay gene either. Also, I didn't claim all people who were abused or neglected become gay.
There's no evidence of a straight gene. Science can confirm that. And, yet, it stands to reason that sexuality has a genetic component. In fact, it would have to have one, considering that, until the third month of pregnancy, all fetuses have a uterus, ovaries, penis, and testicles, regardless of whether they are XX (female) or XY (male). It then takes a complex series of hormones that must fully coordinate with a series of genes with both the mother and child in a narrow window. If there are genes missing in either the mother or the child, or certain hormones are not released at the exact narrow window, you're going to have demonstrable sexual variance with the intersexed population in the most extreme situation.

This is the likely origin of sexuality, mind you, and would fully explain why sexuality is both natural without a "gay gene" and still unchangeable.

Quote:
Then why are these people happy? (And no, I don't mean gay. )
Why are they glad to be out of the lifestyle? Why do they go places speaking about their change?
Because they are craving for approval from their elders. They grew up in highly Christian households, their parents hate them to death for being gay, and they would rather march through hell and back than be hated by the same people they were told to respect growing up.

It's the equivalent of a Minstrel Show.

Quote:
Like I said, I'm not even bringing up religion in my reasoning for this. Nor politics.
Unfortunately, most of these arguments have (pseudo-)religious origins.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 11:51 PM   #42
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen


Credible psychology and psychiatry are claiming there's no evidence of a gay gene either.
I ask you again, where is the black gene? Chromosome and locus, so that we're, you know, accurate.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 11-14-2006, 12:46 AM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:12 PM
Quote:
By AMANDA ONION

Dec. 14, 2005 — In a discovery that begins to shed light on what makes one person brown and another white, scientists have identified a gene that appears to be a key player in human pigmentation.

People share 99.9 percent of the same genes, yet pinpointing the very minor genetic variations that cause skin-color differences long has been a mystery to scientists. This discovery, published in the journal Science, marks a significant step toward understanding what's behind the panoply of human skin tones.

Cheng's team found that people with the normal form of the gene SLC24A5 had brown skin, while fair people of European descent carried a modified form of the gene that led to having fewer and smaller pigment packets, known as melanosomes.
Not the same thing as "a black gene" of coarse, but interesting all the same.
Quote:
"Skin color is not race, race is a much more complicated concept that involves culture, religion and where your parents are from. It's an important part of society, but it's not about pigment alone."
Isn't it likely that homosexuality is a combination of nature and nurture as well?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 11-14-2006, 12:49 AM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Well, that was what I was trying to get at. I don't think you can say that because something does not have a defined gene, it doesn't exist. coemgen was arguing that there is no gene for homosexuality, therefore it is a lifestyle choice. Wrong. Because there is no gene for being black (the article you posted refers to a pigmentation gene which isn't absent in the white population, it is simply slightly modified in structure).

Race is biological and has a social component. I would venture a guess the same is true of homosexuality and a number of other traits as well. That much should be obvious.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 11-14-2006, 12:53 AM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Really?

Where is the black gene? Chromosome and locus, please.
The distribution and frequency of polymorphisms can show distinct trends in populations at the scale of broad geographic down to tribal levels, those differences influence more than melanin and they should be given consideration. Saying that there are differences does not make any one population inherently better than another; they are just suited to different niches. The idea of a pure racial population is a fallacy. Homosexuality does seem to have a significant environmental component (in utero through to upbringing) but the same cannot be said of the genes derived from ancestory.

Quote:
Because there is no gene for being black (the article you posted refers to a pigmentation gene which isn't absent in the white population, it is simply slightly modified in structure).
Doesn't selection also act upon variant traits? Just because there is no single gene for population differences doesn't remove the underlying genetic basis for those differences.

Human sexuality is a complex issue, it is and deserves to be an active area of investigation. There is social conditioning involved and perhaps that can be viewed as choice, did they ancient Greeks have exceptionally high proportions of gay genetic variation during the days of pedestary or was there a social situation that encouraged that sexual attraction?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com