Thread: Are you Homophobic?

Originally Posted by Chittychangchang

Ok I'll rephrase the question. ..Tomcat

Do you believe it's acceptable to teach children aged 5-11 about homosexual sex?

I would teach a five-year old about gender/gender equality, but I do not think they are mature enough to be taught certain things, until they start to notice those things that are around them and start asking questions. That would be the time......

Do you have children GF?

Young child minds have enough learning to do already.

Don't need to brainwash them and show them images of gays kissing in public, then saying it's ''the way to live'' and offering them sex education if they're confused.

All this gender neutral stuff in schools now, toilets, teachers getting disciplined for addressing kids the wrong way in case it offends gender fluid trans kids in class. That's all unecessary and plain ridiculous.

Modern snowflake parents are falling for all this shit, doctors offering hormone treatments to 7yr olds

Originally Posted by Looper

Do you accept that there is a possibility that gayness may not have an evolutionary rationale but may simply be a miswiring of the sexual function?

Loaded question, but yes I accept there may be no evolutionary rationale. You didn't answer my question 3 times now: Does everything need an evolutionary rationale?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

You didn't answer my question 3 times now

...you two need to get a room...

Originally Posted by Chittychangchang

Do you believe it's acceptable to teach children aged 5-11 about homosexual sex?

What age to teach children about vaginal sex? If it's about sex and not purely reproductive science, then of course sexuality shoud be taught...at whatever age the experts have deemed.

Originally Posted by Chittychangchang

Do you believe it's acceptable to teach children aged 5-11 about homosexual sex?

...I believe it's acceptable to teach children what goes on outside school walls. The age of the children and the specific content of the coursework should probably be left to local school boards...

What would your views and opinions be on pressure and lobby groups pushing for homosexual education for children aged 5-11 as part of the national curriculum, individual school boards have their hands tied by national legislation and laws passed by members of parliament.

Originally Posted by Chittychangchang

What would your views and opinions be on pressure and lobby groups pushing for homosexual education for children aged 5-11 as part of the national curriculum, individual school boards have their hands tied by national legislation and laws passed by members of parliament.

What's your view? Mine is similar to Tom's in that what goes on in the real world is what kids should be taught. What age? Well, it's a gradient, isn't it? As a kid gets older and more curious, they need more detail. I don't think any 5 year old needs to know any more than the concepts of happy mummies and daddies have children and happy daddies and daddies and mummies and mummies sometimes have children too.
Then there's "sex education" about penises and vaginas. What age to introduce that? Some would say 9, maybe, others would say 12. It's cultural, isn't it? When to start with sperm, ovum, zygotes, embryos, foetuses etc, well that's all about science and what the level taught is. As for gay relationships, that's back to social studies, rather than science.
I see no harm whatsoever about all kids knowing that "mummies and daddies" aren't the only type of adult relationship. I do see harm in hiding it completely and even with pseudo-forward-thinking parents telling their kids about "daddies and daddies" in hushed tones. It's the hushed tones that make kids think it's naughty, bad, or improper.

Blimey, Pat’s having to work the idiocy hard just to get noticed these days.

Nice that you've finally noticed^

...to be fair, others have also noticed: lack of responses are a clue...

Pathetic innit.

Must be off the meds again.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

You didn't answer my question 3 times now: Does everything need an evolutionary rationale?

I am not sure what you mean by 'needs'

It is not a question of necessity. It is a question of curiosity.

Any observer of nature who subscribes to the evolutionary theory on behaviour would be curious to understand the rationale behind behaviour that seems to defy evolutionary logic.

If the behaviour seems to have a substantial cost to the genes inside the organism, like self-neutering gayness, then makes us even more curiouser to look for a rationale it does.

In that sense behaviour that seems to run counter to the interests of the genes inside an organism can be said to be in greater 'need' of an explanation perhaps.

Originally Posted by Looper

Sexuality really is not a suitable subject for street demonstrations.

The liberation of gays is substantially achieved in the west now with gay marriage.

In return the shifters could maybe think about putting a lid on the in-yer-face pride demos and mardi-gras parades and dial it all down a notch.

I agree wholeheartedly. Why can't they just be "Gay" and live life. I understood the protests years ago about equality and freedom of choice but we are WAY beyond that now and yet they still mount public events addressing their sexual preference. People are just tired of it all. The gay people I know are sick of it as well. They say "If they would just let it be, people would just move on".

Its become nonsense. I laugh pretty hard when some drunk gay guy who acts like a total flamer leaves a bar and gets a beat down in SF and then pulls the "They did it because I am GAY" card. Bullshit. He got lippy and got his ass kicked. End of story. No different then a guy leaving a bar and getting lippy with some guys and gets a beat down. That goes unnoticed and never makes the news.

Originally Posted by Looper

It is not a question of necessity. It is a question of curiosity.

I suspect you're framing your bigotry in terms of scientific interest. Sort of like Japanese whalers framing their hunger for whale meat in terms of scientific interest.
I say "needs" because you keep coming back to the subject of "evolutionary rationale" as if evolutionary rationale is the be-all and end-all to the subject of gay rights.

Originally Posted by Looper

evolutionary theory on behaviour

I'm not familiar with that theory. Applying evolutionary theory to theories of behaviour is another thing. Nonetheless, if it is purely intellectula curiosity that drives your stance, why do you have a stance? Surely if you are curious, you would be open-minded.

Originally Posted by Looper

the rationale behind behaviour that seems to defy evolutionary logic.

Going around in circles again. Why does defying a so-called "evolutionary logic" equate to anything but the vagaries of the immense numbers and probablities of genetics?

Your entire post, above, is ignoring the question. What does it have to do with evolution? The way you present your argumet is always coming back to "evolutionary rationale" or "evolutionary logic" as if the subject MUST fall into those stricures. I'm putting to you that neither rationale nor logic are involved, it is, as I said, the vagaries of genetics.

Originally Posted by JPPR2

but we are WAY beyond that now

Are we? We still have people calling gays "shifters" and "poo-pushers", on this very thread, no less! The gay community is still discriminated against and still thought of as "queer" (odd). Of course they still feel the need to be out there and show the world that they exist and should be accepted as existing.
When you and your friends and famliy can mention a gay person in exactly the same way and back-of-the-mind thoughts as you would a straight person, I think the gay community will relax and feel accepted.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

I say "needs" because you keep coming back to the subject of "evolutionary rationale" as if evolutionary rationale is the be-all and end-all to the subject of gay rights.

I have argued the opposite. I say gay rights has nothing to do with whether gayness has or does not have an evolutionary rationale.

Gay rights is based on nothing more than our shared humanity. Gay rights are grounded in respecting and trying to uphold the interests of our fellow human beings regardless of evolutionary rationale.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Nonetheless, if it is purely intellectula curiosity that drives your stance, why do you have a stance?

I don't have a firm stance, I have curiosity. The existence or otherwise of a rationale behind behaviour that seems to run counter to the interests of of the genes inside an organism which have programmed that behaviour seems to me to be a legitimate source of curiosity and enquiry.

If you argue that it does have a scientific rationale (I suspect for politically motivated reasons) then my curiosity and scepticism about that assertion lead me to respond with counter-arguments since I do not see the naturalistic argument as being very convincing on balance.

Originally Posted by Looper

I have argued the opposite. I say gay rights has nothing to do with whether gayness has or does not have an evolutionary rationale.

Gay rights is based on nothing more than our shared humanity. Gay rights are grounded in respecting and trying to uphold the interests of our fellow human beings regardless of evolutionary rationale.



I don't have a firm stance, I have curiosity. The existence or otherwise of a rationale behind behaviour that seems to run counter to the interests of of the genes inside an organism which have programmed that behaviour seems to me to be a legitimate source of curiosity and enquiry.

If you argue that it does have a scientific rationale (I suspect for politically motivated reasons) then my curiosity and scepticism about that assertion lead me to respond with counter-arguments since I do not see the naturalistic argument as being very convincing on balance.

Circles. Once again, I put to you that there does not need to be an evolutionary "logic" or "rationale" and if there might be one, it's an intellectual question (as you are at pains to point out it purely is) that is one that pondering has no place in discussions of homophobia or gay rights or the plight of discriminated-against gays.
You long ago established your position that gayness is wrong (ostensibly) from an evolutionary POV, and thus you must suffer attitudes that pre-suppose your stance on homophobia and gay rights.
Talk about your curiosity (double entendre intended ) by all means, but not when the topic is rights and acceptance, because it implies a "scientific" non-acceptance of rights, despite you giving lip-service to human decency in looking after the oppressed.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

I put to you that there does not need to be an evolutionary "logic" or "rationale"

I just put that point to you. So we agree that there does not need to be an evolutionary rationale in order for gay rights to be supported.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Talk about your curiosity (double entendre intended ) by all means, but not when the topic is rights and acceptance

The subject of homosexuality has both a political dimension and a scientific biological dimension. Both of these dimensions are legitimate topics for debate.

I think we agree on the political aspect.

I think that making scientific assertions that are driven primarily by political desires is poor thinking and I see this a lot in people arguing that gayness is 'natural'.

I think it is unlikely that this is true and I cannot help but counter with arguments from the other side in the spirit of intellectual honesty and balance.

Originally Posted by Looper

The subject of homosexuality has both a political dimension and a scientific biological dimension. Both of these dimensions are legitimate topics for debate.

I agree. But why would you introduce the scientific questions in a political discussion, unless to use science to influence politics?

Originally Posted by Looper

I think we agree on the political aspect.

Mmmm, I beg to differ on that, based on your history of "shifters" and "poo pusher" type comments. Your bias was obvious from the start. Which brings me back once again to the question, why would you talk about scientific curiosity and "evidence" in a discussion that involves the political, humanist topic of gay rights? You use these scientific questions as a political argument.

Originally Posted by Looper

I think that making scientific assertions that are driven primarily by political desires is poor thinking

Which is what you're doing.

Originally Posted by Looper

I see this a lot in people arguing that gayness is 'natural'.

Case in pont!

Originally Posted by Maanaam

I agree. But why would you introduce the scientific questions in a political discussion, unless to use science to influence politics?

It was not me who made the original naturalistic scientific assertion in this thread.

In post 43 I was responding to your claim in post 33 :-

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Pretty much the definition of "natural" if it commonly occurs in nature, wouldn't you say?

^Do you really want to resort to that route?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Are we? We still have people calling gays "shifters" and "poo-pushers", on this very thread, no less!

I do because look at what people call people in general. Asshats, Whingers, Douchebags, Cocksuckers, Dickheads, Twats, Kunts, Motherfuckers etc etc etc.....People will always have names for people that fit the moment or is some cases toss in humor. Its life and every culture has them and uses them. If Gay people think by protesting that the general population will stop with the snide names then they have a lonnnnnnnnng road of protests and preaching ahead of them. Gay people need to get a thick skin and take it for what it is, I take no offense when someone calls me a name. In most cases its funny and I might have deserved it....