Do you think it's wrong to love someone of the same sex?
Yes
19.6%
103
No
80.4%
422
525 votes
| Honestly, when I read shit like some of the neanderthals in this thread, like naeCeal, have posted, I have a hard time believing that they have any functional relationships with real people at all. I can only imagine them dwelling in a dark basement with only a body pillow for company. They've devolved themselves. |
 |
TheUnknownMerc said: Sorry, but that's wrong. Marriage is merely a practical institution. It holds no other meaning than what we prescribe it.Marriage IS Procreating. and Sex IS Procreating Sex also is not procreation. Sex is an act that may lead to procreation. It is important that you understand how sex for humans is different from simple mating of many other lesser species. Sex, as I have stated already, gives pleasure and can form bonds. So it has three sides to it, not one. Esley said: I still don't see the big deal here. So what if traditional marriage goes down? Culture is subjected to survival of the fittest too. If it is weak and can not adapt, it will die. As the society change, the culture must follow, lest we are left with a decaying and living dead culture from ancient times (And religion helps tremendously with this dark deed). Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist? No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage. Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.” But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal. Illegitimacy does not need to be a problem at all, it's not as if children without two parents turn out inferior to "normal" children. Quite the contrary, as this becomes more common, these children will become more normal and their "problems" will thus disappear. Refusing to let go of the past because one is afraid of what the future might hold never helped anyone. Mankind would not be here today if we did this all the time. If you ask me, marriage is completely worthless were it not for the benefits that they bring, but these benefits are more or less all available to other forms of partnerships as well, the only difference is a lot of them are not automatic. What remains is but a symbolic gesture, of becoming one with someone in a legal and social sense. And if people want that, I see absolutely no reason to not give it to them. Whether it is same sex marriage, polygamy or marriage to fictional characters, I care not. I simply cannot see why it is a problem in the first place. |
BamanJan 22, 2010 4:24 PM
| ...wow...this is why I dislike those who take your words and twist them as they see fit...alright ESSWHY...let me give you a lesson here since you seem to condescend me and think just because a person has an opinion they are insulting... First before I GET to this YES as a matter of fact I am engaged and I do love the said person very much. In fact she has told me she is unsure of whether to have children or not which I am fine with, I didn't want to marry her to do so, and I didn't want to have sex to do so, as a matter of fact I don't want to have sex until she is good and ready to which may not be for 10 years to come which I am fine with, same with marrying her but we are engaged. That was not a view that was a fact ma'am...Do not assume everything said on the internet is not BASED off of something, everything I said was based on facts. Are you trying to tell me that When you have sex that is not the way to procreate (naturally of course I do not want this to turn into a genetics argument). Also are you saying that the purpose of Marriage is not to have kids? Now by purpose, of course I mean generally. Ask parents. Ask them what they tell their kids, When to have sex, When you should have sex and have a kid. I Guarantee 99% of them will say "Wait until your married" even my mother who did NOT wait, in fact she didn't GET married until I was 15-16 years of age. Next on the list is your blatant disregard for OTHERS Opinions. Assuming it was my opinion that the only reason for sex and marriage is to procreate. Assume this is my opinion (which is not due to the fact that it is a factual observation that is based on history. I have 2 opinions, my person, and my logical). If this is so not only do you say that I made a comment that is insulting, you blatantly say my opinion is not universal? And I suppose you have the factual evidence to support your opinion which IS universal? I mean if it wasn't why would you even bring up universal opinions. Read again ma'am, did I ever ONCE say that it was a universal opinion? No I did not. Now, you have sex with him? go for it go right ahead I am not stopping you, That statement that Marriage IS Procreating and Sex IS Procreating was derived from history, nothing more, nothing less. I just used it to further strengthen my logical opinion on the matter (again not to be confused with bias opinion). In addition, still ASSUMING that was my opinion, did I ever ONCE say that the ONLY reason for marriage was to procreate? the ONLY reason to have Sex is to PROCREATE? I do not believe so, I said that is the RESULT. Again I say please READ before you comment it will do you some good ma'am. Yes I know it's THEIR choice, thanks champ for saying something I already did say. I said it was my opinion. Should I also define for you what a person OPINION is while I'm at it? As for Marriage I will come back to that because I will also teach you what marriage really is madam. In addition thanks for telling my something I already knew, that people procreate even without being married. And if you want to start a war on science here I suggest you get your FACTS Straight before even trying. I am a science man myself and I have Heavy knowledge in all Physics, but mainly Quantum and Relativity. So I suggest you go back, read a few books before telling ME something like "Biology is more complex than "WELL LIKE I HEARD DARWIN SAID THAT ANIMALS COMPETE TO PASS THEIR GENES DOWN AND THAT IS ALL SO OMG IF YOU ARE NOT DOING THAT YOU ARE BROKEN THE HUMAN RACE IS DOOMED!!!"" If you want to even try to rebuke statements while bringing in Science I will be more than happy to destroy you with the Quantum Mechanical aspect of reality but I suggest you don't I suggest you keep this as simple as you can for your sake. As for marriage. What IS Marriage? Is a word, a formal arrangement. If you love someone why do you NEED to be married? it doesn't do anything. You can have children without it, You can live together without it. The only thing you CAN'T do is claim your married...what good will that do? To explain why I'M getting married it's because I love my Fiancé very much and I hate to admit it but I myself and insecure about her leaving me... There a very minute chance of this occurring, since 1) she isn't like that, and 2) she is very possessive of me. But I am still insecure about it. That's why I'm marrying her, I might be able to get some security from it. As for everyone else I suggest you be quite and know your history. First off you can't prove anything due to the fact that this ENTIRE Thing is all opinion based. You say a person is wrong just because of their opinion? again, would you like me to give you the definition OF Opinion? For those who take 2 of my lines and say "Your wrong since it's not just about procreate" I suggest your re read my entire post AGAIN, fine were it says that I was talking about a LONG time ago. Do not underestimate my intelligence and suggest I am naive enough to think people only have sex to make children and only marry to HAVE children because I don't. To completely win against this debate I would have to answer every question ever designed for this situation and also describe in detail the history of humans, and the world and it's beings along with many other things, including the fact that words become diluted in meaning over time in addition to a CHANGED meaning. This debate is practically an argument against people who will not drop their opinion from being write and are dead set against others being wrong, which makes no difference because you can't WIN none the less. I could do it but it would take a vast amount of my time which I must prioritize with exams in addition to the fact it would be far longer than my first post I typed. In fact it would be a Bible in comparison to a newspaper clipping. There are too many questions, to many theories, to many things to define and explain. And to top this ENTIRE thing off...IT'S ALL BASED ON OPINION. You all remind me of a teacher my mother described to me long ago. She wrote an essay on euthanasia describing how she thought, in her opinion, that if the people were suffering, it would be better to pull the plug, and because she was in a catholic school she was failed on it. HER OPINION FAILED. You can't be WRONG in opinion. ...And easier way to describe this is you all still perceive yourselves as correct is Relativity, If you move close to the speed of light and travel, your "time" slows down, and in comparison to a person who is standing here, both starting their "watches" at the same time, 1 person has 2 months and the other person has 1 month in time passing. Which of the two people are correct? Both. Everyone is correct on this matter because it's opinion based. Look that word up "opinion" the next time you go to say "your wrong" Again what I said was point form. To fully explain everything I would practically need to explain all events leading up to today relating to everything from sex, relationships, words, etc...which I myself do not feel like wasting just to prove I am correct to anyone who reads this. |
TheUnknownMercJan 22, 2010 5:16 PM
 |
| I don't really plan to "win" against you and I couldn't care less that you're an idiot. You may know things about quantum physics (if you are telling the truth), which is nice and dandy but you do not understand biology very well. Quantum physics has no merit in this conversation, so I am unsure of why you mentioned it. I happen to be someone who studies biology, and intend to get my phd within this field (microbiology, specifically). So please don't try to blindly insult me. Also, as I said in my post, you can get married for whatever reason you want. Personally I think being engaged to someone who doesn't want kids--while you spew this marriage is for procreation bullshit--is not very intelligent. You can do it if you'd like, be engaged for as long as you'd like, and never have kids if you want. I don't really care what you do, and the point is you shouldn't care what other people do. Trying to tell me what marriage means was a mistake. I disagree with you, because everyone has their own "opinion" on what marriage is. You must remember that word as you apparently felt the need to hold shift every time it appeared in your writing. Legally, marriage is tax benefits, which should not exclude a group of people. Also, I view marriage as a meaningful step in my relationship. It is a step of commitment and love. This is important for some homosexual couples, and they should be allowed to do this if they so choose. I also believe in premarital sex, so. *shrug* I don't care if you want t have sex before marriage, after or never. As I said, numerous times. Personally, I think it is time to stop responding to you. Your control over the English language is laughable. Though please don't compare me to someone who ignores other people's opinions. I am not. I would never give someone an F if they argued for a point I did not agree with. I would give them an F if they argued it so poorly, which is exactly what you have done. I don't care if what you think at all, it is not really of my concern. I only care when people thrust their opinions onto others and then blocks their basic human rights. |
| Really? You think Quantum holds no grounds? than you should brush up on your physics my dear because it does, but obviously you seem to disagree but i won't spend the time explaining to you. Next off biology? so what? you know more than anyone then that the fact of the matter is sex is there to procreate, if it wasn't there would be nothing there, the pleasure part is to intice the person to do it. Metaphorically speaking it's practically the same as saying i'll give you desert/candy if you eat your vegatables. Also i will say this again i was saying factual knowledge, do not assume that people just have one opinion. I said all that based on the history of humans and how the words and connections evolved to get a point across. If they want to do it so be it, i was asked for my opinion on it by another person, i posted it, it doesn't mean i'm going to go around to homosexuals and go "YOU DEFILE HUMAN SPECIES". And if you don't care what i do, than don't comment about questioning what i will do. You have your own opinion on what marriage is? Go for it, but that doesn't change the fact of were it came from, now has an entirely different meaning than 50 years ago like many other words. I personally couldn't care less about premarital sex -,- i just said i was going to wait until my fiance is damn well ready, it had nothing to do with marriage. And i didn't group you in with them i was refering to the the other's posting that "YOUR WRONG" when in fact you can't BE wrong. Also i didn't THRUST my opionion on others. In addition if you think my arguement was done poorly how about you read over yours which, i can't really say it's terrible because it isn't but it's damn well worse than mine. At least i backed my comment up. What i find sadding is that everyone thinks because someone says one thing they must ONLY think that one thing, Because i say that Marriage IS Procreation and Sex IS Procreation well damn well i must think only reason for doing it is that no, if you think you know as much as myself in terms of the english language than you would know that i never once said the only reason was to procreate i just said it IS precreation. which does not mean it's limited...i dislike it when people take a phrase i say and blast me for it without even understanding the context in which it was used ...lastly WTF??? human rights? really? you had to bring human rights into this? are you serious?...jeeze...i don't think i'm going to comment on this, people are taking this way to damn far. i really don't feel like spending my friday night after an exam talking and arguing about same sex marriage while people blast me for it thinking i'm some cold hearted bastart. First off people i have homosexual friends...do i really care? no. Would i care if they got married? no really, it doesn't affect me. It was a purely discussional opinion and because of it people took it out of context...this is why i hate discussions like this because people rage off a few words out of context So i bid you all farewell enjoy this pointless and meaningless stuggle to be right i do not feel like getting any deeper into this pointless discussion (sorry for spelling i don't feel like correcting it) |
|
| Regardless of what side of the debate you're on, everyone would do well to read and at least attempt to understand Baman's arguments: Baman said: TheUnknownMerc said: Sorry, but that's wrong. Marriage is merely a practical institution. It holds no other meaning than what we prescribe it.Marriage IS Procreating. and Sex IS Procreating This is the absolute truth of the matter: Marriage is simply what society subscribes it to be. Historically, marriage has been used, first and foremost, as a socially acceptable arrangement in which to have children. Secondly, marriage has been used as way for two or more people to show their attachment to each other and to the rest of the world. My original argument was that marriage is costly to the state, because of certain tax exemptions and the like. Because of the fact that marriage has been seen as a socially acceptable way to have children, a lot of married couples do, in fact, have children. Parents buy things for their children, and children grow up to be workers and consumers themselves in the economy. In this way, providing tax breaks and the like to married couples is ultimately beneficial to the state, even if not EVERY married couple ends up having children. Of course, marriage is not just about economics and procreation. Of course, two people who love each other would want to have what society sees as the ultimate "contract" for life. If two people love each other all their lives, of course it would be unfair that one could not make medical decisions for the other simply because they are both the same sex and therefore could not get married. Thus, two same sex people in a relationship should be afforded rights that directly affect their relationship with each other. These rights include the power to make medical decisions, the ability to be under a partner's health insurance policy (even though this is costly to the companies), and the like. However, they should not necessarily gain any economic benefits from the state, such as tax subsidies. Why? Because gay marriages in and of themselves, just like heterosexual marriages with no children, serve no state economic interest. One could argue that they do serve societal interest by making couples happier, and thus more productive at work, but any such indirect economic argument applied to all couples would be shaky at best. Interestingly, if you could get "married" to a fictitious character and get the same tax exemptions, I bet a lot of people would take the government up on that offer. Baman said: Refusing to let go of the past because one is afraid of what the future might hold never helped anyone. Mankind would not be here today if we did this all the time. If you ask me, marriage is completely worthless were it not for the benefits that they bring, but these benefits are more or less all available to other forms of partnerships as well, the only difference is a lot of them are not automatic. What remains is but a symbolic gesture, of becoming one with someone in a legal and social sense. And if people want that, I see absolutely no reason to not give it to them. Whether it is same sex marriage, polygamy or marriage to fictional characters, I care not. I simply cannot see why it is a problem in the first place. Believe it or not, I actually agree with you here. Any two people or group of people can become attached to each other for life, marriage or not. Therefore, it does seem like marriage is just a symbolic gesture. Marriage would otherwise be a completely symbolic gesture if not for certain economic benefits that the state bestows on married people vs unmarried people. If just a handful of certain benefits bestowed upon married people were changed around a little bit, I see little problem giving most anyone marriage certificates. (I say "most everyone" because I still think it unlikely that society will ever let close relatives marry, do to serious genetic problems that can occur in the children.) |
 |
| TL;DR All I'm gonna say is I'm the first one listed in the title. Kthx. |
| \ |
TheUnknownMerc said: Way to outrageously increase this page's proportion only to give up halfway about this "debate" of yours. Well, it's up to you, just like it's up to the homosexuals whether they want to marry or not.So i bid you all farewell enjoy this pointless and meaningless stuggle to be right i do not feel like getting any deeper into this pointless discussion (sorry for spelling i don't feel like correcting it) |
| Pardon my at times too caustic tone but I could not let idly lie these breweries of madness. Esley said: He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.” And they are. Why should they not be? Per Baman, let people wed what they fancy. Tradition exists for nothing more than the privelege to be annihilated by people with better ideas. (Not that I accept Blankenhorn's argument, which is very lazy. "Oh look a correlation! That must mean causation!") And now for the badworse post. TheUnknownMerc said: I believe that some people are born with opposite personalities than that in which the physical gender of their body was born. (i.e. guy personality in a girl's body (guy trapped in a girl's body) or girl personality in a guys body (girl trapped in guys body)). I do believe this could happen. I also think that a person of one gender can develop deep feelings for a person of the SAME gender. I do believe this as well. I am truly fine with homosexuals being in a relationship. What. It's ridiculous to say that there are guy or girl personalities. What is guy or girl about them? Why so? How so? Nonsense. TheUnknownMerc said: To explain this fact we must go back, very far back, to the history of relationships. What they are, how they were formed, WHY they were formed, etc. As some are aware already we have instincts just like animals, since we ARE animals technically. Go back a vast amount of time and you will see that our most primal instincts are to survive, and procreate. Survive has things like rest (i.e. sleep) and the ingestion of nutrients (food, water, anything needed to let that organic life form survive). It's in ALL Living beings. Even bacteria, and cells, the take in whatever they need to survive and not die, and procreate, except THEIR procreating is different, it's a form of cloning you can say, but still it's Procreating. Remember the definition of Procreate: To produce, create, make another organic life form. these two instincts are in all life forms. No, they decidedly are not. I have no desire whatsoever to litter this poor earth with my offspring (I am bad enough, more things similar to me would be criminal). Am I then not alive? I am rather sure I am alive. And if I am, how would you then defend your five-cent-Freud equation of life with the desire for propagation? You are, indeed, entirely confused as to how we work. Evolution is a tinkering process, it is not engineering. The desire for sex is a totally different one from the desire to have kids. Why do we like to have sex? The question is misleading for there are two senses of it. On one hand it is the idiographic - why any particular subject likes it (or not). That is personal, and we can't say much about that. On the other, nomothetic, hand it's the evolutionary function of it - which is that it increases rather vastly the likeliness of procreation. Now these two reasons are entirely different in nature. You cannot conflate them without being an intellectual charlatan. And there is most decidedly no reason for our personal reasons to be to service evolution (if you think we should, then why not eugenics? Then why have sex at all, we can inseminate by now? et cætera) TheUnknownMerc said: Now what does this have to do with us? well Procreating is also OUR instinct. We were made to survive and procreate, the ONLY reason we evolved...is well...I will save that for another time since THAT discussion would probably be longer to explain everything than THIS one. Back on topic, this is what we were made to do. So then...how did it come to how we are now? well, as you know sex is pleasurable. This is because we were made to do so, if we were made to do so, why would we be made to do something we DIDN'T like. Correct we enjoy sex because it entices us to Procreate, it is the RESULT of sex. No, we have an instinct to have sex (and not all of us do. Asexuals, mind you, are people too) because we have genetical reasons to, and those have the evolutionary function of making procreation likelier. It would be quite wrong to say we had a reason for evolving. And again, evolution is not something we need service. And no, sex is the result of liking sex. Not vice versa. Speaking entirely out of functionality in an evolutionary sense. In a human sense, neither need be the result of either. TheUnknownMerc said: Okay...now that we know that, what next? Well at some point people started (when our intellect increased) thinking that the person they were having sex with, might be a special person, someone who was special to them. This is relating to another desire. Do not confuse Desire with Instinct, Desire is a want, Instinct is subconscious. The Desire TO want, selfishness, the desire to keep the person to one's self. Alright...well then where do we go? Well...once this started being thought it developed into conversations, I wasn't there so I don't know what terminology they used but it was possessiveness. [citation needed] That is sadly not quite how it worked. Oh, I said sadly? I meant quite luckily. Really, there's so much wrong with this I cannot start. Social relationships, the evolution of larger societies, the growth of monogamy (or all gamies) and what have you is a story of far vaster complexity and depth than something as dull as your half-paragraph concoction. Language which allowed us to form far larger groups, agriculture and the following disaster for everything human, urbanisation, increasing leisure, the periods of child-bearing and the need to protect them, social contacts alone, the vast complexity of human natures (note plural), it's simply irreconcilable with your idea. To begin with, we're not selfish. And... No, really, this will be a text book of anthropology and five other sciences. As for your second minigraph I wonder what on Earth you intended to say. Can't decipher it, lord Derrida. TheUnknownMerc said: Right...now what? Well from here we have created MEANING to Procreation. Which means that we have created meaning on that other person, which MEANS that this entire thing has meaning. And once you put meaning on it...then the ball starts rolling, so to speak. How might you ask? Well if people put meaning on this than the effect of the possessiveness is authorities start mandating law's. I say authority but it was probably something like an Overload or Matriarch are someone who was the leader of these places. Well this all turned well and fine, it was once the terminology that started being used that is practically our definition of MARRIAGE started coming into play. O Urumi save me :'< Did you know that monogamy was not at all, is not at all, and has never been, and likely never will be the one and only form of human socio-cultural institution of sexual and romantic relation. Polygamy, nilgamy, what have you, there's been societies doing it. Skipping a bit since it is of less informational than the rest. Deflation, now a semantic concept. TheUnknownMerc said: Marriage IS Procreating. and Sex IS Procreating well than you can now say that I am against Procreating? Well you may ask why since Homosexuals CANNOT procreate, not naturally. I am not talking about adoption, or one of the two mates of the same gender having a physical mutation allowing such things (i.e. hermaphrodite). So why am I against it? For that EXACT REASON. THEY CAN'T. I do not care if homosexuals have feelings towards each other. If they love each other fine, but it should be platonic Love. Which if you don't know it's a non sexual love, Spiritual you could say and mental. If they love each other fine, than I don't care, they can be together, so be it. HOWEVER. Marriage is a different story and, in my opinion, so is sex. Marriage and Sex result in the same thing. They were meant to. The result of Procreation. They are there TO Procreate. Ah, the grand slam comes. The conclusion of... Something! And it is large and uses many words, so it must be of vast importance! Only, well, to condense... 1) Marriage is only for procreation. 2) Sex is only for procreation. 3) People of the same sex cannot procreate. C) People of the same sex should keep their cocks and pussies to themselves and not do anything else with them! ...which isn't of much importance at all. To sum up the fallacies here; a) You presume from the start that what you try to show wrong is wrong, you define it wrong to show it wrong. Id est, you presume yourself right and then think it an argument. (It is not.) b) Naturalistic fallacy - what is natural is right! You cannot get more fundamental as far as fallacies in ethics go. (This forgetting that it is just false all around, marriage is not natural - it is not a genetic thing, it is a cultural expression.) Think about what you are saying. What harm has befallen anyone from homosexuals getting it on or marrying? None to no one. Zero. The function operates on domain and codomain as empty sets. Therefore wrong? While ethics is up to taste, I find it unlikely that is your taste. And of course no one can show you men procreating. It is quite in the definition they cannot. But let not the easy common division of people into two sexes mislead you - humanity boasts a good ten or so sexes (XX, XY, XXY, XXYY, etc). And you won't see those procreating with much either. TheUnknownMerc said: Really? You think Quantum holds no grounds? than you should brush up on your physics my dear because it does, but obviously you seem to disagree but i won't spend the time explaining to you. It has no bearing on whether homosexuals should be allowed to fuck or not, no. You brought it up because you saw your pride trampled upon. Which is, well. Okay. Chill out man. It's just your opinion on this matter that sucks. Nothing else. TheUnknownMerc said: ...lastly WTF??? human rights? really? you had to bring human rights into this? are you serious?...jeeze...i don't think i'm going to comment on this, people are taking this way to damn far. Yeah because the right to have sex is totally not a human right. Any government can forbid people to have sex and they will be totally uncriticised by HRW and Amnesty and UN and what the chipwick have you. Interestingly, procreation ISN'T one to the same degree, as none of these have complained about China's One Child policy (mostly because it is an intelligent one). TheUnknownMerc said: i really don't feel like spending my friday night after an exam talking and arguing about same sex marriage while people blast me for it thinking i'm some cold hearted bastart. First off people i have homosexual friends...do i really care? no. Would i care if they got married? no really, it doesn't affect me. It was a purely discussional opinion and because of it people took it out of context...this is why i hate discussions like this because people rage off a few words out of context I must say, it is remarkable considering the clarity of your prose and stalwart refusal to fall to prolixity, but here I finally lost you. If you claim a, then a. There is no way around it. You said homosexuals should not have sex. There is no evasion of that, even if that is not what you do believe - for it is hard to tell when someone lies about what they believe. Why you feel insulted because people think you are wrong is beyond me, because you are certainly not your opinion. Yorokobu said: If just a handful of certain benefits bestowed upon married people were changed around a little bit, I see little problem giving most anyone marriage certificates. (I say "most everyone" because I still think it unlikely that society will ever let close relatives marry, do to serious genetic problems that can occur in the children.) That one is interesting though. Why do we allow people with genetic defects to fuck? And, also, the risk can also be lower that relatives produce a defect child (since the problem is entirely that being siblings, it is likely that they may share recessive, 'bad' genes - but also true that they may not share otherwise common recessve genes). dear christ this is disorganised garbage. My post, that is. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
Tachii said: TheUnknownMerc said: Way to outrageously increase this page's proportion only to give up halfway about this "debate" of yours. Well, it's up to you, just like it's up to the homosexuals whether they want to marry or not.So i bid you all farewell enjoy this pointless and meaningless stuggle to be right i do not feel like getting any deeper into this pointless discussion (sorry for spelling i don't feel like correcting it) Exactly why his posts should be ignored. Not to mention his condescending attitude. |
| What I learned from this thread: |
Kaiserpingvin said: Ah well, this is why I've always been for eugenics. Or better yet, sterilize everyone and farm humans from tubes instead, with new patches updating the newest versions so we steadily become better and better. That one is interesting though. Why do we allow people with genetic defects to fuck? And, also, the risk can also be lower that relatives produce a defect child (since the problem is entirely that being siblings, it is likely that they may share recessive, 'bad' genes - but also true that they may not share otherwise common recessve genes). But alas, of such a utopian future we may only dream. |
Baman said: Kaiserpingvin said: Ah well, this is why I've always been for eugenics. Or better yet, sterilize everyone and farm humans from tubes instead, with new patches updating the newest versions so we steadily become better and better. That one is interesting though. Why do we allow people with genetic defects to fuck? And, also, the risk can also be lower that relatives produce a defect child (since the problem is entirely that being siblings, it is likely that they may share recessive, 'bad' genes - but also true that they may not share otherwise common recessve genes). But alas, of such a utopian future we may only dream. That's quite an imagination. |
| Personally, I don't think "there's a higher chance of birth defects in children" is the valid reason for siblings not to have children. There's a higher chance of narrowmindedness when moralfags have children, and we still let it slip. Seriously, there have been researches that support this idea of frequent birth defects, and there have been those that don't. It's not universal. June_1983 said: Honestly, when I read shit like some of the neanderthals in this thread, like naeCeal, have posted, I have a hard time believing that they have any functional relationships with real people at all. I can only imagine them dwelling in a dark basement with only a body pillow for company. They've devolved themselves. ROFL |
Sonic_MoronicJan 23, 2010 3:52 AM
Kaiserpingvin said: To the first question, the ability to think abstractly lead to all sort of odd behaviors that does not coincide to other animals. As for the second, I would think on average, with so much evidence from several different organisms, which particularly avoid inbreeding, that the chance that relatives has a lower chance to produce a defect child is also much lower. Yes, it probably can occur, but it doesn't really matter if it's low enough for many organisms to adapt behaviors that avoid inbreeding altogether.That one is interesting though. Why do we allow people with genetic defects to fuck? And, also, the risk can also be lower that relatives produce a defect child (since the problem is entirely that being siblings, it is likely that they may share recessive, 'bad' genes - but also true that they may not share otherwise common recessve genes). |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |