Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 71314151617
Results 161 to 166 of 166

Thread: Doc McStuffins promotes LGBT rights, Moms freak out...

  1. #161

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by tiny
    No worries, mate. :-)
    As usual I find very little to disagree with in your posts.

    It's obvious I don't have a deep, scientific understanding of genetics, but why would anyone here need that? That's what we have scientists for. Our concern is about the moral and legal issues. It would be nice to have a solid scientific explanation for homosexuality to help guide our decisions. We don't need to understand the science behind it but we would like a scientific consensus on the subject. Unfortunately, science has not yet reached that point.

    Despite my ignorance of scientific detail I doubt anyone could point out many statements I've made that are in conflict with accepted science.


    Oh, absolutely! It's a "Just So" story... but once you eliminate the impossible, [the gay uncle theory] seems to be amongst the most reasonable theories left.
    The thing I don't like about the gay uncle theory is that we have no need for it. It's a theory to explain in evolutionary terms why there could be a direct genetic cause of homosexuality, but that connection has never been found. Why have a theory about something that is not known to exist?

    Even if we do find a direct genetic cause of homosexuality, which I believe is unlikely, we still would have no need for the gay uncle theory. At that point who would care? The important thing would be that the connection to genetics would have been established and the need to concoct stories about 'why' would serve no purpose for us other than the entertainment value they provide.



    In order for a species to be able to adapt to a changing environment, it presumably helps to have a diverse society. It must be better for a society to be made up of people with a variety of skills, interests, abilities, etc. than for everyone to have identical abilities and limitations. Also, with organisms as complex as humans, it must be much more "technically difficult" for biology to reproduce individual humans across a wide spectrum of proclivities with very hard boundaries that strictly limit homosexual interests.

    Does that make sense?
    It makes perfect sense to me because I believe that too. It seems likely that we (animals) have evolved a genetic tendency geared towards flexibility to enable the various species to survive or evolve in a constantly changing environment. It's this flexibility, itself, that provides the evolutionary benefit and not necessarily all of the specific results of that flexibility, some of which obviously would be detrimental to survival.



    And just to be clear... I think that the most important thing about being human is that we have the mental capacity to overcome our evolutionary limitations. I don't have any firm beliefs in any of these theories, although I think they're interesting. Even IF homosexuals are "evolutionarily useless", we have evolved into societies that transcend the mindless brutality of evolution.
    I also like to believe the human mind is capable of overcoming our evolved animal instincts, but I am losing faith in that belief.

  2. #162

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    Our concern is about the moral and legal issues. It would be nice to have a solid scientific explanation for homosexuality to help guide our decisions.
    Moral and legal issues...? I can't see that we need any explanation of homosexuality to address moral and legal issues. What moral/legal issues could there possibly be amongst consenting adults? An individual's right to live as they wish trumps any kind of "evolutionary imperative".



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    We don't need to understand the science behind it but we would like a scientific consensus on the subject. Unfortunately, science has not yet reached that point.
    Whilst it's important to value the opinion of peer-reviewed experts, I think it's equally important that people try to educate themselves on "scientific" matters... if their beliefs are going to have an impact on others.

    If people want to discuss the "moral and legal" issues pertaining to something, they really need to make an effort to understand the issues themselves before passing judgement. No one can be an expert in everything, so I think the best approach to thinks of which you're not familiar is "live and let live"... until you have a reason to think otherwise.



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    The thing I don't like about the gay uncle theory is that we have no need for it. It's a theory to explain in evolutionary terms why there could be a direct genetic cause of homosexuality, but that connection has never been found. Why have a theory about something that is not known to exist?
    Ha! I know what you mean. When I first hear about the "gay uncle theory", I thought it somewhat far-fetched. But it's grown on me (in the absence of many other viable theories).

    I hope you don't find this a bit cheeky, but it sounds like you're looking for "scientists" to come up with theories, that you either accept or reject in an all-or-nothing way. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I believe the "gay uncle theory" because I don't feel like I need to be the one to pass judgement. I'd like to know why some people are gay, but I don't feel like I need to know (or even that it makes sense to ask the question).

    Before asking questions about metaphysical reality, we need to accept reality as it truly is. It's a fact that some people are gay, across all nations and cultures. It's far more important that we accept this fact and get over it than it is for us to explain it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    It makes perfect sense to me because I believe that too. It seems likely that we (animals) have evolved a genetic tendency geared towards flexibility to enable the various species to survive or evolve in a constantly changing environment. It's this flexibility, itself, that provides the evolutionary benefit and not necessarily all of the specific results of that flexibility, some of which obviously would be detrimental to survival.
    Detrimental to the individual's genetic dissemination... And this is assuming that homosexual people confer no evolutionary advantages to society, which is unproven. The "gay uncle theory" is certainly plausible. It's interesting that the incidence of homosexuality appears to increase with subsequent births.

    I dunno!

  3. #163

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    Despite my ignorance of scientific detail I doubt anyone could point out many statements I've made that are in conflict with accepted science.
    Devil's advocate here, but what do you think I've been doing?

  4. #164

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by tiny View Post
    Moral and legal issues...? I can't see that we need any explanation of homosexuality to address moral and legal issues. What moral/legal issues could there possibly be amongst consenting adults? An individual's right to live as they wish trumps any kind of "evolutionary imperative".
    As a society we have an obligation to evaluate human behavior to determine if we need to intervene in some way. Our greater acceptance of homosexuality is due, IMHO, to our greater scientific understanding that it is natural and harmless rather than being a mental illness that needs to be treated, or being a deliberate, perverse behavior that needs correction.



    Ha! I know what you mean. When I first hear about the "gay uncle theory", I thought it somewhat far-fetched. But it's grown on me (in the absence of many other viable theories).

    I hope you don't find this a bit cheeky, but it sounds like you're looking for "scientists" to come up with theories, that you either accept or reject in an all-or-nothing way.
    Even if there is a 'proven' benefit for having gay uncles, the belief that that is a possible evolutionary reason for homosexuality is just idle speculation in the same way we speculate on the reason why so many men find female breasts sexually arousing. Whether it is true or false we will never know. I don't reject the theory. I just reject the notion that it proves, or even substantially supports, anything. It's just one possibility among many other similar possibilities.

  5. #165

    Default

    Quoting someone with something they didn't say isn't acceptable. Even if you feel it's an accurate summary of what they said. Don't do it.

  6. #166

    Default

    So, let's try this again, since, for some reason, when I went to edit my post for spelling, it was deleted instead.

    17 pages and I am not sure what I can add to this thread. What I will say is that I am tired. I have been having these debates since 1990 and while I have changed a few minds, it seems like today, the unempathetic, the fact-resistant, and the cruel are back on the upswing.

    What I see in this thread are people debating my legitimacy (and that of others) as a person and my right to exist as I am. It crosses all lines of debate and discussion and becomes inherently personal. To read of people saying that lesbian couples shouldn't be represented in media because it's not age-appropriate is horrific to the core, because for kids who have LGBTQ people as parents, that representation is crucial.

    Yes, seeing same-sex couples on TV shows 'normalizes' us, and helps children in those households not be treated badly by their peers, and gives LGBTQ *children* hope that they too can live full lives, have families, and suffer less hatred and bigotry. Yes, kids can absolutely be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer and it doesn't require sexual activity. I knew I was gay when I was 6. The more you know.

    So, yes, this is intensely personal for me and I cannot debate this with folks like Maxx anymore as if this were some lifeless academic discussion that doesn't have dire ramifications for me. LGBTQ folks will not be going out of sight, out of mind anymore. Those days are over. The days of discussing it as if invalidating my existence is a talking point are over. We aren't talking points or political pawns, we're people.

    I have to live in my own skin. I am gay. I cannot choose that anymore than I can choose to be left handed, or to have hazel eyes. I *choose* to call myself queer, because my orientation has to be a political statement. I'd rather it wasn't, but so long as others decide that my existence and civil rights are debatable, then so it is and so I must. I will fight, by all means, legal or not, peaceful or violent, to defend myself and the ones I love and the greater LGBTQ community as well. I am no tough guy. I'm a middle-aged man with diabetes and a back problem, but if you are going to try and erase me and my culture, you will have to kill me.

    Call me extremist or radical, I don't care. I have a right to exist. I will not be erased. I will not stand by and watch as other LGBTQ folks are erased, attacked, legislated back into the closet, their families ripped apart, and so on. We have a right to exist. Full stop.

    Be ignorant, prejudiced, misguided, and/or hateful all you like, but realize that the genie isn't going back in the bottle. I am not the only one willing to fight and die for my existence. If you are willing to do the same for your bigotry, bring it.

    :-)

Similar Threads

  1. My moms personality ( a theory)
    By Angelic in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 20-Mar-2017, 10:24
  2. I am dreading my moms funeral
    By Angelic in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-Jul-2016, 14:44
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 13-Feb-2015, 01:08
  4. AB and moms question
    By Tupsu in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-Sep-2010, 08:22
  5. moved out of my moms
    By baby_mike in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 14-Nov-2009, 20:20

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.