On a serious note my fellow gauche grads. Why is that when a male likes another male, for some reason it's "disgusting" and that it's wrong. But when girls like girls, apparently it's really hot ! Just thought I'd put it out there, because Ms.Draper's idea was to discuss about this homosexuality thing and that other stuff she listed. And who knows she might get bugged out about all the non-sense this Albo dude talks about and just shut down the blog. So comment ! Be honest ! No judging or critising :)
Quote of the moment:
"The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It is a very mean and nasty place and it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't how hard you hit; it's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward...But you gotta be willing to take the hit, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you are because of him, or her, or anybody. Cowards do that and that ain't you."
-Rocky Balboa
Well, personally i don't find it disgusting.., as a society we do not see gay people around, and we are not use to it..I don't personally find the idea of lesbians being hot, maybe because I'm a girl. I don't know. The way I see lesbians, is the same way i see gay couples.
ReplyDeleteWell...if you want to go down THAT rabbit hole...
ReplyDeleteEvolutionary psychology has found out that human males, who have less responsibility to care for their offspring than females, try to gain as many mates as possible while females look for the most prestigious mate they can get. This is because the male is only burdened with the child for a split second, when he impregnates the female, while females have to carry the child for at least 9 months. This has been proven as other animals, such as seahorses in which the males have greater responsibility of the child try to pick the best mates while the females try to impress and impregnate as many children as possible as they have less responsibility for the child(also, on a side note, penguins are just about the coolest animals out there when it comes to picking mates because penguins are mostly monogamous (though some have been known to cheat!) and are given equal responsibility of the children! talk about great parenting!). Because of this, males have a primitive tendency to wish to mate with as many females as possible (ie. yo dude, that guys a playyaaa) while females try to pick the best mate for their children (ie. ughhh, what a slutt). Humans have developed this strange thing called "imagination" however, and its important in many ways. "imagination" allows us to keep goals and create abstract thought, however (i get into speculation now), as we (as in males) have certain primitive wishes in our head such as the wish to mate with several females, the act of lesbians performing sexual acts is seen as attractive, in comparison to females watching gay couples because they do not have the same primitive urges that we do. It is important to note though, that as we are intelligent beings, (well...some of us ;)) these are only generalizations. There will obviously be males who are grossed out at lesbians making out (its a sin I tell you!) and females who might be attracted to males making out (if Edward and Jacob had a baby, the baby would look like Justin Bieber~)
The image of two people of the same sex kissing each other, repulses some people because the norm for a healthy and happy relationship, in terms of love and commitment, has always been two things, a man and a woman, and its been this way ever since, and I apologize if I get to religous but I don't believe in evolution (no pun intended), Adam and Eve. I understand the point you are trying to make and one of the main reason, I believe is the media and what the media portrays about homosexuality and two people of the same sex kissing, whether it is in Music videos (Katy Perry), television shows (MTV), movies, product endorsements. I mean, do you really think AXE would be a big sell if they had more guys in the commercials than girls? Back to your question about the two girls kissing, it seem these days that the image of two girls kissing is accepted in a heterosexual male dominated world because as people, specifically people of this high tech, freedom versed generation, are growing up, they seem to be bombarded with all kinds of images and videos which may directly or indirectly, show this kind of homosexual imbrace. Some people might say, the simple fact is that as much as men like looking at women, pardon the pun, having a woman kiss another woman, at least in the males POV makes it more interesting. This isn't to say that there aren't men who find this kind of affection unappealing as well as women. A man will see two woman kissing and find that attracting, while a woman might see two woman kissing and see that it as unattracting. Now this raises the question, who finds what attractive and unattractive. I said that in general, men find two woman kissing as attractive, but what about two men, do we assume women find two men kissing as attractive? I don't know, I'm not woman, so I can't tell you that. What I can say is that, we are all mature, almost highly educated people and we should learn and take into consideration both sides of the argument in terms of homosexuality and form our own opinions on what we think is acceptable or not. This Albo26 signing off :)
ReplyDelete"norm", "healthy and happy relationships" are very relative terms. To give examples, 98% of giraffe sex is homosexual, by giraffe terms, the norm is homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteHomosexuals are in very healthy and happy relationships, perhaps some feel some form of religious moral argument against it, but looking at things from an objective point of view, they aren't doing anything wrong.
Another fact to remember is that homosexuality wasn't really seen as wrong for a great deal of human history. Proof is all over history. In some parts of ancient Greece (I think Sparta?), males would have sex with other males, while only saving sexual activities with females for the purposes of procreation.
In Shakespeare's time, homosexuality was seen as alright. Generally males would have sexual intercourse with other males, and really the female would be more of a way to bond families together.
So, you're going to have to be a bit more specific when you say things like "healthy and happy relationships" as well as "norm" because what we consider the norm wasn't the norm for a very large chunk of human history.
First of all, thats why we refer to girafees as animals and ourselves, human beings, as mammals. We as human beings possess both a higher state of intelligence and a more rational state of mind. Thats why we consider a man and woman as being the "norm" for a relationship and two people of the same sex in a relationship as "unnatural", because if we say we're better and smarter than animals like girafees, who probably doesn't even know who their doing it with, then we should act like it. Your other proof about homosexuality in human history, such as in Greece (Sparta) for example, is a bit flawed. According to historical texts, Wikipedia,
ReplyDeleteSome scholars believe that homosexual
relationships, especially pederasty, were common only among the aristocracy, and that such relationships were not widely practiced by the common people. One such scholar is Bruce
Thornton, who argues that insults directed at passive homosexuals in the comedies of
Aristophanes show the common people's dislike for male homosexuality.
So even though, you say that the "norm" during most of human history was homosexuality, it was in fact most of time a group of elite individuals who acted out their own desires and not as you say most of human kind during that
period. You also probably didn't know that Spartans men and Athenen men also slept with boys, young boys. If we say that the "norm" for todays society is homosexuality, then should we say that pedophilia is acceptable? As you said,
homosexuality was the "norm" in human history, so why should we say yes to homosexuality and no to pedophilia? Going beyond what the "norm" is, can you prove that any good has come out of homosexuality, besides sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV, AIDS, syphilis etc, which have had devastasting effects to people worldwide. Besides this, what I meant by
"healthy and happy relationships" is that the prime example for a well structured and prospering family has always had a man and a woman, which is not always the case depending if you are a single parent or not, but in general this is the case. So these new 21th century families which have same sex couples are more of a phenomena and have yet to show whether or not they can provide a stable and balanced home for a child. As always, my intention was not to
offend, but to give a honest critism of another bloggers opinion. Again, we should learn and take into consideration both sides of the argument when it comes to homosexuality and form our own opinions on what we think is acceptable or not because as John Stewart said, "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing."
I'm not going to continue commenting for fear of insulting your beliefs and values after this comment.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I know a reason why pedophilia is wrong and homosexuality is okay but according to your beliefs, you must reject them anyways, which is fine since you seem to take a theological point of view on things while I take a scientific view which has a law specifically saying I can disregard God from any equation.
Of course, I will argue on your side and say science is the "religion of the 21st century" as a lot of the scientific theories are misinterpreted as fact and looked at dogmatically when they shouldn't.
Most certainly, Greeks DID have sexual relationships between children, and it wasn't that late in history where marriage between a child and an older person was seen universally as bad.
However, that doesn't change but adds to the question; what is a healthy and happy relationship? You follow the meaning of a healthy and happy relationship as a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman.
I can't quite agree with that statement. Love is love, and if 2 men and 2 women wish to be in one another's company, I think that they should and it shouldn't be seen as wrong or unhealthy at all.
Of course, the love of children in sexual behaviour is seen as wrong. The simple moral argument that differs homosexuality from pedophilia is that children don't have the cognitive ability to make sound choices when choosing a mate (ie. they don't know what they're getting themselves into).
This is a big difference between the way we live now and how Greeks and Elizabethan English people did. The idea of freedom of choice.
Most certainly, you can disregard the behavior of giraffes as giraffes are not humans and such, but, I mean to ignore all of the animal kingdoms animals? All animals that have genders have been known to engage in homosexual behaviour (fact). To say just because we are humans, it somehow makes us lose this primitive urge that we certainly should have if we are animals? I think thats a little bit rash to say.
Oh by the way, I liked how you said;
"First of all, thats why we refer to girafees as animals and ourselves, human beings, as mammals."
FYI, Giraffes are mammals.
That's a funny relation to the giraffes Sam! In my opinion I think since the media portrays that males are more dominant, over women. (Which we know isn't true.) In my opinion, if you were to be in a relationship with a guy, it would be like you're down grading yourself, and the media portrays that it's wrong to do so. LASTLY, I would like to state that..never mind. This is SPARTA !!
ReplyDeleteI think this would depend on the perspective that it is viewed in. For example, for males a picture of 2 homosexual girls could be "hot". The same applies to the female perspective. Because we live in a society which doesn't favour women, (this isn't shown directly, but it is very evident in many parts of the media), the homosexual image of two men seems like it is feminine. Gay men are represented in a way that makes them look some what feminine in nature. Which may be true or false , depending on the individuals. In conclusion, a picture of 2 gay men starts more "huh?s", than a picture of 2 girls. It is like the men are steping out of the norm.
ReplyDeleteI think, due to the findings of evolutionary psychology, the media is a direct reflection of our society. Because we (males)(generalisation here obviously) consider the act of females making out as attractive, the media took that need into consideration and blew it up so more people think so.
ReplyDeleteReferring to your point about, To say just because we are humans, "it somehow makes us lose this primitive urge that we certainly should have if we are animals?" I have to say, since you are a man of science, if we as humans are at the top of the chain in terms of evolution, shouldn't we then try to be better than what we consider as being "primitive" and "animal-like" in turns of how animals behave in the wild. I may be speaking from a religious POV in some regard as you said, but you shouldn't just dismiss what religion says about homosexuality, just because it doesn't agree with what you personally believe. A person learns twice as much from both sides of an agrument than from one side. You shouldn't have the impression that just because I'm religious, I don't try to understand your POV. Besides religion, values, morals and science, you have yet to prove any benefit of homosexuality, besides physical pleasure from those involved.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I did not mean to offend, only to provide a honest critism.
2 things to say.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, yes humans are at the top of intelligence on the Earth but we most certainly did not lose our primitive side.
A psychologist coined the phrase "alief". Alief is much like belief however, alief is a much primitive side that will always override belief. An example of this is those who travel all the way to the grand canyon in order to walk to glass panes that hang over a part of the grand canyon (or, I guess to us Torontonians, much like walking on the glass panes of the CN tower.). I'm sure you'll agree most people are afraid to do this (I know I certainly was when I was little, so afraid actually that I didn't end up doing it). This is because, although we have evolved to have abstract thought and intelligence (even if you don't believe in evolution, you can agree we certainly have those 2 things), there's still part of the brain that goes; "oh! Height! bad! me going to die!" even if we have complete faith or belief that the glass isn't going to break and that it is completely safe to walk across the glass.
Secondly, to say I haven't looked at the religious side of things is completely wrong. Although I dismiss the idea of Christianity in this case, it is not to say that I dismissed it for no reason.
I grew up in a very Christian family, I have attended numerous sermons in 2 different sects of Christianity (Presbyterian and Baptist) and to say that I'm dismissing it simply because I personally feel it doesn't agree with my beliefs would be wrong. I dismiss it because I've looked at my religion logically and I completely can not agree with people saying homosexuality is wrong, homosexuality is a disease (when my sister, a very strong Christian said that to me, I could not help but feel extremely offended, even though I'm not homosexual myself), to say that homosexuality is for some reason immoral or to say God didn't put the idea of homosexuality in anyone minds and that these people just simply chose to enjoy being with the same sex.
So, to say I've only considered one side of the argument would be wrong.
To finish off, here's the actor of the blue power ranger talking about walking off his set because he was teased for being homosexual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmlcuY8bOUk
Because even power rangers cry sometimes.
I do not mean to offend anyone of the Christian religion; I’m just using this short historical anecdote for pure analogous purposes. Galileo Galilei was a man who opposed the beliefs of the Catholic religion, and was placed on house arrest for the rest of his life after publishing his book concerning the earth not being the center of the universe in 1632. He opposed to geocentric model of the universe, where the earth is the center of the universe, and he went on to say the universe is not limited to that, rather our sun is the center of the universe, which was the Copernicus model. His view was not correct, but it was more correct than the previous model, as the sun is the center of our solar system. Now the point of all this; just because religion opposes a practice or a belief, does this mean we as a society immediately oppose it? Should we not take all the different factors into consideration? The biological implications of homosexuals, the environmental factors that contribute to it, should we just throw away all that?
ReplyDeleteThere have been numerous studies done, and there is concrete evidence now that there are genetic differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. We’re still barely at the starting point of uncovering the human genome, and we WILL find out more about homosexuality and how it relates to gene differences and heredity. To anyone that honestly believes it’s strictly a choice; why would you choose to be gay? Why would you choose to be the minority in society that is constantly shunned upon due to ignorance and bigotry? Tell me, when do we choose to be gay or straight? As for the primitive aspect of it, how could we as humans possibly let go of our primitive attributes? We gather food like animals do, we care for our young as animals do, we procreate as animals do, we defend our territory as animals do, etc. Who are we to decide and how can we possibly decide what primitive attributes of ours are fallible and should be rid of?
We have evolved a much higher intelligence, and a much higher emotional intelligence as well, and part of having emotional intelligence is having empathy and compassion for people, no matter their beliefs or values, or in this case, their sexual orientation. You speak of benefits of homosexuality; is that all we should look at when considering this case? To get rid of the emotional aspect of this debate and to just look at the rational aspect would be absolute bigotry. Just because a gay relationship might be seen as “unbeneficial”, does that mean we take away a persons chance for a loving, healthy relationship? The “unbeneficial” aspect is ambiguous and vague, but I do know that one of the key arguments is that a gay couple cannot raise a child properly. That statement is subjective, and I have studies to prove otherwise, which I have attached. Please do read through them, as they both include the heredity aspect of homosexuality, and the ability of a homosexual couple to raise children. Yes Jon Stewart did say “If we amplify everything, we hear nothing”, but you should also consider this statement when you choose to ignore the scientific facts presented before you.
Homosexuality and raising children:
http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/15/5/241.abstract
http://faculty.spokanefalls.edu/InetShare/AutoWebs/kimt/AW%20articles/Children%20of%20Lesbian%20and%20Gay%20Parents.pdf
Heredity regarding homosexuality:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1605/3031.full
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217.full.pdf
My comment is broken up into parts because of character limit.
ReplyDeleteI respect your opinions and your comments and always try to take them into consideration, but since you say homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, let me clear something up which many people still to this day claim as truth. I am using Bilal Philips, a contemporary Islamic scholar, teacher, speaker, and author and what he has found in his research. I paraphrased a little because of the length and depth of his research. I apologize for the length of the paragraphs. Homosexuality was considered a crime up until modern times, where the principal of consenting adults became the discerning principal for what is acceptable in human sexual relations. So as long as it was adults and they consented, it was allowed, society has no right to interfere. Therefore, Rape is out and child sexual abuse is out.
ReplyDeleteSo in defence of homosexuality because people were saying that homosexuality is unnatural, they argued, it isn't unnatural. So they traveled the Earth in search of evidence from nature, trying to find examples of homosexuality to justify their claims and found that off the coast of Japan, there was a tropical, exotic fish, which the male, after mating with the female, will take on some of the characteristics of the female to discourage other males from mating with his female and they presented this evidence as proof of homosexuality in nature. They also found varies species of butterflies in South America, which exhibit some homosexual behaviour, and along with the fish, added this type of behaviour as proof of homosexuality in nature. Now, this is fine if you believe that we as human beings are animals and we can judge our behaviour on the basis of what animals do, but if we consider ourselves as being more than animals, as I previously stated, although we do have an animal aspect to ourselves, but we have choices and the ability to make choices; so we should not merely consider ourselves to be looked at as animals. If we consider this to be a basis for human behaviour, then what do we do about the black widow spider, which will after mating, kill its male partner, and praying mantis will do the same thing, eating its male partner. So based on this, is it alright for a woman when she gets pregnant or has intercourse to kill her male partner? Are we going to use this as basis for that kind of behaviour? Is it natural? It’s there in nature, so it’s ok to go and do it. So this kind of argument doesn’t really hold water.
Since, your argument focuses on the biological, I will skip a few years to the 90’s, where a Dr. Dean Hamer, in 1993, claimed to have found concrete evidence of “gay genes”. His theory was that homosexual orientation was transmitted to males on the X chromosome from their mothers. Now his findings were published in prestigious scientific journals and transformed his colourless career as a government scientist into a dynamic media persona. Now although his findings were published in scientific journals and his findings where in newspapers all across the West, no one was prepared for what happened after. When the University of Western Ontario tried to repeat his experiments, they could not find any linkage between the X chromosome and sexual orientation. This was their own research. Furthermore, they said Hamers experiment, “lacked a controlled group”, something which is a fundamental principal of scientific research. So how could they publish his work? Maybe this was seen as something that could sell magazines and maybe his creditability as a scientist overshadowed their ability to always check and reaffirm what a scientist says they have proven, which lacked fundamental elements of scientific research. An assistant of Dr. Hamer later said that, “he selectively reported his data.” This assistant was later dismissed, although she was a PHD student, it was not something that people wanted to hear. This article was not front page news, as was Dr. Hamers false findings, and so it did not stay in people’s minds and because the majority of people did not see this, people still to this day say that it is proven. Now, they did not just take her word for it, the National Institute of Health investigated her claims and after getting a confirmation, she received a new position in a different lab. Now Dr. Hamer, who was rather private about his sexual orientation, later admitted in his memoirs that he himself is a homosexual. So his scientific study was shot down, but the vast majority of people to this day still do not know about it.
ReplyDeleteNow, on the topic of religion, I think the same thing is said in all of three main monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, that the divine project is to promote something that is a man for a woman and a woman for a man, so it’s not in accordance to the divine project for human beings, meaning that it’s not promoted and it’s not allowed per say to promote homosexuality. Now some scholars say it’s not accepted, it’s not allowed, so it is forbidden in our society and we are going to discriminate them, but there is another approach which says we are not promoting it, but if it is something that you are doing for yourself, we are not going to spy on you to know what you are doing, its your private life. Now, My opinion is, I may disagree with what you are doing because it is not in accordance with my belief, but I respect who you are and we can come together and work on common goals and aspirations that can be of benefit to all of society. I apologize if my comments have angered of some you. As always, my intention was not to offend, but give an honest critism.
Homosexuality - Contemporary Issues - Bilal Philips
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AerCqUUxiUo&feature=&p=19877B4BFD153F6E&index=0&playnext=1
Dr. Hamer
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
Obviously you didn’t even bother to read through, or even skim the abstract of any of the links I provided. The scientific evidence I provided has nothing to do with the “gay gene”. To connect current scientific research to a non acclaimed researcher who provided absolutely nothing to the field of science is absolute ignorance. Obviously you don’t realize we haven’t even skimmed the surface of the human genome yet, and we are not aware of the biological implications of homosexuality yet, but you continually choose to ignore that fact.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, on the topic of primitive behaviour, you do realize I wasn’t making a case for it right? I was merely stating that we as a species cannot fathom which aspects of our primitive behaviour are just and which are not. You failed to read Sam’s post which describes what an “alief” is, and you should definitely go back and do so. Most of the time, our primitive aspects are NOT under our control, and this is most likely the case with homosexuality. You also didn’t answer this question; since when did you choose to be straight? Do you believe it’s a choice in the first place? You also didn’t even consider the emotional aspect of it, you’re continually looking at it from a rational point of view, and as I said; part of evolving is having greater empathy for people.
Lastly, I don’t quite understand what your general point was. Sure you might have stated that it was that homosexuality is not “natural”, but then again, you failed to define what “natural” is. You conclude with an ambiguous point in that; “we are not promoting it, but if it is something that you are doing for yourself, we are not going to spy on you to know what you are doing, its your private life”. So are you saying, “be gay, just not in public”, or are you trying to say that homosexual people apparently have a tendency to flaunt their sexual orientation? I’m going to just go out on a limb and say let’s just both agree that homosexuals should be considered equal human beings, no matter if its genetic predisposition or environmental discrepancies that made them to be the way they are, because let’s be honest, who would choose to be gay in society with all the ignorance and bigotry that homosexuals face? That’s another one of my questions you didn’t answer. Nevertheless, let’s just agree on the fact that homosexuals deserve to be treated like regular human beings, because we are all god’s children, right?
My response is broken up into parts. I apologize for the length.
ReplyDelete“We are not promoting it, but if it is something that you are doing for yourself, we are not going to spy on you to know what you are doing, it’s your private life”. What I meant is that religion obviously does not promote homosexuality nor encourage it, but the message that many religious people have seemed to forget, and since I'm a Muslim I'll speak from an Islamic POV, is that religion is about tolerance and working with each other towards the common good despite our differences, and I agree with you "that homosexuals deserve to be treated like regular human beings, because we are all god’s children." I don't agree with your comment that I did not read or "skim" the information on the links you provided because that is where I found this and the basis of my previous argument, "The results confirm the existence of previously proposed biological predictors that partly explain male homosexuality: the prevalence of homosexuals in the maternal line, suggesting possible genetic factors in the X-chromosome (Hamer et al. 1993)." As I previously stated, his findings were falsified and discredited and their attempts to imitate his experiment did not prove his claim, but people, probably like yourself, still believe it to be true. By the way, he is listed as a source on your links page. Your question about, "who would choose to be gay in society with all the ignorance and bigotry that homosexuals face?" I agree that no one chooses to become homosexual, just as no one chooses to become heterosexual, but let me ask you this, human instincts can be subjected to acts of will. Sexuality is a choice of identity which follows choices of action which follow from choices of what to have sexual fantasies about. Human beings are especially able to control their thoughts, entertaining some and dismissing others.
ReplyDeleteIf there is any truth to the claim that the male homosexual behaviour could be genetic, what about bisexuals and lesbians. They for sure are making a choice. Even if there is a genetic propensity towards homosexuality, it is the nobility of the human spirit that can overcome it. There are suggestions that alcoholics are genetically pre-disposed to their behaviour. Furthermore, some people are inherently prone to take risks, which is an essential element for human progress and development. This pre-disposition to risk taking behaviour can easily lead to the destructive behaviour of gambling. We do not encourage the people with a propensity to alcoholism or gambling to keep on indulging in these vices, but rather encourage them to resist and overcome them. We should do the same with homosexual feelings and tendencies. Whether one has the orientation or harbours "homosexual genes," one's feelings and desires cannot dictate behaviour. One may have a strong urge to have a homosexual contact, a heterosexual contact with one other than one's own spouse, or to steal or kill. The nobility of the human spirit is to resist, and this is what elevates the human being from any animal, giraffe or what not (a comment to Samuels previous post).
Some say, there is a period during our growth process where we are most comfortable with and try to bond with persons of the same gender. Some carry this behaviour to an extreme and experiment with homosexuality. Some Psychiatrists still believe that those who continue with the homosexual behaviour are really arrested in their development process. They avoid or are afraid to continue with the normal psychological growth. This condition is treatable by psychotherapy.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I agree that homosexuals should be treated with respect as they are human beings just like us. I agree that no one chooses to be a homosexual and that what they do for themselves is their own business, but by simply saying “its genetic predisposition or environmental discrepancies that made them to be the way they are” does not mean homosexuality can be considered in the same category as heterosexuality. I apologize if my comments have angered of some you. As always, my intention was not to offend, but give an honest critism.
Granit, did you watch the video with the blue power ranger?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmlcuY8bOUk
Cause it kind of talks about how you really can't change a person for being who they are.
You started talking about how the x-chromosome affects homosexuality for some reason.
We never said anything about the x-chromosome's effect on homosexuality...you just brought that in there yourself and said we believe in it.
You clearly didn't understand what alief was and how, as I already said, it OVERRIDES the logical mind, which clearly shows, even if we're sentient beings, we have primitive thoughts that still control and override our intelligent side.
"This pre-disposition to risk taking behaviour can easily lead to the destructive behaviour of gambling."
actually the psychologist Skinner found out the main reason we gamble is because of the pleasure we can sometimes get from the winnings.I think theres a video on the findings..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhvaSEJtOV8
"I apologize if my comments have angered of some you. As always, my intention was not to offend, but give an honest critism. "
I know you keep saying this in your posts.
Stop it.
It's kind of like saying;
"no offence, but how did you fit through that door? you're like a boulder."
"This condition is treatable by psychotherapy."
You just called homosexuality a disease. That's an insult.
You fail to realize that Dr. Hamer’s study is outdated and nullified, and the new studies that are being done have nothing to do with his studies. Just because a study cites another research paper, it does not mean the whole study is falsified. Since 1993, there have been numerous advances in genetic research due to the Human Genome Project. The reasoning behind Dr. Hamer’s research being nullified was that he did not provide concrete evidence, yet if you had read the new study, you would see that there is now concrete evidence. You continually bring up the study by Dr. Hamer, yet I never even mentioned his studies once, and you somehow correlate the studies I provided to you with his studies, but the citation was not for the purpose of using Dr. Hamer’s studies as part of the study, it was merely saying how this new study supports Dr. Hamer’s hypothesis. It’s scientific etiquette to give credit to a scientist whose hypothesis your study supports.
ReplyDeleteYou continually contradict yourself in your posts; “If there is any truth to the claim that the male homosexual behaviour could be genetic, what about bisexuals and lesbians. They for sure are making a choice”; “I agree that no one chooses to be a homosexual”. You said that no one chooses to be homosexual, but beforehand you said lesbians for sure make a choice; you do understand lesbians are homosexuals right? And how do you assume bisexuals are making a choice? Once again, I do not understand the point of your post. You say that homosexuals should be treated as regular human beings, but you also imply that homosexuality is a disease, and don’t consider homosexuality to be on the same humane level as heterosexuality.
You talk about how part of the human spirit is to overcome specific urges, but once again, why do you not consider the empathetic side of the argument? Do you honestly consider sexual orientation to be analogous to alcoholism? You consider it to be self destructive? You’re just merely insulting homosexuality, and you’re not considering how our primitive side is not under our control most of the time. “Sexuality is a choice of identity which follows choices of action which follow from choices of what to have sexual fantasies about”. So you’re saying we somehow have perfect control of our desires? That’s completely ludicrous. I’m just going to stop posting in this string now, because all you’re doing now is just insulting homosexuality.
It was never my intention to insult homosexuality, but to give my opinions and reasons on why I do not agree with it. I see where you might have gotten confused and probably should have worded things a bit differently now that I look back on some of my comments. As for the Dr. Hamer comment, I read the information on your link and just wanted to point out that his research was flawed because although there was new information, concrete evidence as you said, they were in part agreeing with his research. I just want to say, I respect your opinions and apologize if I angered you.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I believe it depends on the person, like personally I think it's not a big issue to see to females kissing but since I am a male i'm not going to lie it would really bug me to see two males swapping spit. It's just the way you feel and how open you are to seeing homosexual pda, its not a bad thing to not like to see it, but most males perfer to see females engaging in sexual acts rather than a male because its just lets be honest " hotter". I don't mean to offend the gay males and there image, its just that females are always close with each other and to see them kissing would be more entertaining rather than disgusting.
ReplyDelete