|
An Anti-Gay Debate (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by coroknight
Just because someone was raised a certain way doesn't mean we have to accept it. |
True. We could always eat them. |
|
|
| Ania_xox |
| quote: | Originally posted by coroknight
I never compared homosexuality to cannibalism. I was just pointing out a flaw in your logic and also your argument.
Just because someone was raised a certain way doesn't mean we have to accept it. |
exactly
just because someone thinks homosexuality is natural, doesn't mean that those who disagree have to accept it
you just affirmed my argument
:conf: |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aortik
In addition, all of the examples in the bible that are against homosexuality are clearly just metaphors for how God loves chocolate chip cookies. I mean, that's how I interpret them, it's what I believe and have faith in, so how could it possibly be incorrect? |
This seriously made me lol.
| quote: | Originally posted by Aortik
considering that monogamy is undoubtedley a female invention in the first place. |
Correct me if I am wrong, but was Monogamy not "invented" by men to ensure that they "knew" if a woman was carrying their offspring or not? |
|
|
| coroknight |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ania_xox
Honestly, you can't be angry with someone for not being a fan of homosexuality. It's not common on such a public level in a lot of countries therefore some people are uncomfortable with it and they think it's wrong.
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Ania_xox
you just affirmed my argument
:conf: |
Not from what I can tell. It seems like you were arguing the opposite.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Theresa Correct me if I am wrong, but was Monogamy not "invented" by men to ensure that they "knew" if a woman was carrying their offspring or not? |
I'm not sure about that since men are programmed to procreate as much as possible. Keep the species going lol. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by coroknight
Not from what I can tell. It seems like you were arguing the opposite.
I'm not sure about that since men are programmed to procreate as much as possible. Keep the species going lol. |
Right, they wanted to spread their seed, but did not want to be supporting the seed of another man. It was a one-sided Monogamy, enforcing that a woman only have one mate so as to determine who the offspring belonged to. |
|
|
| coroknight |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Right, they wanted to spread their seed, but did not want to be supporting the seed of another man. It was a one-sided Monogamy, enforcing that a woman only have one mate so as to determine who the offspring belonged to. |
Ahhh i see what you're saying. Thats where the competition comes in.
SHE WILL BE MINE AND NO ONE ELSES. |
|
|
| Aortik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Right, they wanted to spread their seed, but did not want to be supporting the seed of another man. It was a one-sided Monogamy, enforcing that a woman only have one mate so as to determine who the offspring belonged to. |
Yes, this is true. I should have specified that "monogamy for men" is a female invention. :p |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aortik
Arachnophobia, for example, is a learned behaviour - mostly irrational fear - but try to condition somebody out of it. It's possible, but deeply ingrained fears and prejudices are not things easily purged through logic, despite surmounting evidence to their utter irrationality.
|
From what I have understood about "irrational fears" (such as Arachnophobia,) it is a result of Evolutionary Lag:
To restate the summary principle of evolutionary biology, "Genetic mutations that enhance one's likelihood to live long enough to reproduce become adaptations." The best estimates are that it takes a minimum of fifty thousand years for an adaptation to show up in the human genome. This is called evolutionary lag -- the time lag between when an adaptation first appears in a small proportion of individuals and when it becomes widely distributed in the population.
From what I gather, we are innately programmed to fear spiders/heights/etc. as in many cases, these things can be life threatening. As we have become more knowledgeable and technologically more advanced, these things do not pose as large of a threat as they once did. As a result, the fear begins to dissipate and the programming is lost, but in some, the innate fear remains aka evolutionary lag.
P.S. I am no expert on the subject, but this is how I understood it. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aortik
Yes, this is true. I should have specified that "monogamy for men" is a female invention. :p |
Hey, it's only fair... if we have to be monogamous, why not you too? :tongue2 |
|
|
| Aortik |
| quote: | Originally posted by barbina
I disagree 100% and I recently stumbled upon a study by Helen Fisher to back it up. Its called 'The Brain in Love' and she explains our natural need for love. Watch it here |
The results of that study could just as well demonstrate the effects of empathy on brain chemistry. That's not exactly the same, or is it? |
|
|
| Aortik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
From what I have understood about "irrational fears" (such as Arachnophobia,) it is a result of Evolutionary Lag:
To restate the summary principle of evolutionary biology, "Genetic mutations that enhance one's likelihood to live long enough to reproduce become adaptations." The best estimates are that it takes a minimum of fifty thousand years for an adaptation to show up in the human genome. This is called evolutionary lag -- the time lag between when an adaptation first appears in a small proportion of individuals and when it becomes widely distributed in the population.
From what I gather, we are innately programmed to fear spiders/heights/etc. as in many cases, these things can be life threatening. As we have become more knowledgeable and technologically more advanced, these things do not pose as large of a threat as they once did. As a result, the fear begins to dissipate and the programming is lost, but in some, the innate fear remains aka evolutionary lag.
P.S. I am no expert on the subject, but this is how I understood it. |
So then you're saying that homophobia is a genetic trait and that homophobes are the victims of their heredity?
:) |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aortik
So then you're saying that homophobia is a genetic trait and that homophobes are the victims of their heredity?
:) |
Perhaps. Think about it. Our fears are often innately programmed into us in order to protect and preserve humanity. As we all know, homosexuality does not result in babies. As a result, this could be seen as a threat to the preservation of humanity and its growth. Maybe "homophobia" in its *true* state is actually evolutionary lag.
With that being said, I do agree and understand that a lot of fears are "learned". I think that a lot of "homophobes" (or even arachnophobes for that matter,) are not truly reacting based on primal fear but more of a reaction to something they have learned. |
|
|
|
|
