Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: The World and LGBT Lifestyles

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> Out of Context >> RE: The World and LGBT Lifestyles
Page 3 of 7«<12345>»
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
8/4/2012 21:46:26   
sacchi
Constructively Friendly!


quote:

I know I'm straight, therefore I am born straight.
Gay people know they are gay, therefore they are born gay.


No, it is this one:
I didn't choose to be straight, I didn't choose to like women. I just do.
Therefore, I didn't choose who I'm attracted to.
This "not a choice, I just do" behavior is something other people can also experience.
It is possible that other people like things that I don't.
Therefore, they didn't choose who they're attracted to, they just do. Men can like men, they didn't choose it, they just do. Same applies to lesbians and bisexuals.

And finally, we have to respect their beliefs. Choice or not choice, WHO CARES? Shouldn't they be entitled to have the same rights as other people?

I feel like sometimes discussions revolve around silly things. Is it natural, is it a gene, is it a choice? Who cares...the thing is that people share other views that you don't and they're equal to yours, or at least shouldn't be discriminated or segregated because of the law, and the law should protect the rights of all the citizens, now just the ones who share the views of the majority.

I once had this discussion with a teacher of my university. She decided to use a man who could fly as an example. "Do you believe a man who can fly would be natural?", she asked. I replied that "No, but it would be freaking awesome, we should let the man fly and enjoy himself. If he had wings, who are we to take them away from him?". Yep, she didn't like my response, and I've realized that I have her as my teacher starting next Monday. Hope she doesn't remember me ;)

< Message edited by sacchi -- 8/4/2012 21:49:25 >
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 51
8/4/2012 21:50:37   
The Extinguisher
Member

Also that. Why does it matter if it's a choice, genetic, a result of complicated environmental factors, or bestowed by the magic gay fairy? Shouldn't they allowed to have happiness and not be discriminated against and actually be given the same benefits as "traditional couples"
Post #: 52
8/4/2012 22:24:06   
Captain Kidd
Member

First of all, I need to make a few points:

1) The intention of this thread, is solely that of civilized conversation around a topic that is otherwise off the table for discussion. It is a privilege, an opportunity given by Eukara and company to show that you are capable of handling this. It's been good until recently.
2) Going off of the first point made, the usage of bold and capitalized formatting is not synonymous with civilized behavior in a thread.
3) Lastly, if you wish to direct others' attention to a link, you need to explain why the aforementioned is relevant to your point. Simply dropping a link in a post and expecting it to be interpreted correctly is not viable way of conveying your message.

If these three points cannot be utilized from here on out, you will be forcing either myself or another of the OOC staff to act on it.

AQ  Post #: 53
8/4/2012 22:30:53   
Josh
Displaying lekcentric behaviour


Despite having had to stare at bio papers for the last few years, the one linked still made my head hurt. Argh. That's a lot of technical sludge. Anyway, so far as I can tell, it's just a paper mainly about locations of a couple of genes, what happens to them when an x chromosome swaps DNA with another chromosome, and some stuff about mouse-human cell hybrids. I'm really not sure why it was linked; it says nothing about homosexuality. None of the papers that reference it mention homosexuality either.

The first paper to link homosexuality and xq28 was published in 1993, so yeah. The linked paper is a bit irrelevant, being published in 1980. It's hardly background reading.

Anyway, I've had a look through the more recent reviews, and (surprise surprise!) there's nothing concrete. Some genes show a slight degree of influence, but nothing major; some studies didn't find any link at all. Bits of this give a more non-biologist-friendly overview.

Key bit - "Hamer's own later work found a much weaker association between homosexuality and chromosome Xq28, although several other loci in the genome appeared to show robust associations, even if none of them contributed more than a quantitatively small fraction of the overall trait"

Summary - just go read what Exti said. It's a big, complicated thing, with many many genes and other things too. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my.
AQ DF  Post #: 54
8/5/2012 5:06:08   
Rillian
Member

I'm afraid my points don't seem to get across. Somehow, tradition had been brought up, even though tradition plays practically no part in my stance. And it seems I have been portrayed as one who doesn't want happiness for the gay community.

I honestly don't know how my minute points have elicited such long walls of texts. I posted simply to offer my opinion, and not to change the popular view(which is evidently impossible).

I will provide another yet another analogy to my stance on gay marriage:

The Thai community have a group of people called the Kathoei. These group of people are transgender, and they commonly view themselves as of the opposite gender. Now as much as a male Kathoey considers himself a woman, he is prohibited from entering a female toilet. If a male kathoey feels uncomfortable about being in a male toilet, the government should press for more toilets(albeit impractical), but not allow males to enter female toilets (Need I say why?). Shouldn't everyone have the right to be happy and comfortable? Sure! But the world isn't fair. The concept of equal rights has been thrown around. However, I believe even equal rights has its limits.

@Sacchi:
I'm really surprised you actually mentioned the following:
quote:

we have to respect their beliefs.

Because you seem to be doing quite the contrary with my belief. I believe that marriage is defined as a binding contract between a man and a woman, but here you are attempting to rebutt my opinion


Anyway, I'm not "going against the grain" per se, as what Eukara Vox has mentioned. I simply wanted to share my opinion. It's not a popular one; I certainly expected differing views, but I see no point in continuing this discussion since this appears to be transcending into nothing more than an eristic argument. I rest my case.

< Message edited by Rillian -- 8/5/2012 5:13:17 >
AQ  Post #: 55
8/5/2012 9:40:26   
Randokkotonoshi
Member

Marriage is a contract between three parties, traditionally the man, woman, and state in secular contracts. In a traditional sense, the third leg of this contract is your higher power of choice. Why, from a legal stance, would this be hard to amend to include marriage between individuals of the same gender? Since marriage is a licensed authorization that you have to pay the state for, you'd think there would be some incentive to legalize it.

Niether the state, you, or me should be concerned with the happenings in someone else's bedroom.
AQ  Post #: 56
8/5/2012 11:30:36   
The Extinguisher
Member

quote:

The Thai community have a group of people called the Kathoei. These group of people are transgender, and they commonly view themselves as of the opposite gender. Now as much as a male Kathoey considers himself a woman, he is prohibited from entering a female toilet. If a male kathoey feels uncomfortable about being in a male toilet, the government should press for more toilets(albeit impractical), but not allow males to enter female toilets (Need I say why?). Shouldn't everyone have the right to be happy and comfortable? Sure! But the world isn't fair. The concept of equal rights has been thrown around. However, I believe even equal rights has its limits.


Why not? Honestly. Why not? What harm is there from guys and girls using the same bathrooms. I think there should be more unisex bathrooms and we should get rid of relics from our more sexist days like separate bathrooms. We don't still have black and white water fountains.
Post #: 57
8/5/2012 13:21:57   
sacchi
Constructively Friendly!


quote:

Because you seem to be doing quite the contrary with my belief. I believe that marriage is defined as a binding contract between a man and a woman, but here you are attempting to rebutt my opinion


You're right, I expressed myself really, really wrong. It's not about respecting the views themselves, but respecting the people's rights despite their views being different from yours. That's what I meant, sorry if I confused you. As you say, you're the one with the unpopular opinion here. But still, your rights aren't being oppressed. You can still post, edit, delete your posts, and continue discussing this topic with us. Some people don't agree with you, including some with the power to do stuff such as delete all your posts, but it isn't being done. That's the idea. Respect the people, but not the views. Let them marry, adopt, find happiness, and enjoy their rights even if you don't agree with them.

It's not about agreeing with other people's views, it's about allowing them to take another different stance in life, and not punish them for that legally.

Since you didn't mention anything related to the other part of my other post and just decided to quote 6 words, I'll guess that you understood the logic in dracoa's argument.
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 58
8/5/2012 14:20:10   
Superemo
Constructive!


@Exti: Because, for the first few months, at least, it wouldn't be "normal", so crime related to it would skyrocket. It's the reason countries with gun laws tend to keep them: whenever something goes from illegal status to legal status, its popularity spikes dramatically, and a handful of people start acting stupid with it and ruin it for everybody. In the case of legalizing marriages between non-heterosexual couples, the handful of people would be the intolerant gangs of people who can't stand seeing someone who isn't like them happy.

My view on the problem is that it only exists because we've blurred the line between a religious institution and a legal one. Marriage needs to be classified as either a religious ceremony or a legal contract. If it's a religious ceremony, it should have no bearing on legal matters. If it's a legal contract, then discrimination based on sexual orientation would be illegal.
AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 59
8/5/2012 14:30:26   
Rillian
Member

quote:

Why not? Honestly. Why not? What harm is there from guys and girls using the same bathrooms. I think there should be more unisex bathrooms and we should get rid of relics from our more sexist days like separate bathrooms. We don't still have black and white water fountains.

Comparing two different genders to two different races now? Comparing human anatomy; males from females, to the mere colour of the human skin? This is a textbook example of a strawman argument. With all due respect, are you arguing simply for the sake of arguing? I don't even know how to begin rebutting your comments because there doesn't even seem to be very much of a structure in your points IMO. And I believe you said something earlier along the lines that "fallacies are important to me". Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? Permitting an error in reasoning in a discussion without addressing it makes zero sense to me.

I believe I failed to address densoro's claim that I have committed the fallacist's fallacy. This is not exactly correct. I have not claimed false any of the arguments, but rather questioned the validity of them.

@sacchi:
I didn't mention dracoa's post because it doesn't make sense to me.

It is understood through nature that living creatures generally mate/bond with the opposite gender. Just because that is the status quo for this case, doesn't necessarily mean it applies to homosexuality. You'd notice you simply mentioned "Same applies to lesbians and bisexuals". Now I can't accept that. I'm afraid there's no concrete link, and that's why I brought up studies on the gay gene.

There is an extent to how far I'm willing to debate about a particular topic. John McCain spoke on national television to Ellen Degeneres about his beliefs on gay marriage. When it comes to something like gay marriage, it comes down purely to beliefs. Which is why I'm not going to waste anymore time debating on gay marriage.
AQ  Post #: 60
8/5/2012 20:04:00   
Densoro
Member

quote:

I'm afraid my points don't seem to get across. Somehow, tradition had been brought up, even though tradition plays practically no part in my stance. And it seems I have been portrayed as one who doesn't want happiness for the gay community.

It's because we've gotten caught up in a tangent of 'Is it natural? Is it genetic? Is it psychological?' etc etc etc. The important part is once again that whatever is, it's not negotiable, as you might notice everybody claiming to have been 'cured' still has to suppress their 'evil' thoughts. However you came to your sexuality, you're stuck with it, so how do we justify telling some people they're just not allowed to marry because of something that's hardcoded into them?
AQ DF  Post #: 61
8/5/2012 21:41:49   
stealthwings
Helpful


@Rillian
Marriage itself has been redefined many times, and means different things to different people/countries. So far, the "man and woman" part has always been there, but other parts of it are/were flexible. The gender of the participants seems a minor detail when comparing an economic arrangement to an act of love.
DF MQ  Post #: 62
8/5/2012 22:52:13   
Chosen 0ne
Banned


I was the secretary at our school G.S.A. Long story short; throughout the year I had to deal with LOTS of angry parents. Lol.

I believe that LBGTQ's should have the right to marry.

But we have pretty much made it taboo to say words such as, "Queer, gay, (Used to mean stupid) and the like.

It sure turns heads. Need I mention this was at a middle school.

Right now we have a lot of out kids there. IN general the students don't care about it; but the adults do. We are lucky and we have very supportive teachers. LGBTQ students feel safe where I'm from.

I know people that thought I was gay for a long time; in fact a couple thought that I told people that and I was out so to speak. After saying I am not in fact LGBT; the way students talked and treated me remained the same.

Remember to keep the language PG, even if your only intention is to give examples of words that may be hurtful or insulting to members of the LGBT community.

< Message edited by Gundisalvus -- 8/6/2012 0:12:40 >
DF AQW Epic  Post #: 63
8/9/2012 22:55:22   
TheKingofDoom&Gloom
Member

I'm not sure if we're allowed to discuss portrayal in the media, but I thought I'd share some examples I find interesting.

From my observations, anything trans related gets downplayed or ignored. The repealment of DADT is a good example, while it allows openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual individuals to serve in the US military, those who are transgender and out are not. Being trans is basically considered a disability. But I've seldom seen this mentioned. In addition, when a US state bans anti-discrimination laws pertaining to gender identity or expression it gets ignored because X state passed a bill allowing civil unions, etc.

What I found most intriguing relates to Jenna Talackova and the Miss Universe controversy. I was amazed by the number of liberal people (on a Facebook page nonetheless) who were opposed to her competing in the pageant.

It's sad despite the fact the gays right movement and trans rights movement began at roughly the same time, one has made significant progress over the other.

Post #: 64
8/11/2012 1:18:43   
Supertails
L♥ve


^ I agree wholeheartedly, actually. I wish that the transgender movement was actually paid more attention, rather than put aside as "but that is too far". A lot of people seem to think we should just focus on the gay movement now and deal with that later, but that seems a bit hypocritical to me. If you support them both, you should support them both equally. In both cases, people are affected, and only saying anything about one means that the other gets downplayed and the stigma continues. But I believe I also dealt with this in my first post, that the trans movement is, at least, a lot more in the spotlight and accepted than it was even just years ago.
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 65
8/11/2012 11:03:52   
Randokkotonoshi
Member

Baby steps. The transgender movement will eventually move forward, but right now our society has to accept that homosexuals are people too and deserve every right a heterosexual has. Transgenders tend to blur where that line between homo and hetero falls. Should it matter? Absolutely not. Its a pretty empty classification (which is why I don't use terms like "homosexual lifestyle", what does that even imply?). It matters to the masses though.

< Message edited by Randokkotonoshi -- 8/11/2012 11:07:02 >
AQ  Post #: 66
8/13/2012 21:52:06   
Kaelin
 Strange World


quote:

Incest has a valid scientific reason against it, but what about polygamy?

Polygamy does not pose scientific problems, but marital polygamy imposes logistical difficulties. Many medical and property issues award decision/ownership power by default to one's spouse, but there is no such unambiguous singular individual in a polygamous relationship. For example, if a husband with multiple wives gets sick, which wife gets the decision-making power over care? It is possible to structure a legal document with some resemblance to marriage that clarifies these details (which all husbands and/or wives have to agree to at once), but this sort of generalization is nontrivial. Same-sex pairings do not present the same difficulty, because you basically just have to change the "Husband" and "Wife" to "Person" and "Person." Aside from that, if someone wants to develop a legal contract to cover a 3+ person group of people who love each other, more power to them (although organizations are permitted to adjust their rules to reflect the unique nature of the arrangement).

quote:

It is understood through nature that living creatures generally mate/bond with the opposite gender.

There are species of two sexes for which a sizable minority (or more) of sexual behavior is same-sex. That said, it doesn't matter if one pairing is more common than another within humanity, much less the totality of species which reproduce sexually (rather than asexually). It simply concerns a tendency, just as people tend to have Rh+ blood and be right-handed.

quote:

The one thing I heavily criticize of homosexuals are the image they're giving the rest of society of themselves.... I've seen pictures of various gay pride parades, and it is my firm opinion that if they just dressed in their casual clothes they'd achieve so much more.

In essence, this sort of gets back to separating gay/etc people from the choices certain gay/etc people make. Some of the people most irritated by exaggerated displays are straight-laced gay/etc people who resent such presentations (since it leads to gay/etc people like themselves being stereotyped as different from heterosexual people). A more extreme analogy would be run-of-the-mill US Muslims who suffer because of "Islamic" terrorists. Granted, dressing in sexualized fashion is nowhere near terrorism, but it serves as a visceral example of what stereotypes can do.

quote:

If the gay gene was normal, our population should be decreasing, not increasing.

The proportion of same-sex attraction is only one factor that impacts population. The bottom line is whether people collectively spawn enough children who in turn survive to reproduce. Besides the fact gay people still reproduce, the population can still grow if adults on average produce more than two children who survive to reproduce themselves. Even if one subgroup (like wealthy people) is "underperforming," it is possible for the total of society to compensate.

quote:

I hold my stance simply because studies regarding the gay gene have been inconclusive.

The issue is that the stance is not easily taken as "neutral." Presumed existence of a "gay gene" aside, you have already indicated a preference for separating mixed-sex couples from same-sex couples without proving (just citing your personal preference) that they need to be separated -- and as argued before, "separate but equal" is inherently unequal (generally against the traditionally discriminated group). Law is not the realm of what is convenient but rather what is fair and just (and that means removing unnecessary discrimination under the law). Furthermore, you have also regarded same-sex attraction as something that "deviates" from normal, which again focuses on difference. Whether you intend it or not, it is a tone that can reasonably be interpreted as disrespectful -- if you were in a gay person's shoes, would you like to be treated that way?

quote:

From my observations, anything trans related gets downplayed or ignored.

This point is especially true, and given some of the reasons, it is hardly a surprise. Imbedded in that single "T" are lots of different groups, including people who are transsexual (male and female; post-op, pre-op, and non-op), intersex, androgyne, third gender, and arguably people who simply do not conform to gender norms (which can either be a tiny or massive tent depending on how strictly you take the phrase "conform to gender norms"). The transgender family has also received a lot less discussion in relatively "serious" media, yet adult content (and low-brow "comedy") freely distorts their identity and sexuality, which not only leads to the T getting misrepresented, but it leads to them being represented primarily in sexual terms, which is the sort of thing that held gay/lesbian/bisexual/etc people back for so long. Also, within that T family, people for the most part don't get to "see" the successful transsexuals, because they pass (fit in) as their self-identified gender -- the "unsuccessful" examples are generally who stand out.

A weird outcome of that relative ignorance is that, yes, the political wings will not be as far apart on issues concerning gender identity. Yet even when it comes to attitudes towards sexual orientation, voters' beliefs do not fall in lockstep with their nearest political party. People are much more complicated than that, and trans issues are merely one category that may illustrate this point better than most. It reinforces the need for us to keep our "allies" honest and to keep reaching out to those with whom we often butt heads.

Supertails touches on the "but not too far" philosophy* (which is closely tied to the "slippery slope" fallacy). These sort of issues are often debated too often in terms of their specifics without visiting the underlying principles that guide them. It's all well and good to say "we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of [X]," but one must also consider the principles by which we may and/or should discriminate. If we require that a positive informed affirmation be made in order for a relationship to take place, then same-sex couples are possible, but sufficiently-underage couplings can be prevented (on the basis that an underage person cannot provide informed consent and may be coerced into the relationship against their will). If some of the corollaries emotionally bother us, we should seek to resolve them by revisiting the underlying principles and/or adjusting the meaning of the corollaries -- polygamy by itself does not present an intrinsic harm, but as I discussed in my first paragraph, the existing marriage contract is simply unworkable for them (never mind insurance policies, apartment leases, and various other contracts that rely on legal marriage), so a legal contract facilitating polygamy *must* be different (and generally not as strong). It is not in our culture to think in this way, but I believe our thinking and policy will be at its sharpest if we challenge ourselves and others to think in broader terms. We can't all speak out to the masses as a whole on this point, but we can try to do this with individuals as matters come up in our daily lives.

* "But not too far" has its place -- in terms of power sharing and wealth distribution, a balancing act is a necessary part of what goes on.

< Message edited by Kaelin -- 8/13/2012 22:09:10 >
AQ  Post #: 67
8/13/2012 22:18:47   
Tdub
Member

I do not believe that people were meant to be with those of the same gender, and I am a supporter of the traditional definition of the marriage between one man and one woman.

That being said, I believe that people have a right to live whatever lifestyle they choose, or, as pointed out earlier, have no choice in. While I myself do not find myself attracted to my gender, I recognize that people have a right to marry who they want.

However, the Chick-Fil-A issue amazed me. Because the owner said that they supported traditional marriage, same-sex supporters claimed the restraunt didn't like gays. I think that was an overreaction. If a gay person walks in and orders a number three, followed by a straight person who orders the same, the orders will be exactly alike. I don't eat at a place because of the owner's beliefs. I eat at a place for food, hopefully food that tastes good.

I don't discriminate against a person because of their orientation. I accept everyone for who they are. It isn't like I could change them anyway.
Post #: 68
8/13/2012 22:33:41   
Sir Nicholas
Member

I personally do not care one way or another what kind of lifestyle another person happens to live, as it is their right to do so, but only so long as it does not entail something unethical.
______________________

I have no problems whatsoever with homosexuality or same-sex marriage, provided the feelings exist and it is a stable and loving relationship. I must also stress that the conservatives who stress that such things are morally wrong do not have the right to judge others for their beliefs. It is within their rights to disagree - but to discriminate is not.

Basically what I believe is: "Nothing in excess". Meaning, I believe homosexuals deserve the very same rights and freedoms and should not be prejudiced against, simply for being different.

That is all I am going to say.

_____________________

http://library.globalchalet.net/Authors/Blizzard%20Books/Diablo/3%20Diablo%20-%20The%20Sin%20War%20Trilogy%20-%2003%20-%20The%20Veiled%20Prophet.pdf

< Message edited by Sir Nicholas -- 1/28/2014 3:06:24 >
AQ  Post #: 69
8/13/2012 23:09:41   
Artemisia
Savant


Pardon my ignorance, but I don't see why something like this should be seen as a lifestyle at all. I'm sure everything must be different where you all are, though, so I probably can't perfectly relate. I feel a little shy coming into a thread like this, honestly. I believe in equal rights for everyone, but this comes at a cost. It is honestly something that can not happen overnight, as much as everyone on the one side wants it to, or as much as everyone on the other doesn't. Allow me to explain where I'm coming from.

Our society started out as a dim-witted, and highly segregated group of naÔve people who condemned any difference another may have. These things, though old and outdated, still linger in a much smaller scale today. I always use the example of the corset to try to make this understandable. This example is the infamous Catherine de' Medici of France, who had made it a law to be thin by wearing metal corsets that strangled the body. She was disgusted by people who weren't thin, and her influence lasted for 350 years of French laws that were enforced, and is seen even today with a disgust of people who aren't thin, while prior being thicker was a sign of wealth. While this may not seem like a good example, I'll point out that people tortured themselves to fit in, lowered their own life expectancy, and people who did not were seen as different and ridiculed, and some even extradited, but they still stuck with what they believed in. Eventually these laws crippled and while there are still results that can be traced back to this, we've overcome such a dark period in our history as best we can.

What I'm trying to say is that we are becoming more accepting of other people, even if it takes longer than a day, a month, or even a year. There has been a lot of progress made on this subject, but it is hard to tell from our short lifetimes. With that said, the introduction of the Internet has done very wonderful things for the cause, and some very disturbing things against it. This said, progress has been very much steady and while my country has never had a same-sex marriage, I am seeing it a lot in other countries. The speed of progress surely has changed, though acceptance as a whole has grown substantially.

As far as it being a choice or not... Why does that even matter? I've seen countless discussion on it, and while I don't believe it is genetic, I don't see why that makes it wrong to be what you want to be, or who you are. As long as you aren't violent, harmful, or disorderly, I think everyone should have the simple right of being themselves. I see nothing wrong with people who can find love, and I don't see why we should see it differently at all, or label it a different lifestyle. Singling things out as different is part of the problem.
AQ AQW  Post #: 70
8/13/2012 23:14:10   
Yammka
Member

quote:

I don't eat at a place because of the owner's beliefs.

Would you still eat at the place knowing that the man actively funds anti-gay organizations? That's among the major problems I have with the whole situation. If Cathy was just spouting his beliefs, I wouldn't give a quad and I'd be with you. But your money is being used to effectively fund the people who would discriminate against others. That is why I will never spend a cent more at the place.
AQ  Post #: 71
8/13/2012 23:32:19   
Arch Fiend
Member
 

Um, first id like to not in this very very short post (considering my track record) that Iím completely tolerant of any actions humanly capable as long as they donít contradict what weíve evolved physically, mentally, and socially to become (so next to hurting ppl Iím cool). But Iím just curious if 10+ is to early or not for such a discussion as this to be acceptable.

Thereís a minor responsibility we all share no matter how intellectually "superior" we may or may not be with our advanced age and experience, with our youngest audience which basically all the games currently this community supports targets. if this all is appropriate then Iím fine and dandy, id just like someone to tap someone high up on the food chain and go "hey bro, dis kosher?"

Anyway, thatís all I have to contribute other then i think we should all take a stand on the side that supports one another regardless of how we each feel on the inside as long as its a physically safe choice we can make.
AQ AQW  Post #: 72
8/14/2012 0:30:39   
Eukara Vox
Legendary AdventureGuide!


Considering I am the head moderator of this forum, and I am a forum administrator, I am pretty sure this is kosher. I am, after all, the original poster who has spent months wording this topic and creating the regulations to allow this to be here. This topic is not crossing any lines. Certain lines of discussion are not being explored. Note that anything existing in this forum has passed my personal judgment.

Now, let's continue this conversation on topic please.
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 73
8/14/2012 2:31:03   
The Extinguisher
Member

quote:

There are species of two sexes for which a sizable minority (or more) of sexual behavior is same-sex. That said, it doesn't matter if one pairing is more common than another within humanity, much less the totality of species which reproduce sexually (rather than asexually). It simply concerns a tendency, just as people tend to have Rh+ blood and be right-handed.


Along these lines, same-sex coupling occurs pretty frequently in birds, which is important, because they aren't mammals. Parrots will pair-bond with another parrot regardless of sex, and will take same sex partners even when opposite sex partners are available. What's more interesting is the behaviour in songbirds, which are a lot less intelligent than parrots (certain species of parrots rival dolphins when it comes to intelligence, specifically, the African Grey parrot). A study was done where finches were kept in strictly same-sex groupings, and it was observed that pair-bonding still occurred and that these couples exhibited the same behaviour as opposite-sex pair-bonds. In addition, opposite sex finches were introduced into these groups after the bonds were established, and the finches stayed in their same-sex couples.

Again, this is important because these birds are not "intelligent" animals (in the sense that we use the word scientifically), yet will still choose to bond with another bird with zero reproductive potential.
Post #: 74
8/14/2012 10:05:49   
Tdub
Member

quote:

Would you still eat at the place knowing that the man actively funds anti-gay organizations?

Yes, I would. I like the food. And I find that website you linked to be inaccurate. Focus on the Family and any of its sub-sections are not hate groups, but a friendly Christian company that will not discriminate. They're like me, they prefer traditional marriage but don't let it bother them. I see no reason to not eat at Chick-Fil-A.

I also find it interesting that there are hundreds who stand up for gay rights, and tons of gay organizations that protest anything that seems to be slightly unfair to them, but if a group comes out that opposes homosexuality, they are instantly labeled as a "hate group." That group of protesters hated Chick-Fil-A. Why didn't people call them a hate group? It seems the only ones who can freely speak their mind are the gays. "Let's have gay marriage! We want gay marriage!" "Well, I don't think..." "Hater!" Is what it seems like to me sometimes.

Post #: 75
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> Out of Context >> RE: The World and LGBT Lifestyles
Page 3 of 7«<12345>»
Jump to:



Advertisement




Icon Legend
New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition