|
Post by krzych32 on Jan 17, 2011 1:01:36 GMT -5
And Krzych, no man will ever reproduce by himself. Both a homosexual man and a heterosexual man, need a woman to do so. And both have the capability of producing the sperm to fertilize her egg. So just because a man is homosexual does not mean he cannot reproduce. The point you were getting at is that homosexual couples don't reproduce, which is a bad argument. And if reproduction is your reason for bashing homosexuality, then you should also bash all forms of birth control, including condoms, the pill, vasectomies, tubes tied, hysterectomy, menopause, and men and women who have bad luck and cannot concieve for other reasons. I think that I have shown that your argument, no matter what the point was, was not a very good one. What you are doing is making assumptions and putting words in my mouth and then arguing against that, that's not the same. "Both a homosexual man and a heterosexual man, need a woman to do so. And both have the capability of producing the sperm to fertilize her egg. So just because a man is homosexual does not mean he cannot reproduce." So outside of a physical ability to do so there is no other variable that decides if one will reproduce or not? And why are you throwing a woman into this, I don't even see how that's of any importance. "I think that I have shown that your argument, no matter what the point was, was not a very good one. " No you have not, you don't even understand what I'm arguing so how can you debunk it? What I simply stated is that a gay person will MOST LIKELY not reproduce, and that's a disadvantage. "And if reproduction is your reason for bashing homosexuality, then you should also bash all forms of birth control, including condoms, the pill, vasectomies, tubes tied, hysterectomy, menopause, and men and women who have bad luck and cannot concieve for other reasons." Now you are getting emotional and compliantly out of topic. How am I bashing homosexuals? Did I said that they are bad people or something? Don't put words in my mount and don't make assumptions because I don't like that. I don't see how what I said is offensive.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Jan 17, 2011 3:37:54 GMT -5
a woman (...) I don't even see how that's of any importance This amused me
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jan 17, 2011 10:00:34 GMT -5
a woman (...) I don't even see how that's of any importance This amused me Me too. He pretty much said "The person needed to hold the baby, I don't see what this has to do with making babies".
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jan 17, 2011 11:11:37 GMT -5
Me too. He pretty much said "The person needed to hold the baby, I don't see what this has to do with making babies". So how is this variable important to this debate if it's present in every scenario? It's like talking about soccer teams and then someone yelling out that they need a field play on. But I give you A+ for your findings in the field of biology.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jan 17, 2011 12:40:12 GMT -5
Your original argument is paraphrased as such:
(since the it was in response to the comment "the only negative side-effects are dealing with homophobes) - Homosexuals will most likely not reproduce and that is a negative side-effect.
Other people who suffer this same side effect include - people on birth control, people who use condoms, people with vasectomies, people with their tubes tied, people with hysterectomies, people who don't have sex, unlucky couples who for other reasons cannot conceive, and men without women, and women without men.
Women ARE VERY VERY VERY important for reproduction. They are COMPLETELY RELEVANT to what you said. A homosexual man does not seek a woman partner, but he can should he wish to reproduce. The fact that he's gay does not hinder this ability, and thus it isn't a 'side-effect' of being gay. While it is less likely that a homosexual man will carry on his gene pool with his partner, it is not a dis-advantage of homosexuality, for if he wished, he could very easily. In fact sperm banks are an excellent way to do this.
And in response to:
Anyone who says something negative about a group of people, is bashing them. Example: Humans are flawed. This statement is bashing against humans. While it may be true, it is negative and bashing. I'd like to also point out that the way you say something does have importance. The above bash is not so insulting as "a negative side-effect of being human is that one will be flawed." See the difference?
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jan 17, 2011 13:39:45 GMT -5
Your original argument is paraphrased as such: (since the it was in response to the comment "the only negative side-effects are dealing with homophobes) - Homosexuals will most likely not reproduce and that is a negative side-effect. Other people who suffer this same side effect include - people on birth control, people who use condoms, people with vasectomies, people with their tubes tied, people with hysterectomies, people who don't have sex, unlucky couples who for other reasons cannot conceive, and men without women, and women without men. Women ARE VERY VERY VERY important for reproduction. They are COMPLETELY RELEVANT to what you said. A homosexual man does not seek a woman partner, but he can should he wish to reproduce. The fact that he's gay does not hinder this ability, and thus it isn't a 'side-effect' of being gay. While it is less likely that a homosexual man will carry on his gene pool with his partner, it is not a dis-advantage of homosexuality, for if he wished, he could very easily. In fact sperm banks are an excellent way to do this. And in response to: Anyone who says something negative about a group of people, is bashing them. Example: Humans are flawed. This statement is bashing against humans. While it may be true, it is negative and bashing. I'd like to also point out that the way you say something does have importance. The above bash is not so insulting as "a negative side-effect of being human is that one will be flawed." See the difference? What you are poinitng out is simply that there are other variables, not that sexual orientation has no importance. In a situation WHERE ALL OTHER VARIABLES ARE EQUAL, it does make a difference. Your argument simply does not hold water. If you are to attack my argument you can only take it up on two things a) a variable that makes a willing person less likely to reproduce is a dissadvantage. b) homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. And I am not saying that it's impossible for a homosexual man to reproduce. But it is much harder to do so. You mentioned sperm banks (many different technologies also apply) but what you didn't mention is that this techniques are not avalible to the majority of people on this planed. P.S. So if I say that a man without a leg does not have a leg I'm bashing him?
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Jan 17, 2011 18:26:24 GMT -5
Me too. He pretty much said "The person needed to hold the baby, I don't see what this has to do with making babies". No no, just cause he said women aren't important
|
|
|
Post by SwimFellow on Jan 17, 2011 19:26:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jan 17, 2011 21:57:07 GMT -5
What you are poinitng out is simply that there are other variables, not that sexual orientation has no importance. In a situation WHERE ALL OTHER VARIABLES ARE EQUAL, it does make a difference. Your argument simply does not hold water. The list that I gave is a list of all other people that have this 'disadvantage' of not having the predispodition for reproduction, yet most would not consider them at a disadvantage, for in most cases, the 'disadvantage' that prevents them from reproducing is a choice. Which they could (in some cases) change their mind about. A gay man or a lesbian woman is predisposed to have sex with the same gender. Should they wish to do so they would have to go against that predisposition and have sex with the opposite gender. That is not a disadvantage. Likewise a man can choose to wear a condom, or if he wishes to reproduce, choose not to wear a condom. A woman who takes the birth control pill for health reasons (some women use it to regulate their period due to health concerns), can go against that need to reproduce. A man with a vasectomy can have it reversed should he wish to have children, women with hysterectomies on the other hand are S.O.L. So, EVEN WITH ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL, homosexuality does not make someone less able to reproduce, so it is not a disadvantage of being homosexual. On to point a. a) a variable that makes a willing person less likely to reproduce is a disadvantage. You are incorrectly classifying what is and what isn't a disadvantage. A disadvantage is a circumstance which reduces the chances of success. Not a variable. For instance, let us take the example away from reproduction for a second and apply it to something simple like making a goal in soccer/football. A variable that would make a person less likely to make such a goal, would be the angle their foot hit the ball. This is not a circumstance, for it was something that should the goal be wished to made, need only be slightly altered. A circumstance that would prevent the person from making the goal would be unfavorable wind, something completely out their control and nothing can remedy the situation. Back to reproduction now. A variable such as sexuality is analogous to the foot angle on the ball. Yes, it makes the person in an instance of sexual intercourse less likely to cause reproduction. However, if the desired result be reproduction, new measures must be taken, the foot angle must be corrected, and a different partner - one of the opposite gender, must be chosen to increase the chance of success. A circumstance that would decrease the chance of reproductive success would be a vasectomy or hysterectomy, a condition of the body that PREVENTS conception. While some vasectomies can be reversed, these conditions are more often permanent, and would therefore be considered circumstance. No matter what you do, you will never be able to fix the issue and have a higher chance of reproducing. From the above, it follows that while being homosexual, using a condom, using birth-control, and not being with a woman or not being with a man are all variables that decrease the chances of success of reproduction, none of them would be classified as disadvantages when it comes to reproduction as a goal. I will not argue that homosexuals are less likely to reproduce - that's true. Calling it a disadvantage however, is absurd. And in response to your last comment: P.S. So if I say that a man without a leg does not have a leg I'm bashing him? You are not bashing him if you say he is without a leg, for that is not a negative thing to say. Calling him handicapped, however, is a bash. Though he may or may not take offense to this bash, as in the example of humans being flawed.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jan 18, 2011 12:58:06 GMT -5
"The list that I gave is a list of all other people that have this 'disadvantage' of not having the predispodition for reproduction, yet most would not consider them at a disadvantage, for in most cases, the 'disadvantage' that prevents them from reproducing is a choice. Which they could (in some cases) change their mind about. A gay man or a lesbian woman is predisposed to have sex with the same gender. Should they wish to do so they would have to go against that predisposition and have sex with the opposite gender. That is not a disadvantage. Likewise a man can choose to wear a condom, or if he wishes to reproduce, choose not to wear a condom. A woman who takes the birth control pill for health reasons (some women use it to regulate their period due to health concerns), can go against that need to reproduce. A man with a vasectomy can have it reversed should he wish to have children, women with hysterectomies on the other hand are S.O.L. So, EVEN WITH ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL, homosexuality does not make someone less able to reproduce, so it is not a disadvantage of being homosexual."
So what you said is that they just CAN have sex with oposite gender if they want to? Would you have sex with the same gender if you had to? Because that's what it looks like you are saying. I know I wouldn't be able just do it. It's not that easy to just go in there and do it.
And wearing a condom is a choice, when one chooses something it can't be a dissadvantage. I never stated otherwise, why do you keep coming back to that.
"Back to reproduction now. A variable such as sexuality is analogous to the foot angle on the ball. Yes, it makes the person in an instance of sexual intercourse less likely to cause reproduction. However, if the desired result be reproduction, new measures must be taken, the foot angle must be corrected, and a different partner - one of the opposite gender, must be chosen to increase the chance of success."
Again, you assume that a gay man can just jump in there and have sex with a woman. I don't think it's that easy, people are not machines.
Calling a handicapped person handicapped is not bashing them. Otherwise people would have a right to get insulted every time they park at the handiccaped spot. Definition:"•Bashing is a harsh, gratuitous, prejudicial attack on a person, group or subject" I don't see how calling a handicapped person handicapped is a prejudicial attack on them.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Jan 18, 2011 14:55:09 GMT -5
I think you are right and, except maybe when the homosexuality of a person was defined later in life (I.E. after acquiring desire for the opposite gender or at least after losing the repulsion for the opposite gender), but, if an homosexual person wishes to reproduce, aren't there other options to consider (when attainable), like artificial fertilization? And sometimes it may just be that they want a child and not just reproduce per se, in that case adoption is also an option (sometimes). Also there are more variables that could make this change depending on the couple and their situation, sometimes it may work kinda in their favor and sometimes not.
I do think that an homosexual is less likely to reproduce thou, except if you get rid of all the social and personal aspects and say "well an homosexual can have sex just like an heteresexual". But I also don't think this is really that much of a dissadvantage, and even if it was I don't think that it can't be worked out.
Also, about the bashing thing: I think it depends on the tone and context of the conversation. Sometimes you can say just a harsh truth, and sometimes you could be bashing (even using the same words for both instances). ... Well, that makes it vaguer I guess 0.0.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jan 18, 2011 15:57:01 GMT -5
For one Krzych, I would have sex with the same gender if I had to, I'm bi...not that big a deal.
I'm not saying that a homosexual person can just go out and find someone and have sex with them. But most heterosexual people can't do that either. Yes it would be difficult, Yes it would be rare, but a homosexual person CAN should they wish to. THAT IS THE POINT. If they can do it, then its not disadvantageous that most wont. You stated before, that it is less likely and I agree with that. But you cannot label homosexuals at a disadvantage because they don't often partake in intercourse that would result in baby making, because if they wanted to make babies they could go out and with the right person make a baby.
Now you brought up the point about how it would be hard for you to have sex with someone of the same gender, but think of it from the perspective of someone who is gay, not straight. A lesbian would doubtfully have problems having sex with a male, so long as the male brought her to a proper orgasm. Yes it would lose quite a bit of sensuality but its not something she would not be used to physically. A gay man would also have very little problems having sex with a female once he was able to maintain a proper erection, and then it's just using the proper hole. A straight man would have trouble having sex with a gay man, because he's not physically used to gay sex, but the same doesn't work in reverse. The only part that would be difficult in either scenario would be proper horniness for the complete duration of intercourse. This is a difficulty that could be overcome by supplements and proper relationship building, along with mental focus and fantasy. All in all, while difficult, certainly not something that is impossible, NOR is it improbable enough to be dismissed. Many lesbian and gay couples have gone through the process of surrogate mothers and in vitro fertilization, in order to have a baby.
But even still, each response you have had to mine has been about picking apart the details about what I said, and not about the main point you (i think) were trying to make. I'm fairly certain, that everything I've said has shown that, while improbable, and not likely, homosexuals can go through the proper channels to reproduce, so it is not a disadvantage of being homosexual that reproduction is less likely.
And thanks to lyserg's, albeit vague, definition of bashing, I guess the handicap or flawed human example for bashing do not quite fit. However labeling an entire group of people disadvantaged because it is less likely that they reproduce, when if they wanted to they could - that is a bash. It is a heavy criticism and definitely taken with offense.
|
|
Quinn
Star
[AWD:191c07]
The eye of compromise.
Posts: 580
|
Post by Quinn on Feb 27, 2011 14:59:18 GMT -5
WAIT!
Isn't sexuality developed at puberty?
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Feb 27, 2011 15:01:43 GMT -5
WAIT! Isn't sexuality developed at puberty? I believe it is developed all the way up until the end of puberty.
|
|
Quinn
Star
[AWD:191c07]
The eye of compromise.
Posts: 580
|
Post by Quinn on Feb 27, 2011 15:30:50 GMT -5
So... no, a person is not born gay...
VERDICT HAS BEEN REACHED!
|
|
Flappy
Star
Grrr! But not really....
Posts: 577
|
Post by Flappy on Feb 28, 2011 1:24:44 GMT -5
WAIT! Isn't sexuality developed at puberty? I believe it is developed all the way up until the end of puberty. I believe it continues to develop throughout a person's entire life. I believe that sexuality is something that is technically dynamic (constantly changing). This does not mean that one second someone is bi, the next they're straight and the next they're assexual. I mean that their sexuality is constantly being influenced, and constantly modified if only in the slightest and most minuscule way. Which can eventually lead to the overall sexuality changing. And I believe this happens throughout a persons entire life.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Feb 28, 2011 2:47:09 GMT -5
WAIT! Isn't sexuality developed at puberty? Woo! Necroposting ftw!
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Mar 1, 2011 0:36:16 GMT -5
WAIT! Isn't sexuality developed at puberty? Woo! Necroposting ftw! I second that kind sir!
|
|
|
Post by Flags_Forever on Mar 2, 2011 8:42:25 GMT -5
I am a sinner and will burn in hell. God hates me. i hope I die. Fix'd. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 2, 2011 10:00:38 GMT -5
fags are sinners and will burn in hell. God hates fags. i hope they all die. OOOH! I WANNA FEED THE TROLL Well, you're half right. I'm not gonna use the term fags though. Really derogatory. Anyways at least from my stand point being gay is a sin. Contrary to popular belief, God does NOT hate gay people. I believe, and again, these are my beliefs, that God loves everyone equally. That last part was an opinion of yours which I can not prove wrong but I also do not believe. Also that had nothing to do with the topic at hand
|
|