Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

That's absolutely fine. As it happens, I was only talking about that first scenerio. And though I'm not entirely inclined to believe in the second, I can't claim that it doesn't happen. As someone who's read psychology, I believe that if the change is genuine - and if it doesn't involve destructive denial and guilt - I can't see a problem in it. It's just worth keeping that critical eye, case by case.

Of course, I'll add that it's my opinion that a person can be gay, and accept what they see as the love of Christ to transform their lives for the better, at the same time.

Okay. I just wanted to make that point of clarification. And I also can appreciate keeping an eye out for guilt/shame factors as well. I know from personal experience how destructive guilt and shame can be to the human psyche.

_________________

Now, that is just nuts.

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

Especially given that gay couples are biologically incapable of reproducing. Last I checked, men can't get pregnant, and women can't donate semen. BTW, that's a pretty powerful argument against any genetic factor in homosexuality; since homosexual acts cannot produce offspring, any genetic predisposition to homosexuality will naturally select itself out of the gene pool over time, because it is passed on to offspring much more rarely (only in the case of bisexuals, and even then there's a ~50% chance it wouldn't be passed on) than a "straight" gene would be. A "gay" gene will select itself out of the gene pool just the same as any other gene that caused sterility.

_________________
My Army Experience : Visual Vacations Photography : Army Career Opportunities

Well, you're forgetting the adoption and surrogacy options, and the fact that there are many gay people who have children from previous heterosexual relationships.



I'm not sure of the genetic factor either, but I don't think your theory is correct. For one, gay people have gotten married and had children for centuries - if only to deflect public speculation of them. Oscar Wilde is one prime example of that. So the gay gene would still be alive today, if a gay gene was involved. Also, any possible gay gene could be a carrier gene (where a person could have the gene to pass onto future generations, but not be gay themselves).

And adopted children have nothing to do with their adoptive parents genetically, you can only get genes from biological parents not adoptive parents, so that part of your objection is meaningless. Surrogacy and artificial insemination is quite new; neither have been around long enough to keep a "gay gene" propagated in the gene pool. As I stated before, a genetic predisposition to homosexuality can only be propagated to offspring by bisexuals, and given that most children with bisexual parent(s) are still heterosexual, even that proposition is pretty doubtful. If homosexuality was genetic, it would be on the decline ever since it was introduced into the gene pool, because heterosexual people are more likely to successfully reproduce than homosexuals, and the reproductive probability differential between the two groups could be used to predict the number of generations required for the "gay gene" to die out completely.

_________________
My Army Experience : Visual Vacations Photography : Army Career Opportunities

My first point, about adoption and surrogacy, was separate from my second point, which concerned the transfer of genes through natural reproduction. Just pointing out that adoption and surrogacy are ways by which gay couples can become parents.



I'll state first off that I'm not convinced of the gay gene theory either. And from what I hear, neither is the scientific community. But devil's advocate.....

You're still not addressing the fact that any gay gene could be transfered by gay parents who married members of the opposite sex and had children with them. Keep in mind, there would have been a lot of pressure on gay people in past times to conform to social norms. Ours is the first generation where gay people don't have to hide their orientation, and so fewer are denying their orientation and marrying people of the opposite sex. So the gay gene will still be alive today, in people born of secretly gay parents in less accepting times.

But that's just if the gene is transfered directly. As I said before, there's the possiblity that the gay gene could be a recessive carrier gene. One example of a carrier gene is the haemophilia gene. If haemophilia were transferred directly, it would be likely that it would die out in the same way that you described the gay gene dying out - because, certainly in past times, a high child mortality rate was attached to it.

But haemophilia is actually transfered by the haemophiliac's parents through the carrier gene - the parents may not be affected themselves, but they have the gene in a dormant state, to affect the child. The child's siblings too may get the gene to pass to their descendents, yet not be affected directly by the gene.

Even if there was a "gay gene" that was a recessive carrier gene, it would still tend to select itself out of existence because homosexuality significantly reduces the odds of someone having biological children, while hemophilia and other similar recessive genetic conditions generally do not significantly affect one's probability of reproduction to prevent their existenc from being passed on to offspring. You'll notice that there aren't too many genetic conditions out there that cause sterility; they automatically prevent themselves from being passed on to offspring.



Actually, I have, twice now. In the first place, not every gay person marries and has biological children; most do not. In less accepting times, they tended not to marry at all. Of those who do marry and have biological children, not every child will get the "gay gene", as evidenced by the fact that most children with a gay parent are still heterosexual. Depending on the number of actual genes theoretically involved, the odds will vary, but the probability of passing the characteristic to individual offspring in some form would average 50%. So while your scenario would certainly prolong the existence of a "gay gene", it wouldn't necessarily be enough of a factor to prevent the "gay gene" from gradually becoming less and less common with each subsequent generation, and eventually dying out completely.

_________________
My Army Experience : Visual Vacations Photography : Army Career Opportunities

Personally, I don't see why people get offended by homosexuality. It's not like people are being forced to be homosexual or anything. And as for marriage, the whole "homosexuality ruins the sanctity of marriage" thing is a load of bull. Technically, doesn't divorce ruin the "sanctity of marriage?" Though perhaps not quite as common today, people have gotten married with no reason other than money, or alliances(in ye olde times). Doesn't that ruin the "sanctity of marriage?" Indeed it does. I see no legally, or indeed, even morally justifiable reason why people of the same sex may not be married.

I would say it's even more common today.

_________________

Peut-etre...

I mean, look at Anna Nicole...

I truley do not care what goes on in the bedroom. But...I think that it would be traumatic for a child to go through high school and say "I will ask Dad or my other Dad to take us to school". I am pretty indifferent on marrying them though.

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!

Well put! If we ever have a debate on that at school, I need to use that (reworded, of course, but keeping the same idea)

One of the big problems is the "Hate the sin, not the sinner" attitude some people have, and tell people this like it gets them entirely off the hook.

This is actually a logical fallacy, as someone's sexual orientation is a huge part of their character. It's not a simple "act", it's a very important part of them that's always there, and won't go away just because you refuse to accept them as a whole and only the bits you like.

Also, there is no actual backing for homosexual acts being "Wrong", and people end up discarding common sense for religious or conservative value.

I think homosexuality is natural and have no objections. And religious arguments do nothing for me, seeing as I can't stand religion.


And I'd like to meet someone who's marriage has been ruined by gay unions.

_________________

Err, you don't know a lot about genetics, do you?

Say you killed all the people with red hair in the world. Would it mean that nobody would be born with red hair again? Of course not. There will always be a minimum chance of red hair occuring - regarldess. Perhaps homosexuality was indeed far more common, but is now less so because of the recessive gene nature.

Not all genes are actually "passed on" in that sense - regardless. A phrase you should learn well - "Random genetic mutation". Sometimes, there is a switch in your genes that can go on and off. Currently, it's esitmated that there's a 1 in 10 chance of homosexuality(and a 1 in 10000 of transsexuality, OOI).

So you can't stand religion, but you will lecture others on not being accepting of homosexuality?

_________________

He didn't lecture anyone. He was only stating his beliefs.

If you want my opinion, homosexuality isn't hurting anyone, so why should we care? Honestly, isn't there a more important issue to be worried about?

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

This has been my stance on gay marrige since the very beginning. If two people I don't even know are homosexual, and they love each other, and they get married, how is it harming me? It isn't. People need to accept others for who they are.

_________________

You don't really know that homosexuality isn't hurting anyone though, do you? You just assume that homosexuality isn't hurting anyone because you don't think that it is hurting you.

There are all sorts of externalities involved with all behaviors. To say that it doesn't effect you is a bit naive. There are lots of indications that the exepting of homosexuality has come with a moral breakdown of society in general. And if it is, then it is a very important issue. In fact I would say that protecting and building up the morals of society is the single most important issue.

_________________

Oh? Such as? Correlation does not equal causation, but I'm sure I don't need to tell you that. And where's this "moral breakdown" you're talking about?

_________________

Alright, provide one situation where homosexuality is genuinely hurting someone and I'll accept that as a not entirely retarded last attempt at scraping up a reason why it's okay to call an innocent sexual preference an evil act.



Listen, there is no mysterious extra element to homosexuality which leaves it open to a "Who knows". It's how someone is born, it can't be changed, shouldn't be changed, and therefore if someone is hurt by it it's there own damn fault.



You deserve to be smacked for that. The least you can do is defend it :/



By "Morals" you mean "Conservatism" which translates as "Right wing bigotry" in this day and age.

Rosalie, it sounds like you and I have similar ideologies, but insults and threats are no way to conduct a productive debate. In other words, chill out.

_________________

That's the real problem, isn't it? Moral breakdown is pretty subjective. What some would call freedom of expression, other's would call pornography. What some would call pedophilia, others might call the nambla. It is quite obvious to me that there is a serious breakdown of morals in general in society. Your references to the general acceptance of homosexuality in many of the top psychiatric associations in the world is a big blinking red light to me, but obviously not so much to you.

In my most humble opinion, there is a huge breakdown that is evident everywhere. Corporations don't care about anything but the bottom line, I can't listen to my local public radio for a half hour without someone blaring some sort of LGBT stuff down my throat. I am independent (as much as I can be) and all around me I see a breakdown.

_________________

Then it's hardly such a "Real problem" is it?



If you're going to make a statement like that, you have to back it up. Declaring everything to be relative doesn't help your case in the least. At the end of the day, it's not "Person to person" so much as "Only the person it affects". And so far you've provided nothing that shows that LGBT issues really affect anything but LGBT people themselves.



So you know better than them then?



That's an opinion, not a real observation, and one not backed by anything in the least.



What?

That's a serious insult to all the sufferers of the dreadful "Ex-gay" movement. I suggest you read up on that for your "Evidence".

Rosalie, try not to double post.

Give me one good example of how being tolerant and accepting towards homosexuality has helped in the moral breakdown of society.

_________________

Wikipedia Knows

_________________

I know what LGBT is. I was saying "What" to gay issues being on the air every 30 minutes. I somehow doubt that.

I don't think it should be banned. If you are a homosexual, go right ahead and be one. It's not up to the authorities or heavenly figures.

_________________
You better believe it.