Wait, why does homosexuality need to be validated...

[Agent Cougar Draven]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Meroko_Love

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Because sexuality has come to constitute personal identity, character and the status of the individual more and more in the past few decades. As such, a perceived union of two individuals who are regarded as being "flawed efforts at being" is of course going to be contested.

The opposition is to institutional recognition of negative existences. In other words, bigotry, but bigotry born from our understanding of sexuality and its role in personhood.

I would argue even more that there is an underlying tone of biological essentialism here that threatens to take away individual autonomy for the sake of eliminating bigotry against non-heterosexuals. It seems to be fueled by the dominant scientific discourse that claims heterosexuality to be the "norm" or "default".

Well, one cannot deny the evolutionary importance of heterosexuality. It cannot help but be a dominant scientific discourse because it's a fundamental reality of natural selection.

Which ceases to functionally matter when we, as a species, have reached a level of existence where simple things like "natural selection" have less and less impact. Most genetic mutations, like chromosome irregularities, are regular natural mutation, which would have an effect over time (because people who are less "fit" to have children have fewer children, and thus that gene is not passed down the line), but with the advance of our medical science, and technology in general, have found ways to overcome those limitations.

Which is not saying that we have stopped evolving; far from it. We have just reached a level of evolution where we can hold back the ravages of the natural world.

As such, the "evolutionary importance" of heterosexuality is, in effect, lessening and lessening. Thanks to IVF and other surrogate gestation, homosexual couples can indeed have children and pass on their genetics, rendering the importance of heterosexuality all but moot.

[The Living Force]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

razorsarz

yeah whatever you think. i sleep well at night but then you have no clue about the ways that i have gone out of my way to help people in my town.

The fact that you may be charitable in one form does not excuse any form of discrimination.

Also, I might happen to find old people kissing one another to be disgusting but I also understand they are free to do it in their pursuit of happiness through human affection. If you have a problem with the media representation of homosexuality then take it up with the media, not with the homosexuals it doesn't even speak for.

That is a weird thing I've noticed culturally. Old people being in love is absolutely adorable, but they kiss and people get squicked out.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Meroko_Love

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Meroko_Love

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Because sexuality has come to constitute personal identity, character and the status of the individual more and more in the past few decades. As such, a perceived union of two individuals who are regarded as being "flawed efforts at being" is of course going to be contested.

The opposition is to institutional recognition of negative existences. In other words, bigotry, but bigotry born from our understanding of sexuality and its role in personhood.

I would argue even more that there is an underlying tone of biological essentialism here that threatens to take away individual autonomy for the sake of eliminating bigotry against non-heterosexuals. It seems to be fueled by the dominant scientific discourse that claims heterosexuality to be the "norm" or "default".

Well, one cannot deny the evolutionary importance of heterosexuality. It cannot help but be a dominant scientific discourse because it's a fundamental reality of natural selection.

I suppose, but non-heterosexuality can be equally as important in an evolutionary perspective if one approaches it as a means of natural population control.

Not really. The average amount of animals engaging in homosexual activity (numbers anywhere from 1-8%, depending upon species and environment) is too negligible to make much of an evolutionary difference.

If homosexuality was an effective form of population control, we wouldn't see so many species overconsume their resources and crash until they reach a sustainable level again. The environment is far more effective at maintaining sustainable population levels than reproduction mechanisms.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Agent Cougar Draven

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Meroko_Love

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Because sexuality has come to constitute personal identity, character and the status of the individual more and more in the past few decades. As such, a perceived union of two individuals who are regarded as being "flawed efforts at being" is of course going to be contested.

The opposition is to institutional recognition of negative existences. In other words, bigotry, but bigotry born from our understanding of sexuality and its role in personhood.

I would argue even more that there is an underlying tone of biological essentialism here that threatens to take away individual autonomy for the sake of eliminating bigotry against non-heterosexuals. It seems to be fueled by the dominant scientific discourse that claims heterosexuality to be the "norm" or "default".

Well, one cannot deny the evolutionary importance of heterosexuality. It cannot help but be a dominant scientific discourse because it's a fundamental reality of natural selection.

Which ceases to functionally matter when we, as a species, have reached a level of existence where simple things like "natural selection" have less and less impact. Most genetic mutations, like chromosome irregularities, are regular natural mutation, which would have an effect over time (because people who are less "fit" to have children have fewer children, and thus that gene is not passed down the line), but with the advance of our medical science, and technology in general, have found ways to overcome those limitations.

Which is not saying that we have stopped evolving; far from it. We have just reached a level of evolution where we can hold back the ravages of the natural world.

As such, the "evolutionary importance" of heterosexuality is, in effect, lessening and lessening. Thanks to IVF and other surrogate gestation, homosexual couples can indeed have children and pass on their genetics, rendering the importance of heterosexuality all but moot.

Firstly, the human present does not render the past to be irrelevant. The evolutionary fact of heterosexuality as reproduction in such a high number of species cannot be ignored. There is a biological imperative to reproduce, and it still exists.

Secondly, the ability of human's to adapt our environment and our biology does not mean we have reached the end of natural selection. Humans did not evolve lactose tolerance in many cultures in the past few thousand years for no reason. This too was 'holding back the ravages of the natural world' in the sense that it allowed people to survive through a different diet. We adapt to what we make.

Lastly, I did not claim the continued importance of heterosexuality was our reproduction, only that it is a residue from a period when it was the only way to reproduce, and will continue to be the dominant form of reproduction for a long time.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

The Living Force

Blind Guardian the 2nd

razorsarz

yeah whatever you think. i sleep well at night but then you have no clue about the ways that i have gone out of my way to help people in my town.

The fact that you may be charitable in one form does not excuse any form of discrimination.

Also, I might happen to find old people kissing one another to be disgusting but I also understand they are free to do it in their pursuit of happiness through human affection. If you have a problem with the media representation of homosexuality then take it up with the media, not with the homosexuals it doesn't even speak for.

That is a weird thing I've noticed culturally. Old people being in love is absolutely adorable, but they kiss and people get squicked out.

It's because of all the loose skin and spittle working against one another like folds of wet leather.

[The Living Force]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

The Living Force

Blind Guardian the 2nd

razorsarz

yeah whatever you think. i sleep well at night but then you have no clue about the ways that i have gone out of my way to help people in my town.

The fact that you may be charitable in one form does not excuse any form of discrimination.

Also, I might happen to find old people kissing one another to be disgusting but I also understand they are free to do it in their pursuit of happiness through human affection. If you have a problem with the media representation of homosexuality then take it up with the media, not with the homosexuals it doesn't even speak for.

That is a weird thing I've noticed culturally. Old people being in love is absolutely adorable, but they kiss and people get squicked out.

It's because of all the loose skin and spittle working against one another like folds of wet leather.

D:

[Agent Cougar Draven]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Agent Cougar Draven

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Meroko_Love

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Because sexuality has come to constitute personal identity, character and the status of the individual more and more in the past few decades. As such, a perceived union of two individuals who are regarded as being "flawed efforts at being" is of course going to be contested.

The opposition is to institutional recognition of negative existences. In other words, bigotry, but bigotry born from our understanding of sexuality and its role in personhood.

I would argue even more that there is an underlying tone of biological essentialism here that threatens to take away individual autonomy for the sake of eliminating bigotry against non-heterosexuals. It seems to be fueled by the dominant scientific discourse that claims heterosexuality to be the "norm" or "default".

Well, one cannot deny the evolutionary importance of heterosexuality. It cannot help but be a dominant scientific discourse because it's a fundamental reality of natural selection.

Which ceases to functionally matter when we, as a species, have reached a level of existence where simple things like "natural selection" have less and less impact. Most genetic mutations, like chromosome irregularities, are regular natural mutation, which would have an effect over time (because people who are less "fit" to have children have fewer children, and thus that gene is not passed down the line), but with the advance of our medical science, and technology in general, have found ways to overcome those limitations.

Which is not saying that we have stopped evolving; far from it. We have just reached a level of evolution where we can hold back the ravages of the natural world.

As such, the "evolutionary importance" of heterosexuality is, in effect, lessening and lessening. Thanks to IVF and other surrogate gestation, homosexual couples can indeed have children and pass on their genetics, rendering the importance of heterosexuality all but moot.

Firstly, the human present does not render the past to be irrelevant. The evolutionary fact of heterosexuality as reproduction in such a high number of species cannot be ignored. There is a biological imperative to reproduce, and it still exists.

Secondly, the ability of human's to adapt our environment and our biology does not mean we have reached the end of natural selection. Humans did not evolve lactose tolerance in many cultures in the past few thousand years for no reason. This too was 'holding back the ravages of the natural world' in the sense that it allowed people to survive through a different diet. We adapt to what we make.

Lastly, I did not claim the continued importance of heterosexuality was our reproduction, only that it is a residue from a period when it was the only way to reproduce, and will continue to be the dominant form of reproduction for a long time.

I'm not saying that the past is irrelevant, I'm saying that it's the past, and that what was imperative in the past need not be imperative in the future.

[Meroko_Love]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Agent Cougar Draven

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Meroko_Love

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Because sexuality has come to constitute personal identity, character and the status of the individual more and more in the past few decades. As such, a perceived union of two individuals who are regarded as being "flawed efforts at being" is of course going to be contested.

The opposition is to institutional recognition of negative existences. In other words, bigotry, but bigotry born from our understanding of sexuality and its role in personhood.

I would argue even more that there is an underlying tone of biological essentialism here that threatens to take away individual autonomy for the sake of eliminating bigotry against non-heterosexuals. It seems to be fueled by the dominant scientific discourse that claims heterosexuality to be the "norm" or "default".

Well, one cannot deny the evolutionary importance of heterosexuality. It cannot help but be a dominant scientific discourse because it's a fundamental reality of natural selection.

Which ceases to functionally matter when we, as a species, have reached a level of existence where simple things like "natural selection" have less and less impact. Most genetic mutations, like chromosome irregularities, are regular natural mutation, which would have an effect over time (because people who are less "fit" to have children have fewer children, and thus that gene is not passed down the line), but with the advance of our medical science, and technology in general, have found ways to overcome those limitations.

Which is not saying that we have stopped evolving; far from it. We have just reached a level of evolution where we can hold back the ravages of the natural world.

As such, the "evolutionary importance" of heterosexuality is, in effect, lessening and lessening. Thanks to IVF and other surrogate gestation, homosexual couples can indeed have children and pass on their genetics, rendering the importance of heterosexuality all but moot.

Firstly, the human present does not render the past to be irrelevant. The evolutionary fact of heterosexuality as reproduction in such a high number of species cannot be ignored. There is a biological imperative to reproduce, and it still exists. Secondly, the ability of human's to adapt our environment and our biology does not mean we have reached the end of natural selection. Humans did not evolve lactose tolerance in many cultures in the past few thousand years for no reason. This too was 'holding back the ravages of the natural world' in the sense that it allowed people to survive through a different diet. We adapt to what we make.

Lastly, I did not claim the continued importance of heterosexuality was our reproduction, only that it is a residue from a period when it was the only way to reproduce, and will continue to be the dominant form of reproduction for a long time.

When you say biological imperative, do you mean instinct?

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Agent Cougar Draven

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Agent Cougar Draven

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Meroko_Love

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Because sexuality has come to constitute personal identity, character and the status of the individual more and more in the past few decades. As such, a perceived union of two individuals who are regarded as being "flawed efforts at being" is of course going to be contested.

The opposition is to institutional recognition of negative existences. In other words, bigotry, but bigotry born from our understanding of sexuality and its role in personhood.

I would argue even more that there is an underlying tone of biological essentialism here that threatens to take away individual autonomy for the sake of eliminating bigotry against non-heterosexuals. It seems to be fueled by the dominant scientific discourse that claims heterosexuality to be the "norm" or "default".

Well, one cannot deny the evolutionary importance of heterosexuality. It cannot help but be a dominant scientific discourse because it's a fundamental reality of natural selection.

Which ceases to functionally matter when we, as a species, have reached a level of existence where simple things like "natural selection" have less and less impact. Most genetic mutations, like chromosome irregularities, are regular natural mutation, which would have an effect over time (because people who are less "fit" to have children have fewer children, and thus that gene is not passed down the line), but with the advance of our medical science, and technology in general, have found ways to overcome those limitations.

Which is not saying that we have stopped evolving; far from it. We have just reached a level of evolution where we can hold back the ravages of the natural world.

As such, the "evolutionary importance" of heterosexuality is, in effect, lessening and lessening. Thanks to IVF and other surrogate gestation, homosexual couples can indeed have children and pass on their genetics, rendering the importance of heterosexuality all but moot.

Firstly, the human present does not render the past to be irrelevant. The evolutionary fact of heterosexuality as reproduction in such a high number of species cannot be ignored. There is a biological imperative to reproduce, and it still exists.

Secondly, the ability of human's to adapt our environment and our biology does not mean we have reached the end of natural selection. Humans did not evolve lactose tolerance in many cultures in the past few thousand years for no reason. This too was 'holding back the ravages of the natural world' in the sense that it allowed people to survive through a different diet. We adapt to what we make.

Lastly, I did not claim the continued importance of heterosexuality was our reproduction, only that it is a residue from a period when it was the only way to reproduce, and will continue to be the dominant form of reproduction for a long time.

I'm not saying that the past is irrelevant, I'm saying that it's the past, and that what was imperative in the past need not be imperative in the future.

But it is still an imperative in the present. We still have the desire to reproduce, and the majority of reproductive activity within our species is still via heterosexual behaviour.

What's more, artificial forms of reproduction aren't going to eliminate the evolutionary sex drive. You are also assuming that artificial forms of reproduction allow homosexuals to have 'gay kids', as if their genetics are what absolutely determine sexuality.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Meroko_Love

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Agent Cougar Draven

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Meroko_Love

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Because sexuality has come to constitute personal identity, character and the status of the individual more and more in the past few decades. As such, a perceived union of two individuals who are regarded as being "flawed efforts at being" is of course going to be contested.

The opposition is to institutional recognition of negative existences. In other words, bigotry, but bigotry born from our understanding of sexuality and its role in personhood.

I would argue even more that there is an underlying tone of biological essentialism here that threatens to take away individual autonomy for the sake of eliminating bigotry against non-heterosexuals. It seems to be fueled by the dominant scientific discourse that claims heterosexuality to be the "norm" or "default".

Well, one cannot deny the evolutionary importance of heterosexuality. It cannot help but be a dominant scientific discourse because it's a fundamental reality of natural selection.

Which ceases to functionally matter when we, as a species, have reached a level of existence where simple things like "natural selection" have less and less impact. Most genetic mutations, like chromosome irregularities, are regular natural mutation, which would have an effect over time (because people who are less "fit" to have children have fewer children, and thus that gene is not passed down the line), but with the advance of our medical science, and technology in general, have found ways to overcome those limitations.

Which is not saying that we have stopped evolving; far from it. We have just reached a level of evolution where we can hold back the ravages of the natural world.

As such, the "evolutionary importance" of heterosexuality is, in effect, lessening and lessening. Thanks to IVF and other surrogate gestation, homosexual couples can indeed have children and pass on their genetics, rendering the importance of heterosexuality all but moot.

Firstly, the human present does not render the past to be irrelevant. The evolutionary fact of heterosexuality as reproduction in such a high number of species cannot be ignored. There is a biological imperative to reproduce, and it still exists. Secondly, the ability of human's to adapt our environment and our biology does not mean we have reached the end of natural selection. Humans did not evolve lactose tolerance in many cultures in the past few thousand years for no reason. This too was 'holding back the ravages of the natural world' in the sense that it allowed people to survive through a different diet. We adapt to what we make.

Lastly, I did not claim the continued importance of heterosexuality was our reproduction, only that it is a residue from a period when it was the only way to reproduce, and will continue to be the dominant form of reproduction for a long time.

When you say biological imperative, do you mean instinct?

Yes and no. I don't like the word 'instinct' as it implies universality and inherence. I think there are common drives present in organisms, but I detest portraying them as 'default'. As has been established, many humans don't have a sexual drive as we understand it. But that does not mean there is not a large evolutionary cause for reproduction, and that many humans feel this desire, but end up expressing it in a multitude of fashions.

I'm just trying to steer clear of the 'human nature' argument that 'instinct' generally follows from.

[Grindoline]

I don't care if they chose it or not.
People are good because of their heart, not their sexuality.
My father is a hetero and completly ruined my chilhood if I could swap him for a flaming homo I would anytime.
If 2 people care about each other that much they should be allowed to make it official.

[castrillo]

razorsarz

castrillo

razorsarz

i really don't care i am just sick of hearing about it.

People who want to get married are not sick of hearing about it.

but you dont think think that its getting to be over kill by now? they might be the only ones in the end that give a s**t. the rest of the people might end up so sick of having to hear about it that its just going to drive people the other way in the end.

Why do you feel like you're above them? Why do you think that just because you're sick of hearing about it they should get rights stripped away from them?

[castrillo]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Meroko_Love

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Because sexuality has come to constitute personal identity, character and the status of the individual more and more in the past few decades. As such, a perceived union of two individuals who are regarded as being "flawed efforts at being" is of course going to be contested.

The opposition is to institutional recognition of negative existences. In other words, bigotry, but bigotry born from our understanding of sexuality and its role in personhood.

I would argue even more that there is an underlying tone of biological essentialism here that threatens to take away individual autonomy for the sake of eliminating bigotry against non-heterosexuals. It seems to be fueled by the dominant scientific discourse that claims heterosexuality to be the "norm" or "default".

Well, one cannot deny the evolutionary importance of heterosexuality. It cannot help but be a dominant scientific discourse because it's a fundamental reality of natural selection.

Homosexuals are just as important. Maybe the rock you're under didn't get the memo that gays and lesbians still have all their baby batter + same maternal clock.

[The Ghost of Bluejack]

castrillo

in the argument of gay marriage?

Tired of people beating a dead horse here + not really trying to add even more rehashed threads to the ED but this has been plaguing my mind recently.

Often times I see people who are for gay marriage saying "they were born that way," like its some type of importance. Same goes for the opposing argument, "it's a choice!" Okay, but so is marriage, so why are we arguing orientation?

Why can't people see this for what it really is, gender discrimination. Hypothetically, if homosexuality really was a wake-up decision, "i want to be gay now," type situation, why would they still be barred from marriage equality?
There's no rule in marriage that you have to be born with an idea of liking a particular sex. It's actually pretty irrelevant to marriage. The biggest choice in marriage is exactly its title, marriage.

So instead of basing an argument on sexuality, why isn't it more weighted on the blatant gender discrimination? If men and women legally are supposed to be equal, then why is a man not allowed to marry a man based on genitals alone? If this man had a v****a, it would be legally protected. This is the core of discrimination, saying one gender is worth more legally than the other gender.

Lots of people seem to think comparing orientation and race are not comparable in reference to interracial marriages being banned not too long back. Sure, okay, but the race war IS identical to this gender war, not being allowed to marry based on FACTUAL unpreventable birth attributes.

Homosexuality and same-sex marriages don't need to be validated. People who oppose those things need to know that being homosexual is okay and that same-sex marriages are okay because they are ignorant. They need to be reminded because they also sometimes forget fairly easily. Homosexuals already know that it's okay, as do the people who support it.

[keeping my secrets]

razorsarz

keeping my secrets

razorsarz

i really don't care i am just sick of hearing about it.

Oh yeah, the existence of this thread is shoving homosexuality down your throat.

I mean, when you saw this thread, you had absolutely no choice in the matter: you just HAD to click on it, or ELSE. You just couldn't skip past it and go on about your evening.

Those damned homosexuals are at it again! Making you do stuff you don't have to do and hear things you don't have to listen to!


neutral

Online, on tv, on the radio, on the street in the newspaper and in all kinds of magazines. but its not like i see it all over the place its not like when i was buying my dinner and the cover of all the mags was about gay marriage o it was. it gets to the point were it hurts your own cause.

So don't click on the link, turn the channel, skip over the news/magazine article. So what if it's being covered in the news; that doesn't mean you have no choice but to read about it. Lots of s**t happens in the news every single day that I don't give a s**t about, and so I ignore it. confused

I'm sure that there is a lot of s**t you ignore too. Why you can't ignore this and go on about your day, I don't get. Maybe on some level you give a s**t about gay rights (whether you're for or against and I don't really care what your stance is) and that's why you pay attention.

I suppose, if I actually gave a s**t about it, I could pitch a hellish fit about having heterosexuality shoved in my face daily by movies, politicians, books, love songs, sappy crappy news stories, idiotic wedding commercials and magazine articles (and especially around Valentines Day).

But since that's ******** stupid (and there are far better things for me to do with my time), and I can watch/read/listen to something else, I usually don't.

Besides, it's not just "teh gays" making the news all about us. It's an election year and gay rights are a hot political topic. Once the election passes by, you'll hear about it far less than you have now. Only 9 more months to go until Obama wins re-election. wink

If you actually take a look at some of those news stories, you'd see that a good chunk of them are idiot politician's like Santourm, Gingrich, and Chris Christie going on about what immoral sinners gay people are. The anti-equality idiots almost spend more time talking about gay rights than gay people do. rolleyes

Who is hurting our cause? Not the lgbt community itself, but the bigoted assholes who talk about us more than we talk about ourselves. scream