Could this viewpoint be considered offensive? page 2

39 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
thijser: Well the problem with it being genetic is the fact that something that affects aprox 5% of the population would have been removed from the genepool a long time ago.

Not necessarily. After all, four leaf clovers (a mutation) continue to exist.

Nice try.
However, I would say that yer example has a fail because there is a much, MUCH higher number of reproduction of clover than humans.
.
thijser: The current leading idea is that it’s mainly based on hormones. This would for example explain why a boy with multiple older brothers has a larger chance of being gay.

Good point. Not really sure why I blanked on hormones. Probably because I’m an idiot.

MAYBE, ya “blanked” because focusing on a genetic cause is a higher degree of ABNORMALITY than hormones….which YOU deem such “abnormality” to be: “If homosexuality is indeed caused by a genetic mutation, then yes, they’re faulty.”
.
thijser: Anyway it’s a fact they deviate from the norm. It’s a completely different question if divination from the norm (“abnormal”) is bad. Einstein was a divination from the norm was that bad? And yes if it’s hormones it could one day become preventable, however this still has many ethical aspects (similarly we could decide to pick a hair colour and eye colour we want all our children to have just as hitler did).

I just don’t see how me saying they’re abnormal is bad. Max Scherzer having two different colored eyes is abnormal. It isn’t bad (and he was a hell of a pitcher this year). Be gay isn’t abnormal. I never made the claim that it’s bad.

“If homosexuality is indeed caused by a genetic mutation, then yes, they’re faulty”.
Where I come from: faulty is strongly synonymous w/ “bad”.
But, issen…what I see ya doing here w/ is strongly (for WHATEVER reason) trying to “defend” the word abnormal to describe homosexuality. I see this as being little difference than the younger generation’s penchant to use “that’s so Gay” and try to “prove” it isn’t derogatory….when very hugely often it certainly does allude to the specific behavior/ideology of Gays.

I see such attempts to covert a negative attitude (either consciously or subconsciously) via such attempts to use accurate descriptions—though fraught w/ demeaning overtones—as little more than thinly-veiled biases. Sure, the “that’s-so-Gay” might well describe a behavior likely to be clichéd to SOME, SOME Gays. But, the “tone” in which it is used certainly isn’t a positive one. Rather, it is mostly used to chastise.

Being Black is obviously a faulty/abnormal genetic mutation, esp when viewed by a White Supremist. A lackluster manufacturing of a “normal” standard is a sign that waaaayyyyy too much emphasis is overly strongly biased against something that is—in reality—merely a DIFFERENCE. I think this is the point I, thijser, & MmeBunneh are making.

A good example of my point is this: Immortal7777—“It’s not genetic, They choose it. If it was genetic then it would be a negative one and it is a defect.”
.

KKK: Just because DNA/RNA is different doesn’t necessarily make it a mutation. Skin, hair, eye colors are a result of genetic coding. Maybe homosexuality genetics is merely recessive genes “brought to life” by the unique combination of the union of the contributing couple….as happens in many different areas of “personhood”.

Did I say otherwise?


I’d say ya did: YOU “twist” the natural occurrence of the “Gay gene” to be abnormal & a mutation while failing to see most other genetic differences" as being normal. I see this happen because ya say: “If homosexuality is indeed caused by a genetic mutation, then yes, they’re faulty.”
.
KKK: NO. I’m NOT TRYING to be offended. I AM offended by attitudes (YOURS here?) that tries to make much more out of “gaydom” than it socially “has to” be.

It certainly shouldn’t be made into much….

BUT IT IS _MADE INTO MUCH.
And, in my world….one is—TO A DEGREE—either a part of the solution or a part of the problem. I see your nitpicking defense of the terms abnormal & faulty as being little more than a straddling-of-the-fence degree…w/ overtones of skirting the edge of being a “problem”. I say this because of the where-there’s-smoke-there’s-probably-a-fire (even be it a very—and unintended—small one.

Yer strong defense of a position that is a plank in the platform of the true & strongly overt bigots is something I see as a very mild: while not actually joining in the fray-of-bigotry; it is (unintentionally?) lending “support” to such bigotry. A rational person who desires to be clearly seen as being a part of the solution wouldn’t be so argumentative overly something as petty as nomenclature about what to use when discussing what “causes” a person to be Gay.

Note: I’m going to continue this post in a second one. If I don’t, this one will be so totally compressed into a continuous wall of text w/ no paragraph breaks.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

LOLOLOLOLOL
And here it rears its ugly jhcoist head.
Diversion via insult.
Niiiiiccccceeeeeee.

Actually you spent an awful lot of that post making various innuendos about issen’s supposed homophobia and trying to psychoanalyze it. Of course this whole thread is full of that garbage so you’re certainly not alone, but it does get tiresome.

Now that we have a mod that’s paying attention I’m simply going to flag posts that attack the person rather than the argument. In the past that tactic’s been used to great effect to auto-delete posts, but as I say, we have a mod who’s paying attention now. You are NOT attacking the argument when you use ad hominems and comparisons to other posters you despise. Not under any conceivable definition of ‘attack the argument’.

 
Flag Post

I started to respond, karma, to the first post, but then I saw that there was an even longer one below it! I’m just not going to wade through that. If you want to PM me a cliffnotes version (you’ll have to unmute me long enough to do that I imagine), go for it.

And then I saw this treasure:

issen, if ya wanna dismiss my points

Looks like you were aware of how bloody rambly your two posts were and realized that I probably was going to ignore the text wall, but you had to put this in to make sure you won. That the only reason I wouldn’t respond was because I don’t respect your views – not because it makes me weary looking at how… long your posts are.

I don’t want to dismiss them (although seeing in one portion where you draw a parallel between me and a white supremacist, I’m starting to think dismissing them is wholly justified). I just don’t want to spend a good hour writing a response and no one else wants to see another wall of text.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

LOLOLOLOLOL
And here it rears its ugly jhcoist head.
Diversion via insult.
Niiiiiccccceeeeeee.

Actually you spent an awful lot of that post making various innuendos about issen’s supposed homophobia and trying to psychoanalyze it. Of course this whole thread is full of that garbage so you’re certainly not alone, but it does get tiresome.

Perhaps if a “task” is so overwhelming, one shouldn’t indulge in it?

I spent a lot of my post attacking issen’s adamant penchant to use “unflattering” nomenclature to describe some bullshit reasoning behind why ppl are homosexuals and how such “application-of-opinion” is that which is definitely used by a true homophobe….thereby leaving open a very huge crack in his door by which SOME PPL could go much further than a simple comparison of verbiage.

I inferred that if someone (NOT ISSENDORF in particular….hence my: IF the shoe fits) truly wants to make it clear about which side of the issue they fall, they might well consider stopping w/ using—IN MY OPINION—language & tactics the homophobic crowd does. Did ya not also notice that MmmBunneh & Retneug said pretty much the same things as did I?

Didgya miss where I said: _ And, niiiicccceeeee exaggeration of how I only QUESTION yer positions on this issue via a POSSIBLE comparison to such bigoted groups. After all, isn’t a discussion to be able to proffer such questioning in order to obtain a clearer understanding of someone’s position? Stop it w/ the whining when I’m merely questioning this obsession of yours about a nitpicking of nomenclature._
.

Now that we have a mod that’s paying attention I’m simply going to flag posts that attack the person rather than the argument.
Ya mean like YOUR post here?
.
You are NOT attacking the argument when you use ad hominems and comparisons to other posters you despise. Not under any conceivable definition of ‘attack the argument’.

Oh, bullshit.
Since jhco is the user-name of a person & not THE person, a description of a user’s WELL KNOWN disfunction in reasonable discussion and application of a part of it issen’s use of it to avoid responding to my points.

OH, tell me….how is my making note of the poor offerings jhco utilizes any different than YOUR noting your opinion of how I respond to issen?

AND, I guess ya failed (too busy looking for a way to attack me?) notice that issen “attacked” me, rather than my argument, by pseudo-elevation of my opinion by calling me a psychologist and being utterly shitty at it. LOL, insult by inaccurate proxy.
.
.

Originally posted by issendorf:

I started to respond, karma, to the first post, but then I saw that there was an even longer one below it! I’m just not going to wade through that.

Okaaayyyy…so ya wanna use another method jhco uses to avoid giving answers to posters questions….call them a rant and refuse to respond because they are too long….even though all they are doing is responding to each point he made.

Let’s see: I started to clean the house, but saw how dirty it was…so I just gave up and didn’t do any of it….at all. YOU do know that complete response to a post isn’t required?
.

If you want to PM me a cliffnotes version (you’ll have to unmute me long enough to do that I imagine), go for it.
Why do I need to leave this thread that is OPEN to discussion that all can read and comment on….and do so in private w/ ya? That is very odd. Was it proffered as an attempt to point out that I have ya on mute? I mute ppl because of the very fact that those who are quite disagreeable in behavior ON the forum are even more likely to be undesirably nasty in a PM. I find that holding discussion w/ these ppl in OPEN forum to be satisfying.

What is it w/ YOU & jan and all this whining about being muted?
What the hell do ya think that function is there for?
.

And then I saw this treasure:


issen, if ya wanna dismiss my points

Looks like you were aware of how bloody rambly your two posts were and realized that I probably was going to ignore the text wall,….

AND?
Obviously, IF SUCH WERE MY INTENT, I was right.
But, that wasn’t my intent.
Taken at face value….all I was saying (esp. if YOU will not take things out of context—(likely due to our typical “loggerheading”) is that there are two other posters on this issue that strongly concur w/ my opinions.
.
but you had to put this in to make sure you won.
WHAT?
How does stating/“citing” there are two other posters on this issue that concurs w/ mine somehow makes sure I “win”?
Win WHAT?
.
That the only reason I wouldn’t respond was because I don’t respect your views – not because it makes me weary looking at how… long your posts are.
Okay….whatever.
LOL
.
I don’t want to dismiss them…
NEWSFLASH…ya just did…. in toto.
And, ya did so via some very pathetic manner.
And, very similar to you-know-who.
.
…(although seeing in one portion where you draw a parallel between me and a white supremacist, I’m starting to think dismissing them is wholly justified).
Nice try.
First set up a lie, then use it to “justify” a bullshit reply.
Let me show ya make a grievous mistep: “…where you draw a parallel between my rhetoric and that utilized by a white supremacist."
Just how hard is it for ya to understand that is a very limited COMPARISON of rhetoric instead of a full-blown (from your reaction) saying that if you somewhat use the same words…THEN you are one?
Good grief.
.
I just don’t want to spend a good hour writing a response
Then don’t.
See how easily I fixed that “problem” for ya.
.
…. and no one else wants to see another wall of text.

Damn, I’m glad to know that ya’re now speaking for everyone. It will save me the trouble of reading their posts.

issen, ignore what I’ve said (oooops, ya already did…lol), but read what MmmBunneh said.
Hopefully, sans the bias…ya’ll maybe be able to see where I think ya’re “wrong” in your defense of particular rhetoric on this Gay-genetic issue. I do understand it is a subtle one (at least for a lot of ppl) and therefore isn’t easily seen. This happened (still is) w/ Black racism issues….and is now being bull-blown dissected on the Gay issue.

Trying to defend “mildly” offense rhetoric (IN MY OPINION) is one of those things that such cuts are exposing. There was a time that the rhetoric—equal but separate—was legal for how Blacks would be treated for going to segregated schools.

BTW, in all of this….YOU have yet to make a cogent “defense” of why ya so adamantly insist on—AS I SEE IT—supporting a position that doesn’t make it clear that there is a huge difference between a person who is, IN PART ONLY, someone who has a DIFFERENT sexual orientation than the majority of society….and manifesting that orientation as a description of the entirety of the person.

I abhor our society’s need to STILL call them Gays because of the obviously negative connotation a large segment of it still has for them. They are merely ppl who DIFFER ONLY SLIGHTLY than the majority. And this difference is absolutely NOTHING to be concerned about.

 
Flag Post
Okaaayyyy…so ya wanna use another method jhco uses to avoid giving answers to posters questions….call them a rant and refuse to respond because they are too long….even though all they are doing is responding to each point he made.

It is too long. I find it hard to believe you couldn’t have made your point in a less wordy manner.

Let’s see: I started to clean the house, but saw how dirty it was…so I just gave up and didn’t do any of it….at all. YOU do know that complete response to a post isn’t required?

Pretty much. I’m lazy.

: )

Why do I need to leave this thread that is OPEN to discussion that all can read and comment on….and do so in private w/ ya? That is very odd. Was it proffered as an attempt to point out that I have ya on mute? I mute ppl because of the very fact that those who are quite disagreeable in behavior ON the forum are even more likely to be undesirably nasty in a PM. I find that holding discussion w/ these ppl in OPEN forum to be satisfying.

Because I felt like it would redundant to the people who were excited to read the novella you posted.

What is it w/ YOU & jan and all this whining about being muted?

Not whining – just a friendly pointer in case you had an issue sending me a PM.

What the hell do ya think that function is there for?

It’s to block communication, yet you seem to enjoy to communicate a lot with my posts so I’m a bit mystified why you muted me (oh, right, I disagreed with you once so I became dead to you – now I remember).

NEWSFLASH…ya just did…. in toto.
And, ya did so via some very pathetic manner.
And, very similar to you-know-who.

No, I didn’t. I said I’m incapable of wading through that quagmire to produce a response. It pains me greatly I’m unable to, but I’m forcing myself to move on.

Just how hard is it for ya to understand that is a very limited COMPARISON of rhetoric instead of a full-blown (from your reaction) saying that if you somewhat use the same words…THEN you are one?

My rhetoric is my persona verbalized. If you’re going to compare my rhetoric to that of a white supremacist, you’re comparing me to a white supremacist. If you want to defend it (like you did to the death by comparing Tea Partiers to war criminals), I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised.

See how easily I fixed that “problem” for ya.

I was way ahead of you. You know, when I said I wasn’t going to respond – I fixed the problem on my own, but I appreciate the help!

BTW, in all of this….YOU have yet to make a cogent “defense” of why ya so adamantly insist on—AS I SEE IT—supporting a position that doesn’t make it clear that there is a huge difference between a person who is, IN PART ONLY, someone who has a DIFFERENT sexual orientation than the majority of society….and manifesting that orientation as a description of the entirety of the person.

All I said was homosexuality was something outside of the norm and that if it’s a mutation then it would be a genetic defect (that’s what a mutation is). If saying that 5% of the population is a bit of an outlier isn’t cogent, I don’t know what is. If stating what the definition of a mutation isn’t cogent, I don’t know what is. Every other ‘opinion’ is you trying to infer bigotry by parsing individual words in my post.

AND LOOK HOW BRIEF I WAS WITH MY RESPONSE!!!!! YOU CAN DO IT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!

 
Flag Post

The only part I’ll respond to is the bit about your penchant for muting anyone who disagrees with you, anyone who calls you out on your shit, to quote DB:

I was initially upset when you did mute me, as I did see you as a valuable asset to the forum, and PM/shouts exist for a reason: to take conversations that don’t belong on a thread (like this post and the last 5) out and into a more intimate space. But I’ve since realized that you simply aren’t worth the consideration. I’m not interested in re-igniting a forum war with you, karma, but I also don’t have the patience to ‘walk on eggshells’ with you like many of the other SD regs do. Actually, that was the exact phrase used by an SD reg, who PM’d me to offer congratulations on a post I made a few weeks ago bemoaning your attempt to drive out all the conservatives in SD…one of several regular SD posters, actually.

I’m not confessing this to toot my own horn, but to point out this: I hadn’t expected ANY of the private responses I got from that short, two-sentence post. Not from those posters anyway. Even the people who are close to you in ideology, who defend your arguments and are seemingly on good terms with you, are frustrated by the basketful of neuroticisms and logical fallacies you insist on bringing into your posts. Why don’t they just send you a PM themselves? Why are they so impotent? I surmise because they’re afraid you’ll cut your ties with them at the first hint of personal criticism. If the SD community means anything to you, as it would seem by your devotion to BSG’s thread on the subject, you might want to do something to avoiding alienating the people who are still nominally on your side.

I’ll delete this post in twelve hours if the mod hasn’t by then, and let this thread get back on topic.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

No, your viewpoint isn’t offensive in any way. It’s a scientific viewpoint, which is good because you always want proof of back up your points, and then you stated your opinion that they deserve all equal rights as a human being. Also, preventing it in the future is only a fact, you’re not saying you want them to be gone or you want homosexuality prevented. (You also made it clear that it wasn’t morally right.) And if this is what you genuinely believe, then I accept it.

 
Flag Post

If it was genetic they would have died out a long time ago because they can’t reproduce and would be a defect but it’s a choice.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Immortal7777:

If it was genetic they would have died out a long time ago because they can’t reproduce and would be a defect but it’s a choice.

I think the OP is meaning that it is a genetic ‘abnormality’ that does not appear from being passed on, but occurs randomly in people.

I think if it is genetic it would not be a good idea to change the genes causing homosexuality. The only real negatives of being gay are caused by society (except perhaps not being able to reproduce with the partner you have feelings for.) Removing diversities from humans is not the best route to take IMO. Like others have said its much better to teach morals than to attempt to remove the need for them, which would be impossible in this case anyways since people already find excuses to discriminate despite similar physical appearances.

 
Flag Post

^ I agree with Harvey.

Identifying the cause of a certain sexuality, and discussing the idea that it could be removed, is not at all offensive. I’d like to know why I’m transgender, for example.

Regarding the idea of using eugenics to remove the “gay gene” is, to me, offensive. Why? As Harvey said, I don’t see an ethical reason to eradicate it, and so doing so would beg the question of why.

I would, however, support the research to prevent gender dysphoria (transgenderism), as the suffering a transgender experiences is largely to do with ones sense of self, and our inability to physically match our gender. Alternatively, research to help improve the transition process would be a welcome (and preferred) alternative.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fma1:

I am going to state something that I genuinely believe.

Homosexuality is caused by a genetic abnormality. Reproduction and the passing on of genes is a base instinct of all animals. Homosexuality is contrary to a base instinct of survival, which is why it is a genetic abnormality. It will one day be possible (though not necessarily morally right) to detect and prevent homosexuality before a person is born through genetic engineering.
There is existing research that suggests that homosexuality may be linked to genetics, but this research is not yet fully completed.
I fully support the rights of homosexuals. They deserve equality and I support gay marriage, due to the fact that their sexual orientation is in no way their own fault.
These are my beliefs on the matter of homosexuality.

The question is, could this viewpoint be seen as offensive? Maybe even homophobic if you interpret it in a certain way?

I wouldn’t exactly call it homophobic, but people might be offended saying they have a genetic abnormality.
I don’t think changing homosexuality, or any attributes of a person, is moral.
Also, our world is getting overpopulated quickly. I’m pretty sure gay people aren’t hurting the earth at all.

 
Flag Post

As long as something is any part opinion, regardless of how factual it is, there is a probability that someone will be offended by it.