147 replies to this topic

[Morpheus]

What do you hardcore TOKers think about things like equal rights for homosexuals, gay marriage and other issues such as...

A christian preacher in ENGLAND was arrested for quoting the bible and using phrases such as "stop homosexuality it's wrong" in public.

Your thoughts, please I'm interested


Morpheus x

[genepeer]

ToK is concerned with knowledge problems Anyway, I think a human being has the right to love whatever they want. Other than for religious reasons, I don't see why you'd refuse two people to marry each other because they've got the same sex, and on that note, I don't think Religion & Politics/Law should be mixed. What if I'm in a religion that allows homosexuality, should I move to another country? But that's a different discussion.

edit: http://www.ibsurviva...3-gay-marriage/

Edited by Gene-Peer, Dec 12, 2010 - 21:21.

[Morpheus]

Gene-Peer, on Dec 12, 2010 - 21:14, said:

ToK is concerned with knowledge problems

I agree with you mostly, though I'm a bit of an extremist haha

I was just wondering what people, who have been through TOK think, as opposed to the stereotypical views of where I live. SLASH generally wondering what you guys think

[Sandwich]

You can only be arrested for inciting hatred so presumably he was doing more than just that (?).

Anyway I am pro people doing whatever the hell they like provided it doesn't impact on me negatively without my choosing it.
I'd much rather ban smokers who make you breathe in their nasty fumes than gay people who don't negatively impact on my life at all!

If they want to be gay, they can be. Indeed it is said that you don't choose to be gay, so it's more like if they are gay then they are, not that they necessarily want to be. Although it'd be weird not to want to be yourself

As for gay marriage, that's for the church to be all bitter and twisted about by themselves, I think the state should have nothing to do with it except for preventing people from being harassed and made into objects of hatred, as they would with any thing else. If individuals want to disagree with something they can, but they shouldn't let their disagreement impact negatively on the people they disagree with. Live and let live, even if you don't like each other.

[Morpheus]

Sandwich, on Dec 12, 2010 - 22:08, said:

Anyway I am pro people doing whatever the hell they like provided it doesn't impact on me negatively without my choosing it.
I'd much rather ban smokers who make you breathe in their nasty fumes than gay people who don't negatively impact on my life at all!

Firstly, I agree with you. A lot of my friends seem to think that the world is becoming too liberal, however I'd argue that If you only protect the rights of a majority, everyone will be subject to injustice as a minority at some point. I.e everyone is part of a minority that needs protecting somewhere along the line.

Lastly, unfortunately some people are slightly brainwashed and seem to think gay people are worse than the devil yadda yadda...

I think it's almost a mob mentality that does it.

[lbkaisas]

We just covered that and came to the conclusion that there are no gay people. 'There are only gay acts', which is also a quote by some French philosopher whose name i don't recall right now. Personally, I believe that every human being has the right to love whomever they want. On the other hand sometimes I'm homophobic. Usually in cases where gays openly portray their interest in me and don't stop, even after I make it obvious that this interest isn't mutual. Also, I'm not a fan of gay parades, because as a sexual minority displaying ones sexual orientation in a extreme way openly in public might cause others to feel uncomfortable. However I believe that gays should be able to openly state their sexual orientation and also display it as long as it is in a decent way that doesn't offend others. I also believe that portraying ones sexuality through extreme mediums, such as indecent gay parades, will only make things worse for the gay community. As it creates prejudices, like that the gay parades represent the entire gay community and create a stereotype of a gay individual. Note, that I also dislike such indecent exposures of sexualities other than homosexuality. To conclude I respect everyones sexuality as long as it fits in with society to some extent and I dislike actions that are known to be disliked by other people in public, as it will keep tensions to a minimum.

[Grumps]

I used to think that gay people shouldn't be together because I thought that love and sex was all about making babies but then I used WAY OF KNOWING: REASON and realized that old people and sterile people are allowed to be together and they don't have babies, so gay people should be able to be together too. But later, while talking to a preacher I used WAY OF KNOWING: LANGUAGE and heard him say that God doesn't like gay people so that means they're bad. However, this too was thrown into doubt when I sued WAY OF KNOWING: SENSE PERCEPTION and I saw some gay people who are very nice. Finally, I used WAY OF KNOWING: EMOTION and decided gay people are evil because one time a gay kid punched me in the stomache and I now associate homosexuality with being punched in the stomache.

Something like this got me a B+ for a ToK write.

[Morpheus]

Grumps, on Dec 20, 2010 - 22:24, said:

I used to think that gay people shouldn't be together because I thought that love and sex was all about making babies but then I used WAY OF KNOWING: REASON and realized that old people and sterile people are allowed to be together and they don't have babies, so gay people should be able to be together too. But later, while talking to a preacher I used WAY OF KNOWING: LANGUAGE and heard him say that God doesn't like gay people so that means they're bad. However, this too was thrown into doubt when I sued WAY OF KNOWING: SENSE PERCEPTION and I saw some gay people who are very nice. Finally, I used WAY OF KNOWING: EMOTION and decided gay people are evil because one time a gay kid punched me in the stomache and I now associate homosexuality with being punched in the stomache.

Something like this got me a B+ for a ToK write.

I think you are trying to point out how annoying tok can be instead of voicing an opinion. I hope so anyway So no comment lol

[winter]

Gay marriage? Yes.
Why? Because the reasons against it are ********. The Bible doesn't contain directions for a marriage ceremony. Marriages in the Bible are civil in nature, not religious. So, the religious reasons against it die there. But if you allow them to continue - it's unnatural is easily debunked - animals sometimes attempt to mate with a similarly sexed animal.
Allowing all consenting adults to marry is not a path to allowing adults and non-human animals to marry.

[Morpheus]

winter, on Dec 27, 2010 - 00:58, said:

Gay marriage? Yes.
Why? Because the reasons against it are ********. The Bible doesn't contain directions for a marriage ceremony. Marriages in the Bible are civil in nature, not religious. So, the religious reasons against it die there. But if you allow them to continue - it's unnatural is easily debunked - animals sometimes attempt to mate with a similarly sexed animal.
Allowing all consenting adults to marry is not a path to allowing adults and non-human animals to marry.

Yeah I think about the animal thing. Animals in the Bible aren't really given any special conscience and are "made for us" (paraphrased).

God made gay animals? He obviously did (assuming he is there)... SO it's another one of those pieces of evidence that makes me want to destroy the vatican. JOKES>

[Grumps]

winter, on Dec 27, 2010 - 00:58, said:

But if you allow them to continue - it's unnatural is easily debunked - animals sometimes attempt to mate with a similarly sexed animal.

I think that's hardly an argument that homosexuality is natural, if that's the argument you want to take. Animals do a wide range of things that are not considered natural. We'va all heard of the Black Widow Spiders and Praying Mantises eat their mates, that is hardly natural. Even if it was "natural" you can't exactly say it's morally right. Animals cheat on their spouses and kill each other for territory, as humans often do, yet it is considered immoral.

[Morpheus]

Grumps, on Dec 29, 2010 - 20:51, said:

winter, on Dec 27, 2010 - 00:58, said:

But if you allow them to continue - it's unnatural is easily debunked - animals sometimes attempt to mate with a similarly sexed animal.

I think that's hardly an argument that homosexuality is natural, if that's the argument you want to take. Animals do a wide range of things that are not considered natural. We'va all heard of the Black Widow Spiders and Praying Mantises eat their mates, that is hardly natural. Even if it was "natural" you can't exactly say it's morally right. Animals cheat on their spouses and kill each other for territory, as humans often do, yet it is considered immoral.

Sorry Grumps, but you have made some mistakes.

Natural = existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by. (Taken from New Oxford American Dictionary). Any behaviour that a species exhibits without the interference of mankind is natural.

Thus, a spider eating it's mate IS natural, however if a human gave an ape a cigar and made it look like it was gambling it would NOT be natural.

Many animal species exhibit homosexual behaviour, thus by definition. Homosexual behaviour can be naturally found in mammals.

Secondly, animals are not usually judged for their morality or thought of as moral creatures even though they/some may possess great higher reasoning powers. In that light, your second analogy isn't really applicable.

Finally, I'd like you to explain your choice of words, you are implying that homosexuality might not be "morally right". Why and How would you decide that?

Edited by Morpheus, Dec 30, 2010 - 15:55.

[Grumps]

Oops good call. I meant to say "morally acceptable". No I think homosexuality is cool, I'm just arguing for argument's sake.

[Proletariat]

Sexual orientation is not the business of any institution, State, organization, or anyone other than the individual in question. Not only that, but sexual orientation has absolutely no impact on the value of a citizen to the advancement of their society, nor does it play any factor in determining the merit of an individual.

Another thing: homosexuality isn't entirely nature nor is it entirely nurture. In fact, almost nothing is. As others have pointed out, homosexuality occurs in animals who wouldn't have suffered from those dangerous liberal ideas that some claim causes it. However, the idea of a "gay gene", and the fact that an individual can be born with a genetically coded sexual orientation seems equally ridiculous. Homosexuality is likely a mixture of genetics and environmental factors, ie. certain social/chemical/psychological stimulant in early childhood causes certain combination of gene expression. Statistics show that males who have older male siblings are likelier to be gay, and that this likelihood increases with each additional older male sibling.

One day, we may even be able to display the entire matrix of factors involved. But when we do, no one in their right mind is going to care about sexual orientation anyways.

[Daedalus]

Proletariat, on Jan 05, 2011 - 07:19, said:

Sexual orientation is not the business of any institution, State, organization, or anyone other than the individual in question. Not only that, but sexual orientation has absolutely no impact on the value of a citizen to the advancement of their society, nor does it play any factor in determining the merit of an individual.

Another thing: homosexuality isn't entirely nature nor is it entirely nurture. In fact, almost nothing is. As others have pointed out, homosexuality occurs in animals who wouldn't have suffered from those dangerous liberal ideas that some claim causes it. However, the idea of a "gay gene", and the fact that an individual can be born with a genetically coded sexual orientation seems equally ridiculous. Homosexuality is likely a mixture of genetics and environmental factors, ie. certain social/chemical/psychological stimulant in early childhood causes certain combination of gene expression. Statistics show that males who have older male siblings are likelier to be gay, and that this likelihood increases with each additional older male sibling.

One day, we may even be able to display the entire matrix of factors involved. But when we do, no one in their right mind is going to care about sexual orientation anyways.

Not to comment on the whole moral side of this debate (which, I might add, has been done before - even on this forum) but the idea that genetic factors play a role in homosexuality is, frankly, nonsense. Homosexuality cannot possibly be hereditary because as an evolutionary adaption it would be selected against. How, then, can homosexuality be a mixture of genetics and environmental factors?

My personal theory is we're all bisexuals really but the religious rhetoric has got us all in our straight mentalities, to which homosexuality might be a (potentially unconscious) reaction. Like electing Sarah Palin after Obama having to deal with the sh1t Bush left behind? Dislaimer - I'm straight - but I seriously think it's more likely that people are fundamentally bisexuals. If this were the case I can imagine that girls would be more likely to be attracted to men at a certain time of the month, for example, but apart from that, how can our bodies be programmed to be in love - physically - with only one sex? It might have to do with smells and hormones and stuff but you couldn't really bet on it. That's my theory, at least - heterosexuality might sound better in theory but in practice, it is not evolutionarily easy to implement. Besides, think of all the sexually frustrated people running around when one sex is disproportionately affected by an illness or disease or something..

[Hannah.M]

Daedalus, on Jan 05, 2011 - 09:09, said:

Proletariat, on Jan 05, 2011 - 07:19, said:

Sexual orientation is not the business of any institution, State, organization, or anyone other than the individual in question. Not only that, but sexual orientation has absolutely no impact on the value of a citizen to the advancement of their society, nor does it play any factor in determining the merit of an individual.

Another thing: homosexuality isn't entirely nature nor is it entirely nurture. In fact, almost nothing is. As others have pointed out, homosexuality occurs in animals who wouldn't have suffered from those dangerous liberal ideas that some claim causes it. However, the idea of a "gay gene", and the fact that an individual can be born with a genetically coded sexual orientation seems equally ridiculous. Homosexuality is likely a mixture of genetics and environmental factors, ie. certain social/chemical/psychological stimulant in early childhood causes certain combination of gene expression. Statistics show that males who have older male siblings are likelier to be gay, and that this likelihood increases with each additional older male sibling.

One day, we may even be able to display the entire matrix of factors involved. But when we do, no one in their right mind is going to care about sexual orientation anyways.

Not to comment on the whole moral side of this debate (which, I might add, has been done before - even on this forum) but the idea that genetic factors play a role in homosexuality is, frankly, nonsense. Homosexuality cannot possibly be hereditary because as an evolutionary adaption it would be selected against. How, then, can homosexuality be a mixture of genetics and environmental factors?

My personal theory is we're all bisexuals really but the religious rhetoric has got us all in our straight mentalities, to which homosexuality might be a (potentially unconscious) reaction. Like electing Sarah Palin after Obama having to deal with the sh1t Bush left behind? Dislaimer - I'm straight - but I seriously think it's more likely that people are fundamentally bisexuals. If this were the case I can imagine that girls would be more likely to be attracted to men at a certain time of the month, for example, but apart from that, how can our bodies be programmed to be in love - physically - with only one sex? It might have to do with smells and hormones and stuff but you couldn't really bet on it. That's my theory, at least - heterosexuality might sound better in theory but in practice, it is not evolutionarily easy to implement. Besides, think of all the sexually frustrated people running around when one sex is disproportionately affected by an illness or disease or something..

I agree with you in that we aren't "programmed" to love just one gender, but it's in the way that we're brought up. It's similar to religion in that, for example, I was brought up atheist. If I were to try to introduce myself into a religion or a faith, the idea would feel very novel and in all likelihood, not right for me. All that sexuality is, is a strong belief. A belief and understanding that we belong with whichever sex we choose. Neurologically perhaps, yes, we all start as bisexuals. But I think that that only lasts for a very short time. I call myself straight as well, and for now at least, I'm very confident that that's what I'll be for my life. Although I have no issue with those who are, the idea of me personally being with another woman, just seems strange. I don't think I could handle it, and it wouldn't be at all right.

[Proletariat]

Daedalus, on Jan 05, 2011 - 09:09, said:

Proletariat, on Jan 05, 2011 - 07:19, said:

Sexual orientation is not the business of any institution, State, organization, or anyone other than the individual in question. Not only that, but sexual orientation has absolutely no impact on the value of a citizen to the advancement of their society, nor does it play any factor in determining the merit of an individual.

Another thing: homosexuality isn't entirely nature nor is it entirely nurture. In fact, almost nothing is. As others have pointed out, homosexuality occurs in animals who wouldn't have suffered from those dangerous liberal ideas that some claim causes it. However, the idea of a "gay gene", and the fact that an individual can be born with a genetically coded sexual orientation seems equally ridiculous. Homosexuality is likely a mixture of genetics and environmental factors, ie. certain social/chemical/psychological stimulant in early childhood causes certain combination of gene expression. Statistics show that males who have older male siblings are likelier to be gay, and that this likelihood increases with each additional older male sibling.

One day, we may even be able to display the entire matrix of factors involved. But when we do, no one in their right mind is going to care about sexual orientation anyways.

Not to comment on the whole moral side of this debate (which, I might add, has been done before - even on this forum) but the idea that genetic factors play a role in homosexuality is, frankly, nonsense. Homosexuality cannot possibly be hereditary because as an evolutionary adaption it would be selected against. How, then, can homosexuality be a mixture of genetics and environmental factors?

My personal theory is we're all bisexuals really but the religious rhetoric has got us all in our straight mentalities, to which homosexuality might be a (potentially unconscious) reaction. Like electing Sarah Palin after Obama having to deal with the sh1t Bush left behind? Dislaimer - I'm straight - but I seriously think it's more likely that people are fundamentally bisexuals. If this were the case I can imagine that girls would be more likely to be attracted to men at a certain time of the month, for example, but apart from that, how can our bodies be programmed to be in love - physically - with only one sex? It might have to do with smells and hormones and stuff but you couldn't really bet on it. That's my theory, at least - heterosexuality might sound better in theory but in practice, it is not evolutionarily easy to implement. Besides, think of all the sexually frustrated people running around when one sex is disproportionately affected by an illness or disease or something..

Remember that natural selection in your argument would involve applying human concepts of monogamy to animals, which is simply not something one can do in many (probably most) cases. 90% of sexual pairings for giraffes occur between two males, yet this doesn't mean every year we see exponential decreases in giraffe numbers. The argument that natural selection would "weed out" homosexual genetics simply doesn't play out in reality.

[Daedalus]

Proletariat, on Jan 06, 2011 - 04:07, said:

[Remember that natural selection in your argument would involve applying human concepts of monogamy to animals, which is simply not something one can do in many (probably most) cases. 90% of sexual pairings for giraffes occur between two males, yet this doesn't mean every year we see exponential decreases in giraffe numbers. The argument that natural selection would "weed out" homosexual genetics simply doesn't play out in reality.

I don't understand. Do you mean that because we evolved from animals, and animals are not monogamous, then natural selection wouldn't have "weeded out" homosexuality? That's not the point. Giraffes, as you point out, are bisexual. Bisexuality, as I pointed out, seems to make biological and evolutionary sense. But exclusive homosexuality does and can not - because if you are exclusively homosexual, you're not passing your genes on. Has nothing to do with monogamy.

[Morpheus]

Daedalus, on Jan 06, 2011 - 10:02, said:

Proletariat, on Jan 06, 2011 - 04:07, said:

[Remember that natural selection in your argument would involve applying human concepts of monogamy to animals, which is simply not something one can do in many (probably most) cases. 90% of sexual pairings for giraffes occur between two males, yet this doesn't mean every year we see exponential decreases in giraffe numbers. The argument that natural selection would "weed out" homosexual genetics simply doesn't play out in reality.

I don't understand. Do you mean that because we evolved from animals, and animals are not monogamous, then natural selection wouldn't have "weeded out" homosexuality? That's not the point. Giraffes, as you point out, are bisexual. Bisexuality, as I pointed out, seems to make biological and evolutionary sense. But exclusive homosexuality does and can not - because if you are exclusively homosexual, you're not passing your genes on. Has nothing to do with monogamy.

Ah, well you see, various studies and data collection on things like identical twins separated at birth have shown that we are almost certain there definitely is a genetic element in homosexuality. Now, people have tried to say that this does not make sense and homosexuals would be selected against under the theory of natural selection. Genes most conducive to breeding etc.

This is not the case in reality with humans, because homosexuals have existed and continue to exist throughout evolutionary history, including our species.

Finally, the important thing that is missed here is that you can take an example that a heterosexual that carries the genes that gives a certain percentage chance of offspring being homosexual - they and their heterosexual children may benefit from the behaviours exhibited in homosexuals. In this case, carriers of the homosexual genes (passed on to the heterosexual offspring) may be more protected and selected for

[Proletariat]

Daedalus, on Jan 06, 2011 - 10:02, said:

Proletariat, on Jan 06, 2011 - 04:07, said:

[Remember that natural selection in your argument would involve applying human concepts of monogamy to animals, which is simply not something one can do in many (probably most) cases. 90% of sexual pairings for giraffes occur between two males, yet this doesn't mean every year we see exponential decreases in giraffe numbers. The argument that natural selection would "weed out" homosexual genetics simply doesn't play out in reality.

I don't understand. Do you mean that because we evolved from animals, and animals are not monogamous, then natural selection wouldn't have "weeded out" homosexuality? That's not the point. Giraffes, as you point out, are bisexual. Bisexuality, as I pointed out, seems to make biological and evolutionary sense. But exclusive homosexuality does and can not - because if you are exclusively homosexual, you're not passing your genes on. Has nothing to do with monogamy.

Except "exclusive" homosexuality rarely exists in the animal kingdom. This exclusivity that you've pointed out only exists in humans because we've adopted a social interpretation of a scientific condition.

There's a ton of grey areas to this also. What about homosexual black swans, who mate with a female only for reproduction, but then chance her away as soon as the eggs are laid? These pairs of male swans will then hatch, feed, care for and raise the offspring as parents. Would they still fall into homosexuality by your definition, or would you just argue that they're not truly homosexual? Would this fall in bisexualism for you? What about animals who form sexual pairings with both genders, but with heterosexual pairings lasting days while homosexual pairings lasting years? Would that still be bisexualism in your view?

In addition, if one simply examines the sheer number of species and organisms that engage in homosexual behaviour, one realizes that homosexuality cannot be purely environment-based, simply because of the vast variety of environments in which these organisms are found. There has to be an underlying factor that is broad enough to cover all of this diversity, and environment isn't it.