Using the word 'gay' as a slur

[Tefal]

A genetic defect, what evidence is there for that?

There are physical differences, in the brain structure etc (ie it resembles the brain of a straight member of the opposite sex), and the way they react to different pheromones among other things.

But iirc they don't know if it's down to genetics, hormones in the womb, hormones after the womb, or a combination of these and other factors.

*i ain't going near the naming of what ever you lot want to classify this as. as a defect, anomaly, whatever, with a 10 foot barge pole.

 

[Slinwagh]

There are physical differences, in the brain structure etc (ie it resembles the brain of a straight member of the opposite sex), and the way they react to different pheromones among other things.

But iirc they don't know if it's down to genetics, hormones in the womb, hormones after the womb, or a combination of these and other factors.

That was my limited understanding I think it is fair to say that does not make it a defect.

 

[Tefal]

That was my limited understanding I think it is fair to say that does not make it a defect.

from a survival of the fittest view point it would due to reduced breading

(although this applies mainly to animal populations cause we don't have to do the dirty to make the baby anymore )

But then some people find it offense etc, but it's what you would classify any other structural/chemical abnormality in the brain as (what that is i don;t know)

 

[RoboCod]

OP I think you should probably have posted this in SC. Instead of 4 pages of pathetic posts like

This thread should just be renamed "I'm a closet GAY and the forums should be more PC"

you would have had one page consisting of the kind of discussion you might have hoped for.

 

[MookJong]

If Natural selection is a process of random mutations with those mutating in a way that best fits their environment living to pass on their genes. Then there is no guiding hand, and the outcome of life is a very random process.

So in a thread about evolution and god the you will hear certain people say "Life is just a happy accident and has no meaning"

However in this kind of thread people keep harping on about "our purpose is to reproduce" and that homosexuals are "defective"

You can't have both.... either all life is randomly evolving with absolutely no right and wrong / purpose OR there is a blueprint to life and homosexuals do not fit into it.

Which is it?

 

[KittensCake]

from a survival of the fittest view point it would due to reduced breading

Who cares? It's not even relevant. Natural selection doesn't occur in civilised society. We're not animals living in the wild incase you hadn't noticed.

If Natural selection is a process of random mutations with those mutating in a way that best fits their environment living to pass on their genes. Then there is no guiding hand, and the outcome of life is a very random process.

So in a thread about evolution and god the you will hear certain people say "Life is just a happy accident and has no meaning"

However in this kind of thread people keep harping on about "our purpose is to reproduce" and that homosexuals are "defective"

You can't have both.... either all life is randomly evolving with absolutely no right and wrong / purpose OR there is a blueprint to life and homosexuals do not fit into it.

Which is it?

Those are two different levels of meaning. Biologically our purpose is to survive and reproduce. That's fact. But you can still believe that whilst also believing that objectively there is no purpose to life. They are not polar opposites.

 

[Tefal]

If Natural selection is a process of random mutations with those mutating in a way that best fits their environment living to pass on their genes. Then there is no guiding hand, and the outcome of life is a very random process.

So in a thread about evolution and god the you will hear certain people say "Life is just a happy accident and has no meaning"

However in this kind of thread people keep harping on about "our purpose is to reproduce" and that homosexuals are "defective"

You can't have both.... either all life is randomly evolving with absolutely no purpose OR there is a blueprint to life and homosexuals do not fit into it.

Which is it?

No dear in natural selection there are random mutations some come out good, that one then out breeds the others and the trait continues.

Other mutations are not that good and they fail to breed/do not breed much and their number diminish or disappear. (this is where it becomes hard to determine if homosexuality is purely genetic or hormonal or something else, as it appears almost random iirc)

And then there those that don't really provide a benefit either way.

Kind of like how in high malaria ares most natives will have one recessive gene which causes sickle cell anemia, they only have one of the pair and so while most of their RBC's are normal they do have a lot of sickle ones iirc, while this is slightly bad for their health it also makes them more resilient to malaria.

However if their child gets a full recessive pair, it will be pretty much immune to malaria but most likely die before it reaches breeding age.

Who cares? It's not even relevant.

It is when deciding nomenclature.

Natural selection doesn't occur in civilised society.

YEs it does, would you shag a really ****ing ugly lass?

We're not animals living in the wild incase you hadn't noticed.

Yes if you'd cared to have read before getting all arsey

(although this applies mainly to animal populations cause we don't have to do the dirty to make the baby anymore )

 

[MookJong]

But my point which seems to have been missed is that to claim homosexuality is a defect is to try and attach purpose to natural selection. Sometimes things survive better due to their mutations, sometimes they do not and sometimes it makes no difference to them. But what do any of these three outcomes matter if it is an entirely unguided process? How can the result of any mutation be labelled as good or bad when our purpose is not to survive.....survival is simply a by product.

 

[Tefal]

But my point which seems to have been missed is that to claim homosexuality is a defect is to try and attach purpose to natural selection. Sometimes things survive better due to their mutations, sometimes they do not and sometimes it makes no difference to them. But what do any of these three outcomes matter if it is an entirely unguided process? How can the result of any mutation be labelled as good or bad when our purpose is not to survive.....survival is a by product.

Err what do you mean our purpose is not to survive?


It's generally held (at least in biological terms) that the ultimate goal for all animals/plants/living things is to breed and reproduce.

You seem to be putting some philosophical slant on it.

to claim homosexuality is a defect

defect is just a term to mean that it is abnormal and possibly not benifical, when compared to similar organisms.

 

[KittensCake]

YEs it does, would you shag a really ****ing ugly lass?

If she paid me, yes. Paper bag...etc. But ugly people shag ugly people, and even if they don't manage to find a partner, there are artificial ways of having a baby. Ugly people will never die out. Plus what is ugly and what is not is subjective, so how can it possibly die out if it is not an objectively defined attribute. Choosing who you have sex with based on how attractive you personally think they are is not in any way natural selection.

 

[MookJong]

Err what do you mean our purpose is not to survive?


It's generally held (at least in biological terms) that the ultimate goal for all animals/plants/living things is to breed and reproduce.

You seem to be putting some philosophical slant on it.

If the goal is to survive then suerly this bleeds into the realms of life having a purpose. Suerly attaching purpose is to put a philosophical slant on life.

Was I not taking a more cold logical view?

 

[Tefal]

Choosing who you have sex with based on how attractive you personally think they are is not in any way natural selection.

Actually it's one of the very common aspects of natural selection. Ever wonder why peacocks have fancy tails? or all manner of other animals have physical attributes to attract mates?

And ugly/beauty is defined, one of the main ones is to be symmetrical in the face.

 

[TurboMonkey]

Homos are genetic freaks.

Its not normal, hence the rest of society rightfully looking down on them.

It is a good solution to overpopulation though, especially lesbians.

 

[Slinwagh]

Homos are genetic freaks.

Its not normal, hence the rest of society rightfully looking down on them.

It is a good solution to overpopulation though, especially lesbians.

Oh dear.

 

[Tefal]

If the goal is to survive then suerly this bleeds into the realms of life having a purpose. Suerly attaching purpose is to put a philosophical slant on life.

Was I not taking a more cold logical view?

when our purpose is not to survive

So what the hell are you talking about?

So you're saying there is no purpose what so ever ? not even to breed?

You are born with a drive to breed, all animals are (well all the ones that can).

If there was no drive/goal, things would not do it and just die out. (very likely there is some kind of condition etc which results in this)

 

[starfighter]

No-one is talking about not using the word 'gay'.

No-one is making a blanket objection to the word 'gay'.

This bears no resemblence to that burbling fool so desperately seeking racism that he sees it in the term "black hole" when used to refer to a object that is black and is, at least in some way, a hole in space, or to that being used as a metaphor, i.e. something that has no connection at all to an inaccurate description of skin colour.

Are you seriously suggesting that 'gay' has become a generic term for anything wrong or bad within the last 10 years or so because people have travelled back in time to when it usually meant "cheerful, happy, somewhat frivolous" and decided that was a suitable basis for an insult when they returned?

But seeing as the term gay was used before homosexuals started getting called it, you can't now ban it.

While I might be slandering homos, i maght also be slandering happy people. You cannot know and thus cannot ban it.

Thats what you get for stealing names. If homosexual started to be used as an insult then yes that would be wrong. But banning gay is like banning black, black was there first as another word.

And on top of that context. If I am black and I say to my black friend, Yo ***** what up. Am I being racist to him?

I am very against prejudice but also over the top PC bull.

As South Park says you should be able to mock everything. South Park knows!

 

[MookJong]

So what the hell are you talking about?

So you're saying there is no purpose what so ever ? not even to breed?

You are born with a drive to breed, all animals are (well all the ones that can).

If there was no drive/goal, things would not do it and just die out. (very likely there is some kind of condition etc which results in this)

Purpose is a label created by the human mind. How was there purpose or intention at the point the first single cell lifeform came into being?

To have purpose at this most early stage of life is to imply that there was an outside force.

 

[KittensCake]

AAnd ugly/beauty is defined, one of the main ones is to be symmetrical in the face.

Ugly/beauty is not and cannot be universally defined. Those things you talk about are just very basic, common rules, not actual specific universal definitions.

Actually it's one of the very common aspects of natural selection. Ever wonder why peacocks have fancy tails? or all manner of other animals have physical attributes to attract mates?

Not in a human sense it's not. Comparing that to the tails on a peacock is ridiculous. It's much more complex, including not just physical attractiveness (Which is still on the whole relative and subjective) but many other aspects, especially so when you're looking for long term partner and someone to have a child with.

 

[KittensCake]

You're comparing the dynamics of a peacock finding a mate and having children, to that of a human. Do I even need to explain why that's ridiculous?

 

[pitchfork]

I have gay freinds.
I find using the word gay as a slur offensive because it's like saying being gay is bad and wrong. Which quite frankly is the sort of *******s which only pompous idiots who live in the stoneage believe.