Best Posts in Thread: Gay Rights

The thing is, there actually is a way to test if someone if gay, biologically. Gay men have brains that look more like a straight woman's. Lesbians have a brain that look more like a straight man's. Because of these, gay people are more likely to be left handed. It's statistically accurate as well. Lesbians showed to be 91% more likely to be left handed than straight women. Gay men showed to be only 31% more likely, but still a difference nonetheless.

A simple MRI brain scan may be enough to determine the sexual orientation of someone!

Which leaves one question. Why do people find it so hard to believe it's not a choice?

 

It's not like their lining up at your door and saying, "Hey I'm gay!" They aren't bothering anyone. Just let them have a happy life together. Also, in the same book that homosexuality is discussed (Leviticus) also mentions divorce. Look how that's turning out. People don't go around yelling at people that get divorced.

--- Double Post Merged, May 8, 2014, Original Post Date: May 8, 2014 ---

This is a debate thread. Deal with it.

 

Btw, Skaros, you gave a nice speech. I am not being sarcastic. I read the whole thing.

 

I would be ok with a private business refusing to serve someone based on race/religion/sex, because they are the ones who started, work for, and pay for that business. I see it as the same if I were to refuse someone entry into my house based on race/religion/sex. But at the same time, I support and agree with methods to closing the business by people of that location through such things as a boycott or protests.

I am not ok with public institutions doing this.

 

Like this if you want piper to stop posting dumb like plees.

 

Fair enough!

Describe this harassment. It isn't an uncommon thing for two girls to go to Starbucks together which leads me to believe that a) you are showing pda (which is frowned upon when it's straight couples as well), or b) you are making it up for the sake of your argument. If the latter is the case, just say so now and save us both some time.

(read bold to skip statistic calculations)

Your profile says you are from cali. In cali, 61.5% are democrat, 31.5% are republican, 7% are other. Of the democrats, 70% agree with gay marriage. Republicans 33% and other 61%. Taking an average based on both stats, I conclude that 57.715% of people in California are in favor of gay marriage. Additionally, a quick study shows that the majority of Starbucks customers are democrat, drastically swaying the acceptance statistic in your hypothetical situation even further towards your not being harassed. A study from 2013 shows that 73% of LGBT people have experienced harassment. According to The Washington Post, 4.5% of people identify as gay or transgender. Using these two statistics, we find that 3.285% of people are LGBT AND have been harassed at one point in their lives. Assuming these occurrences are from unique antagonists (further bloating the statistic in your favor), 3.285% of people harass LGBT.As for Starbucks patrons, an estimated 750 people visit each store, each day. Starbucks is open 16.5 hours of the day, averaging 45.45 people per hour. Saying that the average stay is 15 minutes, the normal amount of people to see in a Starbucks store is 11.36.

Factoring in that the majority of California (57.715%) is in favor of LGBT rights, democrats, who are more favoring of LGBT rights, are more likely to use the Starbucks franchise, there are 11.36 people, on average, in a Starbucks store (11.36 people), that only a small percentage of the population (3.285%) harass the LGBT community, that the average lifespan is 79 years, and assuming that you spend an average of 15 mins in a Starbucks each visit, I conclude that you have a <0.00001348%*n factor chance of being harassed each visit to Starbucks. Now plug in the amount of times you have been harassed as variable "n" and that is the percent chance you will be harassed in Starbucks. (ie, you have been harassed 16 times at Starbucks (0.00001348%*16= 0.000216% chance)

God bless anyone who follows my math that took me half an hour to check my work. If anyone finds an error, point it out and I will be happy to take a look!

Also, 4.5% is a

Not to slander your argument, this just made me giggle a little bit.



The point of this post tho isn't to give a statistic. My point is that you aren't likely to be harassed when you go out.

Overall, gays have equal rights in the law. What needs to change is people's thoughts about gays. Unlike the law, you can't change a population's ideology ever so quickly. It takes time. The way I see it, rather than rubbing it in people's faces, antagonizing them with gay marches and things like that, we just give them time with the new law to see that gays really aren't bad people rather than forcing an ideology on. When something is forced, it puts up resistance. Sometimes, it snaps. Let's not try to do that, shall we?

 

Because I'm hoping for some new content I could engage in. I'm not sick of the topic at all. Debating gay rights is something I would gladly do with anyone. However, this thread just seems to be leading nowhere now. People against gay rights either left the debate or couldn't argue any further, and people for gay rights don't really have anyone to argue against. (well, they do but it's infighting at this point)

 

"I do not agree with women or women's rights! It's wrong! Women should be subservient to men. It says so in the Bible "

"I do not agree with those that oppose slavery. They're wrong! Slaves should obey their masters, and we should enslave people from the countries around us. It says so in the Bible "

"I do not agree with those that oppose mass genocide and infanticide. The entire world deserved to be drowned to pacify the whims of my god! It says so in the Bible "

"I do not agree with Freedom of Speech. People that mock or laugh at one another deserve to be mauled to death by bears! It says so in the Bible "

*etc etc*.

 

Just like your spelling.
Boom roasted.

 

The main reason pork was banned was because people couldn't cook it right back then. If pork is under cooked, it can make you very sick. The Old Testament pretty much was for its given time period. Back then, it was basically common sense not to eat bad meat and to respect your parents and so on. It seems like the New Testament is a replacement for old law which really doesn't have any relevance today. I don't mean to offend anyone whose religion forbids pork, but speaking from a Christian point of view, one shouldn't have a problem eating pork despite what is said in Leviticus.

 

I have a feeling you don't know the difference between sexuality, sex, and gender, if you think that every homosexual person acts like the opposite gender.

Apparently I'm uncivilized.

I'm generally not okay with super intense PDA's anyways, regardless of gender. I don't care, you shouldn't be super sexual in public no matter what.

How does it affect you?

How does it affect you?

I feel like I am 100x more knowledgable about the subject than you are. From this post I can assume that you don't know the difference between transgender people and homosexual people.

We work pretty well here in Canada where it's not capitalism or communism. There are no countries who are completely right or left wing. It's a spectrum.

So a huge amount of people need to lose their happiness and rights purely because you think it's abnormal and gross to love someone of the same gender?

While these are righteous causes, they definitely shouldn't be used as a reason to not fight for equality of sexualities. Are we not allowed to fight for the equality of all? We have to pick a cause that you think is more deserving of our support?

 

I totally missed this thing about transgenderism. I think it's dumb for someone to expect you to know what pronoun to call them if they don't tell you, but once they tell you, it's kinda common courtesy to call someone by the right pronoun.

I can actually make a good analogy out of this. You know how it is when someone assumes you're a guy here on Meep, and you politely correct them to the fact that you are female? You expect them to get it correct now, right? I mean, it's no excuse to bite someone's face off necessarily, but you have no idea how many times people have probably misidentified them; I'm sure it gets old.

Fang is actually presenting her arguments in a very respectful way, so she really should not be called 'transphobic' and 'homophobic'. As much as I disagree with her, and as much as I can see this is extremely important to you, it's not a good reason to be so incredibly rude.

 

You just failed at genetics, epigenetics, nature, nurture, and evolution... I guess overall, basic biology.

"I have nothing against gays, and I am not homophobic."
You don't think you do, but your ignorance of biology, (enough to make uneducated arguments), shines a different light on what "homophobic" can be.
Your post is so ignorant, its unbelievable.

Here's a list of just Mammals that are proven to exhibit homosexuality in nature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
..however if this leads your argument to be "humans are not animals (or mammals for that matter lol)".. well then the argument comes to a screeching halt, because illogic cannot be debated in any rational sense.

With that said, here's the largest study on this subject to date: http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...journals?aid=9625997&fileId=S0033291714002451

The argument that gay people cannot pass genes to a child, therefore its not evolutionary or apart of the proccesses of evolution, shows that the person making the argument has NO IDEA how the processes of evolution actually work... which leads me to the topic of mutations... I've realized that young kids, while maybe understanding some basics of evolution and genetics, do not understand even what a mutation is, or does, or how/why it can/does occur, and what can result from it.

For some reason, people think that evolution is this "mind of its own" process that forsees the future and acts accordingly, which is just plain stupid and ignorant of environmental pressures. (example: people will say "giraffes had nothing to eat, they couldnt reach trees, therefore they evolved long necks to get food << fail argument)

The overall point is: evolution helps species survive, and can also help them die.

Even if you do not accept the scientific theory of evolution, and believe in creation, or anything for that matter, you would still have to accept the striking similarities to other animals, us being mammal, and the very observance of homosexuality in other species.
The facts are as clear as that.

And then of course, you could contuct a survey of humans who consider themselves gay, trans, etc, and ASK them if they made a conscious choice to be not straight... which would give you the very answer I've laid out here. It's never been a choice for anyone.

But for now, I'll assume the post I quoted is a troll anyways.

 

Should we just lynch the plenty of heterosexual couples that can't have children then, or not let them marry eachother, then? What about (again I ask) transgenderism? What if someone who is biologically female is a man, or vice versa?

More importantly, does it really affect you at all that these loving people want to marry eachother to get rights and freedoms that have been available to heterosexual couples literally for centuries?

 

Gays are humans..

That's my answer.

 

My respect for you has just sky rocketed.

I was going to quote the same things but you beat me to it.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I cant help but feel this thread is no longer a debate. But mindless bickering and religious zealots preaching how we should live our lives.

Just remember this, you cant live without evil. just as you can not have lived with out the devil.

 

Yes I am.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 23, 2015, Original Post Date: Feb 23, 2015 ---

*loses respect*

 

Calm down, Hitler.

 

It actually was a big issue back then. In the USA, all states had bans on same-sex activity, and Illinois was the first state to remove that law in 1962. In the 1800s, homosexuality was illegal in (I'm guessing most or all of the USA) many countries. By 2003, there were still states that banned homosexuality, but then the Supreme Court struck those bans down.

In the middle ages in Europe around 1000-1600 AD, the term "f**" was used to mean "bundle of sticks". The "bundles of sticks" was the bundles of sticks they used to burn homosexuals. As time progressed, the term was then used in a derogatory way to describe homosexuals. Currently, Europe and Australia are the only populated continents without bans on homosexuality. (It's legal in Russia, but homosexuals are given no rights and are not allowed freedom of expression)

Now, not all parts of the world were bad. Many Native American tribes have always embraced their belief in "two spirits", because they believed a man and woman live in us all. Which resulted in feminine men marrying men and masculine women marrying women. Many Buddhists, especially samurais centuries ago in Japan also engaged in same-sex activity, and accepted that humans can bond in such ways. Even today you'll find Native Americans and Buddhists attempting to get same-sex marriages, but having trouble with doing so because of same-sex marriage bans.

All and all, you'll find that the main reason for hate against LGBT people is due to the influence of religion, primarily Christianity and Islam. While Judaism isn't necessarily "okay" with it, they tend to be much more tolerant towards homosexuals.

 

Welp, the Supreme Court of the US has rejected the gay marriage appeals from 5 states. That means that same-sex marriage is officially legalized in 5 new US states. This also means that the majority of Americans now live in a state with same-sex marriage.

Congratulations Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Virginia.