Gays get the bum wrap

I am at heart a mathematician so don't assume what follows has anything to do with personal leanings.

MrBishop said:
"If gays were allowed to be married, this would allow them to adopt. It is well known that despite the fact that only 1% of the population is gay, that 50% of pedophiles are gay"

" In a recent survey amongst convicted pedophiliac, over 80% said that they were heterosexual and preferred sex with the opposite sex (adult) when they could get it. That's a mere 20% for homosexuals... "
Click to expand...

Let's look at these numbers, hmm? 1% of pop'n being gay means straight people outnumber gay by 99 to 1. Your statistic on paedophiles gives a ratio of 4:1. 20% of the paedophile pop'n vs 1% of the global pop'n isn't a great figure - that's an increase of 2000%.

Take, say, 10,000 people - by the figures, 100 of these people are gay. Now, let's assume that 0.5% of the population are paedophiles ( I have no idea what the actual value is). That means that 50 people out of this 10000 are paedophiles. Now, 80% of this 50 are straight - 40 people, and 20% are gay - 10 people. That means that 10/100 = 10% of the gay population are paedophiles, as opposed to 40/9900 = 0.4% of the straight population. Those aren't great numbers.

Even taking a more generous figure of 10% homosexual in the population (personally I feel that the 1% stated earlier is probably not far from the truth), that gives a result that 1% of the gay population is paedophilic - which means that a homosexual is 2.5X more likely to be a paedophile than is a straight man.

Now, I'm not saying anything more than the fact that given these numbers and the fact that people are insanely stupid, it's not hard to see where people get the sort of conclusions you were objecting to.
 
And as much as this is going to shock.. well, everybody, I'm going to side with Gonz and point out that "Homosexuality, following "instincts" for same sex coupling, cannot thrive since by it's very nature, procreation is impossible" is undeniable. Homosexuality, in an evolutionary perspective, is a complete fuck-up.

Whether socially it's acceptable is a completely difference issue, but one that has got nothing to do with what Gonz is saying. He's quite right not to entertain any notion of listening to these clammerings that can only be described as the result of being in so much of a hurry to be seen to be politically correct that you forget to put those neurons to work.
 
"If gays were allowed to be married, this would allow them to adopt. It is well known that despite the fact that only 1% of the population is gay, that 50% of pedophiles are gay"
Click to expand...

Holy crap, 50% of pedophiles are heterosexual!

We have to stop these straight couples from adopting right now *handonhip


Homosexuality, following "instincts" for same sex coupling, cannot thrive since by it's very nature, procreation is impossible" is undeniable. Homosexuality, in an evolutionary perspective, is a complete fuck-up.
Click to expand...

You speak as if it has been clearly defined that homosexuality is nothing more than a genetic trait, or in fact some sort of genetic mistake. If this was not your intent then you did not make your point very clear.

There may be genetic factors but I think that's far from the whole story. Part of it is simply personal preference. Some people prefer blond hair, some people have a thing for asians, some people find obesity and excessive hairiness extremely attractive. Whether you share or understand these personal preferences or not it's not reason to discriminate against them as long as they involve themselves with consenting adults.

As far as it being a fuck-up from an evolutionary perspective. You haven't accounted for the fact that homosexuality doesn't seem to be an "all or nothing" type of thing. There's a wide range of bi-sexuals who lean farther in one direction or another. Also many cases where a persons tastes change completely later in life.

I could make just as valid an arguement that following "instincts" to be a total dork or traveling to Trekkie conventions by it's very nature makes procreation impossible and therefore, in an evolutionary perspective, is a complete fuck-up.
 
flavio said:
There may be genetic factors but I think that's far from the whole story. Part of it is simply personal preference. Some people prefer blond hair, some people have a thing for asians, some people find obesity and excessive hairiness extremely attractive. Whether you share or understand these personal preferences or not it's not reason to discriminate against them as long as they involve themselves with consenting adults.
Click to expand...

100% in agreement with you there. I don't think Gonz was trying to discriminate against them though (my bad if he was ;) ).

flavio said:
As far as it being a fuck-up from an evolutionary perspective. You haven't accounted for the fact that homosexuality doesn't seem to be an "all or nothing" type of thing. There's a wide range of bi-sexuals who lean farther in one direction or another. Also many cases where a persons tastes change completely later in life.
Click to expand...

For sure. "Homosexuality" though is still 100% gay, it's just the people that aren't. Whether you look at it as a pure genetic trait or merely as a tendency to be swayed, "homosexuality" is still not helping babies get born. So regardless of its nature it's still an evolutionary fuck-up - perhaps just not a genetic one. Society evolves too, remember.. :)

flavio said:
I could make just as valid an arguement that following "instincts" to be a total dork or traveling to Trekkie conventions by it's very nature makes procreation impossible and therefore, in an evolutionary perspective, is a complete fuck-up.
Click to expand...

Well, it wouldn't be QUITE as valid because Trekkies are still perfectly capable of procreating with those they're attracted to (even if the chances of that are slim ;) ). Being sexually attracted to trees, however, would be a better analogy - if enough people start wanting to make love to trees, are we ever going to decide that this is biologically sound, even if it's accepted socially?
 
BeardofPants said:
yeah, that'll be why most mammals have homosexual tendencies. It's a complete fuck-up. :devious:
Click to expand...

It most certainly is a complete fuck-up. The aim of evolution is to help things reproduce faster. Homosexuality does not help this. Therefore it's a fuck-up, pure and simple. There can be no doubt about this.
 
Very few of you are open minded enough to allow a purely biological argument interfere with your preconceived notions. A simple biological fact is presented & out comes the PC cops. My, and A13's, point is overlooked because some think we live in an unjust & bigoted society that has some vendetta against homosexuals when nothing could be further from the truth.


And you call me closed minded.
 
Dammit, now, Gonz, didn't we agree I was wrong in calling you closed minded and it should have been asshole?

*sigh*

I suppose I've been in the thread long enough, might as well give my opinion on it, too.

Previously I had not much of an opinion. Because the thread was started with a lot of numbers in the post, I didn't give it much thought at all. Numbers confuse my little brain and I tend to skip posts with statistics coming out the ass unless really interested.

I believe the original question of the thread was to discuss whether or not [OTC members] think gay people, in general, are being mistreated by society with stereotypical attitudes by and large in the heterosexual world [nation].

On this I'm very limited. I've known one gay person in my life and he is, by all means, very stereotypical gay. So my views might be skewed.
 
that wasn't personal to you...it's a common thought on this & most boards. :shrug:
 
i think in essence i was agreeing that as an element of pure biology homosexuality is part of the variety or errors that normal nature presents. as an action of normal nature i would therefore choose to identify it as not an error.

nature runs itself down culdesacs throughout evolution and in reality survival of the fitest is not strictly accurate. the ability to procreate or do so quickly is not the be all of evolution and there are several species that do not procreate in large numbers or very regularly. frequent and large litters are not exhibited by the most successful species.
nature often introduces elements that allow for the keeping in check of population size to ensure populations do not rage out of control.

the other part of it really comes down to terminology and that terms such as error and mistake annoy people because it can easily be considered derogatory, no matter how truthful it might be. gonz, you hate to make mistakes, you hate being wrong [i'm not sure i've ever seen you admit you have been], imagine how difficult in can be to be tagged as 'wrong' for somehting you have no control over.
 
ris said:
nature runs itself down culdesacs throughout evolution and in reality survival of the fitest is not strictly accurate. the ability to procreate or do so quickly is not the be all of evolution and there are several species that do not procreate in large numbers or very regularly.
Click to expand...

Slight precision - while I agree with you that in terms of nature, it would be imprudent to try to classify too much as errors rather than simply variety, the be-all and end-all of evolution, IS precisely the ability to procreate effectively and ensure the continuation of the species.
Species that do not reproduce quickly or in large numbers will most likely be larger, stronger animals that are not prone to easy deaths - thus reproducing faster would put strain on their environment and adversely affect the species itself. Species reproduce at the speed they do for a good reason - and evolution "knows" that reason.

Anyway, point is, there's a difference to be aware of between error in nature and error in evolution. In Nature, Homosexuality can well be seen as a variant. In Evolution, it can only be an error.
 
A13 - I have to agree with you that homosexuality is an evolutionary error, if evolution has procreation and the continuation of the individual's genes forward as it's primary goal.

Wether it's a biological error or a variant or a psychological variant, or a conscious choice is irrelevant. The original point of this thread was that people use statistics in combination with stereotyping and huge leaps in mis-logic to try and reverse an existing legal right. The way that it was presented, with misinformation, gives this petition two negative points. Firstly, it's trying to disolve a Right. (Anyone who'se seen the battle over gun-control which went on in another Real World thread, can attest to how 'wrong' that can be) and secondly, it's trying to sow hatred against homosexuals using a legal petition to disseminate erronious information and attempting to link homosexuality with paedophilia.

We went around the whole issue of freedom of speach in this thread...I feel that freedom of speach should not allow hatred to be spread (The Canadian laws agree with me on that). I feel that this particular petition and several others that are going around, are sowing hatred against homosexuals by linking them to paedophilia. If I am wrong here, please let me know.

Now...we are argueing over the homosexuality=error part of this thread. This is fairly Off-Topic. This thread could easily have been split into three seperate threads and had each get numerous responces.

I'd prefer that this get back to the thread topic. If you wish it, I can start a "Freedom of speach" thread and a "What is homosexuality" thread. You know that I'll do it, now dontcha? :)

Do carry on!
 
MrBishop said:
Firstly, it's trying to disolve a Right. (Anyone who'se seen the battle over gun-control which went on in another Real World thread, can attest to how 'wrong' that can be) and secondly, it's trying to sow hatred against homosexuals using a legal petition to disseminate erronious information and attempting to link homosexuality with paedophilia.

I feel that this particular petition and several others that are going around, are sowing hatred against homosexuals by linking them to paedophilia. If I am wrong here, please let me know.

Now...we are argueing over the homosexuality=error part of this thread.
Click to expand...


Disolve a right? It never was a right. It required special legislation to make it so. Instaed, it's a mandate by the state.

I agree with the petition being bullshit, linking homosexuality to pedophilia. Contact that agency/group & ask them to prove their point. I'd be interested in the (il)logic behind it.

Petition/speech/error...this is OFF Topic Central after all :D


ris, where did I say that homosexuals were "wrong"? You're assuming things. There is a difference between an error in the genes (happens all the time) & being wrong. Please don't put words in my mouth.
 
how can homosexuality be wrong, when it's all part of gods plan?

did he not make us in his own image?

there is no evilution, wthe world was made in 7 days.




sorry someone gave me a watchtower magazine this morning in the metro (subwasy) and I forgot my book, I needed to read.

I feel much better now.

Is it REALLY and evelutionary mistake? gay men and women can breed, they jsut choose not to, and it is not hereditary, there for I don't see teh mistake, it's just a varieance.

If it was a gene that made someone gay, then it would be a mistake, evelutionaly speaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top