Irish set to legalize same-sex marriage

[JadedWolf]

Lets make this thread more interesting.

 

I think we can all agree on that homosexuality is mostly based on biological factors, thus it is a set of genes and the respective hormones which are triggered during early development, right? As we also know, in times before, homosexuality was either completely shunned or acceptable as long as it was kept under wraps; as in it wasn't a big deal if both or one of the parents had same-sex lovers (in secret to most of course) as long as they were officially married and had children. While it denied lifelong happiness of the individual, it ironically made sure that homosexual trait was passed on to the next generation. But now, they can be married and adopt children as they wish; thus breaking the passing of the necessary genes that make up for homosexuality. Sure one can get a surrogate mother if one wishes to, but that is even more rare. 

 

So aren't we now basically breeding homosexuality out of the gene pool? Aren't we actually making society less diverse for our children?

 

Only if you assume it really is something that can be bred out. I honestly doubt it works that way.

 

Even if it did work that way, there are people who are bi-sexual. Or do you think that somehow bisexuality is linked to a completely different set of genes than homosexuality?

[Dadalama]

I like that in Meshugger's scenario, the Mormons may be the only hope in keeping gay people around.  

 

On a more serious note, given our major issues of overpopulation and neglected children across the world, the idea that some fabulous couples will get married, not have children of their own, and then take care of other people's kids sounds like an ideal situation.  

That would be a nice half of that puzzle.

I'd also like to see people be more accepting of couples that just do not want children. So you got single friends who say "they don't want kids". Stick up for them when someone starts talking ****.

[Meshugger]

 

Lets make this thread more interesting.

 

I think we can all agree on that homosexuality is mostly based on biological factors, thus it is a set of genes and the respective hormones which are triggered during early development, right? As we also know, in times before, homosexuality was either completely shunned or acceptable as long as it was kept under wraps; as in it wasn't a big deal if both or one of the parents had same-sex lovers (in secret to most of course) as long as they were officially married and had children. While it denied lifelong happiness of the individual, it ironically made sure that homosexual trait was passed on to the next generation. But now, they can be married and adopt children as they wish; thus breaking the passing of the necessary genes that make up for homosexuality. Sure one can get a surrogate mother if one wishes to, but that is even more rare. 

 

So aren't we now basically breeding homosexuality out of the gene pool? Aren't we actually making society less diverse for our children?

 

Only if you assume it really is something that can be bred out. I honestly doubt it works that way.

 

Even if it did work that way, there are people who are bi-sexual. Or do you think that somehow bisexuality is linked to a completely different set of genes than homosexuality?

 

 

I don't know. That's why i was asking.

[luzarius]

So, it must have been said already, but if you obsess about gay people and their activities and you are not gay yourself and not in any real sense affected by what they get up to; it is because there is something wrong with YOU. 

 

This is a common tactic to keep straight people at bay so they don't voice their opinions.  The LGBT have a guilt/insult tactic that works quite well for them. If you complain about gay crap, then someone will try to claim your gay.  If you complain about gay crap, someone will label you a bigot or a MASSAGINIST (Purposely misspelling it).

 

Sorry, that is not going to work.

 

Here is the problem,

 

* Too much gay on TV, it's getting annoying. At first I tolerated it, but it's getting worse. My kindness and tolerance are being taken advantage of.  I'm not alone, google too much gay on tv.

* An LGBT writer decides that straight males should be attracted to a transgender aka Cassandra Pentaghast looking like a god damn man. Some self righteous LGBT telling straight guy to look for a chick's inner beauty despite her looking like a transgender, F that. Then the only other option is Josephine who got hit hard with the ugly stick.

* Adding the gayest possible scenes to Game of Thrones when they weren't even there to begin with.

 

I used to not give a damn and wanted LGBT to be happy, but when LGBT start pro-actively ****ing with straight males, then there's a problem.

 

I'm purposely going to vote against any special rights/privelages for LGBT because David Gaider chose to make Cassandra Pentaghast look like a man and piss off straight male gamers, two can play at that game. 

Edited May 24, 2015 by luzarius

[JadedWolf]

I would just like to state how much I genuinely appreciate the ignore function of this board. Bravo! Very good feature.

[Namutree]

 

I'm purposely going to vote against any special rights/privelages for LGBT because David Gaider chose to make Cassandra Pentaghast look like a man and piss off straight male gamers, two can play at that game. 

 

Sounds reasonable.

[Zoraptor]

I don't know. That's why i was asking.

 

 

Despite having done (basically) no research on it I'd be pretty confident in saying it doesn't work that way- it's actually extremely hard to breed traits out even with an organised effort. There's been thousands of years of work on shorter lived species like pigs and sheep yet they'll revert to wild types quite quickly- especially pigs which will go from fat pink hairless porkers to smaller black hairy wild boar in only a couple of generations. The stuff on 'gay genes' on wikipedia (heh/ meh/ L0L) is extremely unconvincing about there being any strong genetic link of the type people usually think of from stuff like eye colour.

 

Or in other words, homosexuality won't strictly obey the archetype Mendelian genetics, ie there won't be Z = 'straight' z = 'gay' --> ZZ = straight Zz/zZ = bisexual zz = gay and you wouldn't be able to get bisexuals by breeding 'pure gay' with 'pure straight' and breed out teh gay by only breeding 'pure straight' with each other. If there were it would have been found already, albeit analysing a behaviour type by genetics is inherently difficult since it is a behaviour which may be suppressed/ enhanced by social pressures or conditioned in/ out at various times and there are people who don't realise they're gay until late in life etc. Something like eye colour is an objective trait, homosexuality is far more subjective and complex.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

We got someone triggered by gays couples?

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2015 by KaineParker

[Meshugger]

 

I don't know. That's why i was asking.

 

 

Despite having done (basically) no research on it I'd be pretty confident in saying it doesn't work that way- it's actually extremely hard to breed traits out even with an organised effort. There's been thousands of years of work on shorter lived species like pigs and sheep yet they'll revert to wild types quite quickly- especially pigs which will go from fat pink hairless porkers to smaller black hairy wild boar in only a couple of generations. The stuff on 'gay genes' on wikipedia (heh/ meh/ L0L) is extremely unconvincing about there being any strong genetic link of the type people usually think of from stuff like eye colour.

 

Or in other words, homosexuality won't strictly obey the archetype Mendelian genetics, ie there won't be Z = 'straight' z = 'gay' --> ZZ = straight Zz/zZ = bisexual zz = gay and you wouldn't be able to get bisexuals by breeding 'pure gay' with 'pure straight' and breed out teh gay by only breeding 'pure straight' with each other. If there were it would have been found already, albeit analysing a behaviour type by genetics is inherently difficult since it is a behaviour which may be suppressed/ enhanced by social pressures or conditioned in/ out at various times and there are people who don't realise they're gay until late in life etc. Something like eye colour is an objective trait, homosexuality is far more subjective and complex.

 

 

Like with many other (sets) of genes, some are not triggered until the right conditions or within certain levels of hormones. There is no secret that for example sociopaths are left unnoticed because they 1) The mother didn't drink/smoke during pregancy 2) had a great childhood 3) do not have the "warrior"-gene as well. These people do have selfish characteristic and sometimes lack certain empathy, but still fully functional to have happy lives without harming their families and society. Maybe it is the same here.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Meshugger

[JadedWolf]

 

These people do have shelfish characteristic and sometimes lack certain empathy, but still fully functional to have happy lives without harming their families and society. Maybe it is the same here.

 

 

What shellfish characteristics do they have?

 

Pincers?

 

Antennae?

[Meshugger]

 

 

These people do have shelfish characteristic and sometimes lack certain empathy, but still fully functional to have happy lives without harming their families and society. Maybe it is the same here.

 

 

What shellfish characteristics do they have?

 

Pincers?

 

Antennae?

 

 

I just gonna have to take it on this one. You're welcome.

[Walsingham]

If it's a matter of offspring I could care less about how happy they are.

 

What I want to know is: can gay couples raise children who don't use their ****ing mobile phones in cinemas? CAN THEY? BECAUSE IF THEY CAN THEN I SAY WE ONLY HAVE GAY MARRIAGE.

[JadedWolf]

 

 

 

These people do have shelfish characteristic and sometimes lack certain empathy, but still fully functional to have happy lives without harming their families and society. Maybe it is the same here.

 

 

What shellfish characteristics do they have?

 

Pincers?

 

Antennae?

 

 

I just gonna have to take it on this one. You're welcome.

 

 

Sorry, that one was just begging for it. On a more serious note, I really don't think we'll ever be able to tell beforehand who will grow up to have certain characteristics. While I won't deny that there are certain traits that run in families, geniuses have been born out of completely average parents, and psychopaths have been born in the most virtuous families. There is still a lot of randomness out there when it comes to what determines how someone will end up. And I for one am rather glad that that's the case.

[Zoraptor]

Like with many other (sets) of genes, some are not triggered until the right conditions or within certain levels of hormones. There is no secret that for example sociopaths are left unnoticed because they 1) The mother didn't drink/smoke during pregancy 2) had a great childhood 3) do not have the "warrior"-gene as well. These people do have selfish characteristic and sometimes lack certain empathy, but still fully functional to have happy lives without harming their families and society. Maybe it is the same here.

 

 

While that is true the more complex the behaviour/ the control of the behaviour the more difficult it is to breed out said behaviour because there are more factors involved. If, for example, there were a gene that 'turned people gay'- or conversely, turned them straight- in their twenties through hormone inbalance there would be a fair chance their genes would be carried on, as would anyone's with 'gay tending genes' who was involved in a heterosexual relationship at any point. With something as complex as human behaviour it is almost always a predisposition towards/ away from something rather than an absolute process; we're not stereotype amoeba stimulus/ response behaviour wise, we're stimulus/ think/ response for most types of behaviour and this makes behavioural selection rather... fuzzy where we are concerned. That leads, of course, to the main problem with any statistical analysis that is required to detect any 'gay influencing genes', while it sounds rather like something an evangelical preacher would say it is possible to suppress behaviour via will power or lie about it since it is behaviour.

 

Sociopathy is not really- or perhaps is, depending on perspective- a good example since last time I checked there wasn't even a globally accepted definition of sociopathy (it was called something like type IV psychopathy, iirc, and disputed that 'sociopathy' existed seperately). Essentially though, neither sociopathy nor homosexuality can 'die out' due to genetic factors so long as there are complex genetic and behavioural systems in play as some with either trait set or incomplete parts of a trait set will still have children to carry on the influencer genes.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

 

An LGBT writer decides that straight males should be attracted to a transgender aka Cassandra Pentaghast looking like a god damn man. Some self righteous LGBT telling straight guy to look for a chick's inner beauty despite her looking like a transgender, F that.

 

I'm not seeing how she's ugly and, unless I'm missing something, she doesn't seem to be transgender - unless you're saying short hair is ugly and automatically makes a girl transgendered and if that's the case you're just wrong.

 

 

[Barothmuk]

unless you're saying short hair is ugly and automatically makes a girl transgendered

Clearly you're not up to date on tumblr newspeak.

[Namutree]

 

 

An LGBT writer decides that straight males should be attracted to a transgender aka Cassandra Pentaghast looking like a god damn man. Some self righteous LGBT telling straight guy to look for a chick's inner beauty despite her looking like a transgender, F that.

 

I'm not seeing how she's ugly and, unless I'm missing something, she doesn't seem to be transgender - unless you're saying short hair is ugly and automatically makes a girl transgendered and if that's the case you're just wrong.

Now you've done it. That was a can of worms that shouldn't have been opened.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

An LGBT writer decides that straight males should be attracted to a transgender aka Cassandra Pentaghast looking like a god damn man. Some self righteous LGBT telling straight guy to look for a chick's inner beauty despite her looking like a transgender, F that.

 

I'm not seeing how she's ugly and, unless I'm missing something, she doesn't seem to be transgender - unless you're saying short hair is ugly and automatically makes a girl transgendered and if that's the case you're just wrong.

Now you've done it. That was a can of worms that shouldn't have been opened.

 

 

I admire you guys for even attempting to debate with luzarius. His views are so illogical and bigoted I just don't have any interest 

[Oerwinde]

Lets make this thread more interesting.

 

I think we can all agree on that homosexuality is mostly based on biological factors, thus it is a set of genes and the respective hormones which are triggered during early development, right? As we also know, in times before, homosexuality was either completely shunned or acceptable as long as it was kept under wraps; as in it wasn't a big deal if both or one of the parents had same-sex lovers (in secret to most of course) as long as they were officially married and had children. While it denied lifelong happiness of the individual, it ironically made sure that homosexual trait was passed on to the next generation. But now, they can be married and adopt children as they wish; thus breaking the passing of the necessary genes that make up for homosexuality. Sure one can get a surrogate mother if one wishes to, but that is even more rare.

 

So aren't we now basically breeding homosexuality out of the gene pool? Aren't we actually making society less diverse for our children?

At FanExpo Vancouver, someone asked John Barrowman what little known project he's done that he would like more people to see. I don't remember what it was called but he talked about how he thinks its stupid that its taboo to study homosexuality and that he actually wanted to find out why he is the way he is and did a program regarding that. Supposedly its looking like its mostly early fetal development conditions that causes it. Estrogen levels, the mothers stress, etc. So they are born that way, but its not genetic.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Lets make this thread more interesting.

I think we can all agree on that homosexuality is mostly based on biological factors, thus it is a set of genes and the respective hormones which are triggered during early development, right? As we also know, in times before, homosexuality was either completely shunned or acceptable as long as it was kept under wraps; as in it wasn't a big deal if both or one of the parents had same-sex lovers (in secret to most of course) as long as they were officially married and had children. While it denied lifelong happiness of the individual, it ironically made sure that homosexual trait was passed on to the next generation. But now, they can be married and adopt children as they wish; thus breaking the passing of the necessary genes that make up for homosexuality. Sure one can get a surrogate mother if one wishes to, but that is even more rare.

So aren't we now basically breeding homosexuality out of the gene pool? Aren't we actually making society less diverse for our children?

At FanExpo Vancouver, someone asked John Barrowman what little known project he's done that he would like more people to see. I don't remember what it was called but he talked about how he thinks its stupid that its taboo to study homosexuality and that he actually wanted to find out why he is the way he is and did a program regarding that. Supposedly its looking like its mostly early fetal development conditions that causes it. Estrogen levels, the mothers stress, etc. So they are born that way, but its not genetic.

I think he did do something like that, the making of me or something.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Lets make this thread more interesting.

I think we can all agree on that homosexuality is mostly based on biological factors, thus it is a set of genes and the respective hormones which are triggered during early development, right? As we also know, in times before, homosexuality was either completely shunned or acceptable as long as it was kept under wraps; as in it wasn't a big deal if both or one of the parents had same-sex lovers (in secret to most of course) as long as they were officially married and had children. While it denied lifelong happiness of the individual, it ironically made sure that homosexual trait was passed on to the next generation. But now, they can be married and adopt children as they wish; thus breaking the passing of the necessary genes that make up for homosexuality. Sure one can get a surrogate mother if one wishes to, but that is even more rare.

So aren't we now basically breeding homosexuality out of the gene pool? Aren't we actually making society less diverse for our children?

At FanExpo Vancouver, someone asked John Barrowman what little known project he's done that he would like more people to see. I don't remember what it was called but he talked about how he thinks its stupid that its taboo to study homosexuality and that he actually wanted to find out why he is the way he is and did a program regarding that. Supposedly its looking like its mostly early fetal development conditions that causes it. Estrogen levels, the mothers stress, etc. So they are born that way, but its not genetic.

I think he did do something like that, the making of me or something.

 

 

That might be interesting. Thanks for the tip!

 

...and Cassandra looks really off for me for some reason. The face simply do not look feminine enough.

 

But each to each own i guess.

[Oerwinde]

That might be interesting. Thanks for the tip!

 

...and Cassandra looks really off for me for some reason. The face simply do not look feminine enough.

 

But each to each own i guess.

They completely overhauled her design from DA2 because they wanted the females to be non-typical, or some BS. Then they made it so you can't mod it to make her look like DA2 Cassandra.

[Barothmuk]

As someone who hates most of what Bioware does I thought Cassandra looked genuinely cool.

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

Lets make this thread more interesting.

I think we can all agree on that homosexuality is mostly based on biological factors, thus it is a set of genes and the respective hormones which are triggered during early development, right? As we also know, in times before, homosexuality was either completely shunned or acceptable as long as it was kept under wraps; as in it wasn't a big deal if both or one of the parents had same-sex lovers (in secret to most of course) as long as they were officially married and had children. While it denied lifelong happiness of the individual, it ironically made sure that homosexual trait was passed on to the next generation. But now, they can be married and adopt children as they wish; thus breaking the passing of the necessary genes that make up for homosexuality. Sure one can get a surrogate mother if one wishes to, but that is even more rare.

So aren't we now basically breeding homosexuality out of the gene pool? Aren't we actually making society less diverse for our children?

At FanExpo Vancouver, someone asked John Barrowman what little known project he's done that he would like more people to see. I don't remember what it was called but he talked about how he thinks its stupid that its taboo to study homosexuality and that he actually wanted to find out why he is the way he is and did a program regarding that. Supposedly its looking like its mostly early fetal development conditions that causes it. Estrogen levels, the mothers stress, etc. So they are born that way, but its not genetic.

 

I think he did do something like that, the making of me or something.

 

 

That might be interesting. Thanks for the tip!

 

...and Cassandra looks really off for me for some reason. The face simply do not look feminine enough.

 

But each to each own i guess.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m27Awmlgi38

 

And DAI was awful. I would've taken a Cassandra that looked like an ogre if the combat wasn't ****.

[Zoraptor]

Supposedly its looking like its mostly early fetal development conditions that causes it. Estrogen levels, the mothers stress, etc. So they are born that way, but its not genetic.

 

 

The problem with that is the same essential problem there is with there being a 'strong' genetic base for homosexuality- twins. If there is a strong basis for homosexuality based on genetics then there should be a strong correlation of identical twins sharing the same sexuality as they are nearly genetically identical, if it is due to in utero factors there should be a strong correlation in both identical and non identical twins as they share near identical in utero conditions and its maternal/ environmental factors. There is some correlation in both cases, but it isn't strong enough to justify either explanation except as a factor rather than a cause.