410 replies to this topic

[Galadriel]

Grandmaster for best troll in the next Codies.

[Barcodite]

Yeah, I'm pretty much done.

[Bone]

Grandmaster for best troll in the next Codies.

 

I can only hope. If so, congratulations, you're the first Neocodex user to have successfully trolled me.

[Adam]

I can only hope. If so, congratulations, you're the first Neocodex user to have successfully trolled me.

Likely story.

[Bone]

Likely story.

 

lol

[Mishelle]

 

 

I have stated that attraction towards same-sex is an inclination, rather than genetic causes. To completely attribute sexual orientation as natural and not a choice at all, it should be proven that this attribution is caused by the genes. One thing we can be sure of as of now that it is certainly not a hereditary genes. If that is the case and since homosexuals is unable to reproduce in the past, such genes will have been eliminated in the genes pool. Then the possible gene will likely to be similar feature as those that cause blindness, deaf or whatsoever in the infant. But there is still no study to prove the existence of such genes. So for now, it is still more acceptable to regard it as an inclination until such gene is found. For an inclination, it just means a higher percentage of action happening but there is still room for choices to be exercised. For stealing inclination, under a good nurture environment and if the child is willing to change, then such inclination could be stopped. Likewise, for homosexual inclination, there are records of people turning from homosexual to straight through therapy or counselling, showing that people can still have some choice over such inclinations. While many people have suggested how therapy or counselling is not working, it would be too hasty to disregard those successful cases totally. In those therapy or counselling, there is also some suggestion about people unwilling to cooperate and very repulsive towards such treatment and hence they have not worked for them. This again could suggest people have the choice to control their inclinations depending on their willingness to cooperate or desire to control those inclinations.

 

By the way, I think the correction for homosexuality that you mentioned are still restricted to therapy and counselling. If there is no medical breakthroughs and we are still confined with these two methods, then the success rate may be low. But it cannot be totall denied that such methods have worked for some. Anyway, I have mentioned about other possibilites such as injection of hormones. No such methods have been tested yet so it is too early to determine effectiveness of these methods. As with any other disease, years or decades of trying may still be futile but it does not mean that they should be stopped. For example, until now, we have not found a cure for cancer which has surfaced decades or centuries ago but scientist and doctors are still researching. It is with new technology and this kind of dedication that we have found cure for many of the diseases that is thought to be uncurable decades or centuries ago. But if we already rejected such idea, how is it possible for any advances? Some people are so repulsive towards ideas like injection of hormones when most of us have been taking vaccinations. There's scientific approach to test out these researches before it is implemented on humans such as testing on animals. Such approach is also adopted in the testing of new drugs on people. Before it is even used on most people, it would have been tested with a number of people who are willing to be tested.

 

All of this is stupid and wrong but the bolded is especially stupid and wrong.

Edited by Mishelle, 07 July 2013 - 09:28 AM.

[mintpro]

--

 

 

I have stated that attraction towards same-sex is an inclination, rather than genetic causes. To completely attribute sexual orientation as natural and not a choice at all, it should be proven that this attribution is caused by the genes. One thing we can be sure of as of now that it is certainly not a hereditary genes. If that is the case and since homosexuals is unable to reproduce in the past, such genes will have been eliminated in the genes pool. Then the possible gene will likely to be similar feature as those that cause blindness, deaf or whatsoever in the infant. But there is still no study to prove the existence of such genes. So for now, it is still more acceptable to regard it as an inclination until such gene is found. --

http://www.dailymoti...s-of_gaylesbian

[Grandmaster]

Seems like there is not much reasonings anymore. Just pure personal attack and rejection of opposing views.

 

I have summarised the points for both sides of the argument earlier on and the details are in the entire thread. I thought there would more people to add on to the points especially for proposition.

 

For those who still insist on sexual orientation being purely natural and no choice and no influence by nurture environment, please help to take down http://en.wikipedia....ual_orientation

[Drakonid]

You win the internet, my good sir!

[Romy]

He...surrendered?

[Drakonid]

He won this thread.

[Romy]

Then...I surrendered?

[Turnip]

Seems like there is not much reasonings anymore. Just pure personal attack and rejection of opposing views.

 

I have summarised the points for both sides of the argument earlier on and the details are in the entire thread. I thought there would more people to add on to the points especially for proposition.

 

For those who still insist on sexual orientation being purely natural and no choice and no influence by nurture environment, please help to take down http://en.wikipedia....ual_orientation

 

Please don't just pass arguments off as ``personal attacks" and ignore the rest of the post! A lot of people got offended from what you said but were still able to write up arguments against yours.

Thank you!

 

[Mishelle]

Seems like there is not much reasonings anymore. Just pure personal attack and rejection of opposing views.

 

I have summarised the points for both sides of the argument earlier on and the details are in the entire thread. I thought there would more people to add on to the points especially for proposition.

 

For those who still insist on sexual orientation being purely natural and no choice and no influence by nurture environment, please help to take down http://en.wikipedia....ual_orientation

 

I'm sorry but it's hard to take you seriously when you say that gay people can't reproduce.

[Romy]

I'm sorry but it's hard to take you seriously when you say that gay people can't reproduce.

He said they can.

They make robots remember?
C'mon Mishelle.

[Grandmaster]

Please don't just pass arguments off as ``personal attacks" and ignore the rest of the post! A lot of people got offended from what you said but were still able to write up arguments against yours.

Thank you!

 

 

Whenever a comment turns against the user debating instead of the topic itself, it's a personal attack and it is a logical fallacy itself. The use of emotive words to stir up emotions are also exploiting logical fallacy. So whatever argument in there are already weakened but I still have attempted to reason whatever argument found there to the best of my ability. If you scrutinze my reasonings and posts, I have refrained from any of such logical fallacies and continues to argue by the topic although every now and then, people call me troll, ignorant, bigot. It requires a lot of self-discipline to keep your emotions down and focus on keeping your reasonings not affected by the emotions. You can feel emotional when you read the replies and thinking about the replies but in your replies, you should not reflect those emotions and make the reasonings stand by themselves.

 

Also, you can disagree with whatever reasonings I have put up and have your own set of reasoning. As long as it is substantiated, whether I agree or not, they are useful. I can still give more reasoning to counter your argument. But as long as all the argument are recorded in this thread. Interested people can drop by to read through and judge for themselves whatever the stand they want to take. The worst thing in a debate is that ideas got stifled or a viewpoint was rejected just because people feel that it is wrong but without having any substantiated or logical reasons.

 

In my summary of points, I have also reflected the points from both sides to provide people with the two sided views. The conclusion to any debates usually ended up with two-sided views and helps people to understand the complexity of the issues. If anyone wants to come to a debate with the mind that it will end up with one side winning the debate, then it is easy to be disappointed. Only in debate competition, there is any winner declared. In the real life debates, there is no winner but only better understanding for people. This is the true open-mindedness.

[Mishelle]

He said they can.

They make robots remember?
C'mon Mishelle.

 

It's only a matter of time...

 

[Romy]

It's only a matter of time...

 

Spoiler

'

[Speedracer]

At risk of being battered like Grandmaster, I also disagree with gay marriage (not for the same reasons)


I have no problem with and support the idea of civil unions for everyone (hetero and homosexuals) to have equal rights in the view of the government, as far as rights, taxes, health care, etc. I personally view marriage as a religious institution and as such should not be interfered with by government rules or regulations. Also given that method agnostics, atheists, etc. would be joined in a legal bond not a religious one. I realize plenty of people view marriage in a different way just by personal view.

[Frizzle]

Marriage is not a religious institution, as it pre-dates most modern religions. Also, atheists are married in "holy matromony " and the sermons are in no way different than those of a christian/religious background.

 

Think about Mary and Joseph who were married i.e before Christ.

[GothicxToy]

Legally speaking, there's a big different between a civil union and marriage. Both have different rights. While I believe in loving whoever the hell you want and having the satisfaction of being married, I also want people to acknowledge the legal reasons.

Also to the person who posted the wikipedia page, wikipedia isn't always right.

Edited by Ophy, 08 July 2013 - 01:07 PM.

[Romy]

At risk of being battered like Grandmaster, I also disagree with gay marriage (not for the same reasons)


I have no problem with and support the idea of civil unions for everyone (hetero and homosexuals) to have equal rights in the view of the government, as far as rights, taxes, health care, etc. I personally view marriage as a religious institution and as such should not be interfered with by government rules or regulations. Also given that method agnostics, atheists, etc. would be joined in a legal bond not a religious one. I realize plenty of people view marriage in a different way just by personal view.

 

 

Elaborate? Why is marriage a religious institution? What if a certain religion allows for homosexuals to be wed? 

Do you mean a Judeo-Christian institution? Because then you're just wrong.

[Speedracer]

Marriage is not a religious institution, as it pre-dates most modern religions. Also, atheists are married in "holy matromony " and the sermons are in no way different than those of a christian/religious background.

 

Think about Mary and Joseph who were married i.e before Christ.

 

Mary and Joseph were Jewish, but I understand your point. I recognize that marriage predates written history and as such can not be linked to a certain origin. I was suggesting having one thing that everyone goes through that gives them the rights, etc. of a married couple and then a separate process that would be for religious purposes. That way people can be joined together and given all the same benefits while circumventing the problems that various religions have with allowing gay marriage.
 

Elaborate? Why is marriage a religious institution? What if a certain religion allows for homosexuals to be wed? 

Do you mean a Judeo-Christian institution? Because then you're just wrong.

As I stated it is my personal view I was just giving a brief explanation per the request of the poll taker, I'm not looking to get into a debate. That being said allowing it would then that would be up to that religion or sect; if i'm not mistaken there are already some religions that endorse gay marriage. 

I just mean't religious institution in general, while Abrahamic religions are clearly the largest groups

[Romy]

As I stated it is my personal view I was just giving a brief explanation per the request of the poll taker, I'm not looking to get into a debate. That being said allowing it would then that would be up to that religion or sect; if i'm not mistaken there are already some religions that endorse gay marriage. 

I just mean't religious institution in general, while Abrahamic religions are clearly the largest groups

 

You cannot make certain generalizations about religious institutions since they're so many differences between them.

Your opinion said that marriage was a religious institution without taking into consideration the plethora of differences between each one.

 

The premise of your opinion is extremely flawed and it doesn't make sense as a result.

[Mishelle]

Why don't the religious people take civil unions and everyone else can have marriage?