• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

Foot fetish. Are your familiar with the term? A person who reaches orgasm but having his foot fondled. Seem like 'deviant' behavior? Not if you understand that the genitalia nerves are right next to the foot nerves in the brain, and, to the extent those nerve bunldes may overlap in a person's brain...

Are you starting to understand? You can't control the way your brain is wired.
You've selected some unfortunate examples to try to prove your point. The somatosensory cortex is most certainly not "hardwired." It is considered a very plastic region of the brain and will indeed "rewire itself" based on behavior.
 
You can't control the way your brain is wired.
And... speaking in generic terms, your argument is simply not supported by the facts.

Current Biology (2007) "Structural Plasticity: Rewiring the Brain"
Far from being hard-wired and static, the brain is capable of dramatic reorganisation. As we learn new skills or acquire novel experiences, our brain cells alter the way in which they respond to the outside world to reflect our changing circumstances. These changes in our behaviour and brain function are probably accompanied by structural alterations in the brain. Indeed, in studies on animal brains, it has been possible to visualise very localised structural changes...

See also:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_plasticity[/ame]
The adult brain is not "hard-wired" with fixed and immutable neuronal circuits. There are many instances of cortical and subcortical rewiring of neuronal circuits in response to training as well as in response to injury.

Decades of research have now shown that substantial changes occur in the lowest neocortical processing areas, and that these changes can profoundly alter the pattern of neuronal activation in response to experience. According to the theory of neuroplasticity, thinking, learning, and acting actually change both the brain's physical structure (anatomy) and functional organization (physiology) from top to bottom. Neuroscientists are presently engaged in a reconciliation of critical period studies demonstrating the immutability of the brain after development with the new findings on neuroplasticity, which reveal the mutability of both structural and functional aspects. A substantial paradigm shift is now under way: Canadian psychiatrist Norman Doidge has in fact stated that neuroplasticity is "one of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century."
 
Last edited:
This is the best argument I have seen for GM. Wow. I may have to cut and paste it and save it in my personal files! Bravo, Captain, bravo! (I can't wait to see what the response is. ;))

:clap:

Thank you. I've been making this argument here at DP for a couple of years...and have gotten a few other posters from both sides of the issue to agree. It's a position that can't be beaten. If you want more information, I can certainly PM you.
 
Just like it was a loser argument in Brown v Board of Education and Hernandez v Texas?

Look how long it took the Court to overturn "separate but equal". Was discrimination a loser argument for blacks during the years between Plessy and Brown?

Completely different issues. In these cases, Blacks were not receiving the same rights as Whites. There were different services being provided. When it comes to marriage, gays and straights have the same rights under the law. There is no discrimination in that sense. Like I said, when it comes to gay rights, it's a loser argument.
 
I wasn't addressing you specifically in that statement.

Good to know.



You are making my point for me.

There is no public vote ever that supported a gay marriage bill.

They did not want to risk the vote knowing the 0-31 record so they denied the vote by the people.

I ask you again, why are you not disappointed by this decision to stop the people from voting on the issue? Is it because you support GM?

You just made my point for ME. Thank you. Public officials serve the people. These folks decided to deny the people the vote. Not their place to do that.
 
Really. Prove it.

List the studies you are claiming support this theory of yours.

If your goal is to equate the sexual desire of homosexuals with the millions of years of heterosexual procreation and attraction, not to mention the compatibility of sexual organs for procreation between males and females, then you will need more than your pompous attitude and holier than thou rhetoric to convince others.

Again, all you demonstrate above is a complete lack of understanding of the issue and the tactic of using logical fallacies to attempt to prove your position. Let me demostrate:

In the above you used the appeal to nature fallacy "not to mention the compatibility of sexual organs for procreation between males and females" and the Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition) "If your goal is to equate the sexual desire of homosexuals with the millions of years of heterosexual procreation and attraction". Or, in other words, what you posted is illogical and irrelevant.



Of course. How could I possibly think nature would make the opposite sexes attracted to each other. LOL

Appeal to nature logical fallacy. Illogical and therefore irrelevant.

So, for all the species of the world that populate with one male one female reproduction, please explain how we are not genetically inclined to be attracted to the opposite sex. :rofl

This is the dumbest argument you have made yet. You want to cast aside millions of years of evolution and procreation based on nothing but your own self satisfying theory.

Like I said...yours was one of the most foolish comments I have seen at DP...and you continue to make it worse. It is both circular reasoning (heterosexuality is natural because that is how someone is born :lol::lol::lol:) and another Appeal to Nature fallacy. You may want to hone up on your debate skills and avoid all these fallacies. You're really making this quite easy for me.
 
No need to tell, go stand in front of the mirror....do you know or are you aware of a sexual behavior more important than the one resulting in what's looking back at you in the mirror?

Your parents.......were not gay. Even if one had left shortly after your birth and joined the Flaming Circus of Stars gay movement and took on a lover of the same gender....NOTHING either of your parents would ever do in the future being 'gay' will ever equal the single act that produced you. They're heteros is the point...you define that for them.

This is a completely untrue theory. Procreation does NOT define one's sexuality.
 
It's easy enough to defeat his argument by addressing his points.

Jerry is proven wrong here, my evidence is he hasn't addressed my argument...at all. It's a standard tactic, one merely claims they could defeat your arguments....then never addresses the topic.

You voted for Obama, didn't you?
 
Which is a bald faced lie but go ahead. Go ahead and deny it and I'll quote your article to you...again.

And you miss the point, just as you missed understanding the piont made with the article. What article, what proof have you offered to support your position? None at all.



May possibly, theoricial? Of course not.

And Tom Cruise may not be gay.

The idiocy of that statement alone you made shows how weak your argument is.

Theory is a key word, and is not a weak word as most people think. There is no evidence which proves, or even strongly suggests that there is not a genetic link. The theory of a genetic link accounts for the evidence we have. You as usual sound like an evolution denier..."it's only a theory", with no clue as to how strong that is.

Exacept for all the failed studies that tried to prove it :rofl

And many successful studies which show evidence that it is likely. In point of fact, "failed study" is a misnomer, as the point of study is to gain knowledge, which they have done. The only proof is finding the actual genes involved, which has not been done. What we do know: statistically, genes inherited from the mother explain our observations on the maternal link to homosexuality, genes can and do affect behavior(see the nurture gene for one example), genes can and do effect sexuality(see drosophilia(sp?) study), homosexuals are physically different. These are all observations which have to be considered, and point to a strong likelyhood that there is a nature component to orientation.


You are hopless you truly are. You have no proof and your only argument is there "may" be a link.

It's hopeless now to admit that knowledge is incomplete? saying it is not proven does not mean it is unlikely, nor that there is no evidence.

I got news for you. "maybe, possibly" isn't an argument.

"maybe, possibly" with no look at potential is weak, but when the preponderance of evidence shows something is likely, that is a bit different. There is not alot of proof for anything in the universe, that does not mean we don't have a pretty good idea about those things.



Is an unsupported theory which is no argument for changing existing laws or establishing new ones based on "maybe, possibly"

Please show where I have suggested changing laws based on whether or not orientation is genetic.


Which is a gross distortion of my argument since we are talking sexual orientation not survival.

You did not say this?

Of course. How could I possibly think nature would make the opposite sexes attracted to each other. LOL

So, for all the species of the world that populate with one male one female reproduction, please explain how we are not genetically inclined to be attracted to the opposite sex.

This is the dumbest argument you have made yet. You want to cast aside millions of years of evolution and procreation based on nothing but your own self satisfying theory.

To use the evolution argument you have to understand evolution, which apparently you do not. For a gene to be chosen over another, it has to have a greater chance to be passed on than another gene. There are any number of genes however that are neutral(hair/eye color are the classic examples) that simply are never weeded out. Homosexuality may be such a gene(gene set actually, or phenotype).
 
And what act you've ever performed or received equals the conception of your Son? What is the most important thing in your life, what will define you and carry your name throughout your life and his?



Take a look at your Son, Chief....that's reality....and not one iota of homosexuality went into creating the good lad. You performed the ultimate heterosexual act, your Son's mother did the same. Call yourselves what you'd like, you're not gay. Sorry. You may feel the desire to sleep with men, it will never be the equal of conceiving a child. Ever. I'm terribly sorry, but you're not even close to correct here. In fact, you're dead wrong.

Furthermore, the absence of homosexuality.....doesn't affect this planet whatsoever. Two men or two women never having whatever version of sex they'd like to call sex, affects nothing. This planet would spin and humankind would prosper....the porn industry may take a hit as many men enjoy seeing two women having sex...other than that....all is well.

In the absence of heterosexuality...well....we're not even here to discuss it now are we.

Homosexual sex isn;t even close to being the equal of human sexuality, it's your specific version. It doesn't rate, sorry

There is nothing here that is anything but your OWN morals and opinion. Maybe it applies to you, but that is meaningless in whether it applies to anyone else.
 
This is a completely untrue theory. Procreation does NOT define one's sexuality.

It certainly encompasses our entire sexuality though...doesn't it? Your definition of sexuality happens to be defined by what's happneing before orgasm. Our sexuality.....Captain....includes sperm introduced to an egg. It includes this fertilized egg attaching itself and starting to reproduce cells. It includes child birth, mothers milk glands, the woman's menstrual cycle ending for months and beginning shortly after, human sexuality includes all of this.

Your definition is resricted to sexual behavior...and thus is wrong. Anyone can behave in any manner they wish, it's irrelevant to 99% of human sexuality that clearly occurs after orgasm. Homosexuals often err in thinking our sexuality is our sexual behavior....it is only a fraction of our human sexuality.

The example I used before with Jallman I can repeat. If he has a Son, then nothing, no behavior engaged with any other man...stands the equal to what happened after he conceived his child and I mean directly after. His Son's mother became pregnant almost immediately. She carried this boy to term, she probably breast fed the child. These are all natural and human sexuality orientations and stand far above whatever behavior or circus ceiling fan act of insanity he's performing with other men. Sorry, he's not "gay" whether he thinks he is or not.
 
It certainly encompasses our entire sexuality though...doesn't it? Your definition of sexuality happens to be defined by what's happneing before orgasm. Our sexuality.....Captain....includes sperm introduced to an egg. It includes this fertilized egg attaching itself and starting to reproduce cells. It includes child birth, mothers milk glands, the woman's menstrual cycle ending for months and beginning shortly after, human sexuality includes all of this.

Your definition is resricted to sexual behavior...and thus is wrong. Anyone can behave in any manner they wish, it's irrelevant to 99% of human sexuality that clearly occurs after orgasm. Homosexuals often err in thinking our sexuality is our sexual behavior....it is only a fraction of our human sexuality.

No. You are talking about human reproduction and the biology that goes into it. Separate issue. Human sexuality is far larger than you are stating.

The example I used before with Jallman I can repeat. If he has a Son, then nothing, no behavior engaged with any other man...stands the equal to what happened after he conceived his child and I mean directly after. His Son's mother became pregnant almost immediately. She carried this boy to term, she probably breast fed the child. These are all natural and human sexuality orientations and stand far above whatever behavior or circus ceiling fan act of insanity he's performing with other men. Sorry, he's not "gay" whether he thinks he is or not.

Again, this is nothing more than your morality and opinion. Nothing more. It is irrelevant to anyone other than you.
 
It certainly encompasses our entire sexuality though...doesn't it? Your definition of sexuality happens to be defined by what's happneing before orgasm. Our sexuality.....Captain....includes sperm introduced to an egg. It includes this fertilized egg attaching itself and starting to reproduce cells. It includes child birth, mothers milk glands, the woman's menstrual cycle ending for months and beginning shortly after, human sexuality includes all of this.

Your definition is resricted to sexual behavior...and thus is wrong. Anyone can behave in any manner they wish, it's irrelevant to 99% of human sexuality that clearly occurs after orgasm. Homosexuals often err in thinking our sexuality is our sexual behavior....it is only a fraction of our human sexuality.

The example I used before with Jallman I can repeat. If he has a Son, then nothing, no behavior engaged with any other man...stands the equal to what happened after he conceived his child and I mean directly after. His Son's mother became pregnant almost immediately. She carried this boy to term, she probably breast fed the child. These are all natural and human sexuality orientations and stand far above whatever behavior or circus ceiling fan act of insanity he's performing with other men. Sorry, he's not "gay" whether he thinks he is or not.

Well that makes it easy! no-one is gay - unless they are sterile or barren and menopausal perhaps. :doh
 
You've selected some unfortunate examples to try to prove your point. The somatosensory cortex is most certainly not "hardwired." It is considered a very plastic region of the brain and will indeed "rewire itself" based on behavior.

And you completely missed my point.

I was trying to point out that behavior that we think is 'devious' is not so much so once you understand the medical science behind it.

Get it.
 
Well that makes it easy! no-one is gay - unless they are sterile or barren and menopausal perhaps. :doh

That's pretty much what his argument amounts to. It's sort of a more emotional variation on the "marriage is for raising children" fallacious argument.
 
That's pretty much what his argument amounts to. It's sort of a more emotional variation on the "marriage is for raising children" fallacious argument.

It was so poorly constructed and so filled with nothing but morality and opinion, at first I didn't even know how to respond.
 
And you completely missed my point.

I was trying to point out that behavior that we think is 'devious' is not so much so once you understand the medical science behind it.

Get it.
If part of your goal is to "understand the medical science" then you should be thanking me for clearing up some of your more blatant misconceptions.
 
No one who has conceived a child is gay.

Incorrect. But since you put it out there, prove that with some substantiation. Links would be nice. Your morality and opinion only is not acceptable.
 
It was so poorly constructed and so filled with nothing but morality and opinion, at first I didn't even know how to respond.

I just quit bothering when he insisted that because I assisted in an artificial inseminatation, I was suddenly not gay anymore.
 
That's pretty much what his argument amounts to. It's sort of a more emotional variation on the "marriage is for raising children" fallacious argument.

ITs more the human sexuality's primary purpose in pro-creation. Anyone defining it as anything else is simply wrong. And your sexual behavior....isn't relevant enough to define orientation...not if you're a father. Sorry.
 
Back
Top Bottom