Homosexuality and Violence

Quillion

Quillion

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
Rather than have a flame-war, read the article before responding. I found it illuminating.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet4.html

Some snippets:

These murders fit traditional psychiatric opinion: excessive violence is naturally associated with other forms of social pathology. From this perspective, those who rebel against society’s norms – homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, etc. – are more apt to be violent also.
Click to expand...

The top six U.S. male serial killers were all gay:
• Donald Harvey claimed 37 victims in Kentucky;

• John Wayne Gacy raped and killed 33 boys in Chicago, burying them under his house and in his yard;

• Patrick Kearney accounted for 32, cutting his victims into small pieces after sex and leaving them in trash bags along the Los Angeles freeways;

• Bruce Davis molested and killed 27 young men and boys in Illinois;

• A gay sex-murder-torture ring (Corll-Henley-Brooks) sent 27 Texas men and boys to their grave; and

• Juan Corona was convicted of murdering 25 migrant workers (he "made love" with their corpses).
Click to expand...

Though probably less than a majority of mass murderers are homosexual, given that no more than 3% of the populace is gay, homosexual murderers show up much more frequently than one would expect (even Richard Speck engaged in homosexuality). Along with serial murder, there appears to be a connection between homosexuality and murder. Evidence from before the gay rights movement is limited. Of 444 homicides in one jurisdiction from 1955-1973, investigators noted 5 clear "sexual motivation" murders. Three of the 5 involved homosexuality and 2 involved heterosexuality. (3)
Click to expand...

Most who get an STD decide that they will do all in their power not to infect others. But others – an important minority – decide that they will make their partners suffer as much as they have. As Mirko Grmek (13) noted "every historian of disease knows that such an attitude of vengeance, or at least of recklessness, had contributed in other times to the spread of tuberculosis and syphilis." Limited evidence suggests that, compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals are more apt to harm their sexual partners deliberately. The only comparative study (5,9) on this issue found that about 1% of male and female heterosexuals compared to 7% of gays and 3% of lesbians admitted to deliberately passing on STDs that they had acquired.
Click to expand...

A study of 6,714 obituaries (22) in gay newspapers across the U.S. revealed that 3% of 6,574 gays and 20% of 140 lesbians had died violently:

• 1.4% of gays and 7% of lesbians were murdered (rates over a hundred times those of non-gays);

• 0.6% of gays and 5.7% of lesbians committed suicide (rates dozens of times those of non-gays); and

• 0.6% of gays and 4.3% of lesbians died in motor vehicle accidents (over 17 times the rate of non-gays)

These events, coupled with various STDs (especially AIDS) gotten from other gays, resulted in a median age of death of 40 among gays and a median age of death of 45 among lesbians. In the same study, comparison samples of married men had a median age of death of 75 and married women a median age of death of 79. For divorced or single persons the median age of death was 57 for men and 71 for women.
Click to expand...

The ‘hate crimes’ gays complain about are infrequent and seldom involve more than name-calling or snide remarks. The FBI reported 431 hate crimes against homosexuals for the U.S. in all of 1991. Only one was "confirmed" for Washington, D.C. – yet D.C. gay activists claimed 397 incidents! When pressed, they admitted that at least 366 of these "crimes" consisted of "verbal harassment." (23)
Click to expand...

The article quotes documentation.

Opinions?
 
Interesting, but wouldn't it be easy to make the argument that since society looks down on homosexuals as well as other deviants, they would be more likely to rebel against "the system" and murder etc? That seems far more likely to me than claiming that all homosexuals are more violent.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Interesting, but wouldn't it be easy to make the argument that since society looks down on homosexuals as well as other deviants, they would be more likely to rebel against "the system" and murder etc?[/quote]
Agreed.

[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']That seems far more likely to me than claiming that all homosexuals are more violent.[/QUOTE]
Wait! But you just said...

You've just created a contradiction.

If they are more likely to rebel against the system, that makes them, as a group, more violent. We're talking aggregate here.
 
[quote name='fanskad']Agreed.


Wait! But you just said...

You've just created a contradiction.

If they are more likely to rebel against the system, that makes them, as a group, more violent. We're talking aggregate here.[/QUOTE]

True, fair enough, then I would reneg and say that they may be more violent as a group, but it is a product of society not of their genetic makeup alone.
 
I know some of this wrong (gay's are about 8% not 3, but sexuality is a sliding scale and it's difficult to know when to say someone is gay, bi, or straight. 3% may be fit for solely 100% gay, though that most gays or straight people aren't 100%). Some of it confused pedophelia, and necrophelia with homosexuality (when in reality they are very different and separate types of sexual attraction). Excessive violence is associated with most drug use (marijuana being an exception), an alcohol can make people very violent, but not gay. Prostitutes are often on drugs and abused by clients and pimps (though male prostitues are more likely to work for themselves, they still are abused by clients), and abuse and drugs both lead to violence (lack of a strong social network can lead to drugs, which can lead to prostitution a violence, and prostitution and abuse can lead to drugs again). Gays are often the target of attacks, harrasment, etc. and their status as social outcasts in most areas often leads to substance abuser and any increase (if there is) in violence can be attributed to that, just as those things lead to violence in all other groups.

That site quotes statistics that, in the way they are used, are inconsistent with statistics I've seen elsewhere (and the way they are referenced it is impossible to check the original sources from where I am), and the site makes every attempt to minimalize anything positive towards gays (or beneficial to people supporting them, such as hate crimes), while making every possible attempt to attribute negative things to them.
 
First, it needs to be taken into account that this article was written in 1993.

As for the murderers being gay, I don't think that many of the big names they gave were openly gay. Given the social belief at that time that homosexuality was extremely deviant behavior, it seems far more likely that these men would engage in homosexual acts specifically because they were deviant. That is a far cry from choosing homosexuality as a lifestyle.
 
I just saw the other thread and want to know, you said mathew sheppard is a horrible example of a martyr (a term you used, I simply used him as an example of a topic for a pro gay rights song), and I said why. You said you started a new thread and the response is to attack homosexuality, what exactly does that have to do with the question unless you're saying homosexuals are horrible examples of martyrs, simply because their is something wrong about being homosexual. If that's unfair I apologize, but I can't see any other meaning behind this.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Heh, the total article is bullshit.

Look at the source, one of those conservative "family" groups.[/QUOTE]

Ya, but unfortunately most statistics on this issue come from pro gay rights or anti gay rights sources. Also, unfortunate for them, pro gay rights sites tend to be more accurate, mainly because statistics seem to agree with them more (and they're not fighting satan either).
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I just saw the other thread and want to know, you said mathew sheppard is a horrible example of a martyr (a term you used, I simply used him as an example of a topic for a pro gay rights song), and I said why. You said you started a new thread and the response is to attack homosexuality, what exactly does that have to do with the question unless you're saying homosexuals are horrible examples of martyrs, simply because their is something wrong about being homosexual. If that's unfair I apologize, but I can't see any other meaning behind this.[/QUOTE]

Read the last qoute from my "salient points"
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Heh, the total article is bullshit.

Look at the source, one of those conservative "family" groups.[/QUOTE]

Whew!

I'm glad SOMEONE is able to determine whether or not an essay, article, or research paper is accurate by reading the first line.

Support your argument against the article, quote misrepresentations in the facts, deconstruct the arguments they give, add something to the discussion.
 
[quote name='fanskad']Whew!

I'm glad SOMEONE is able to determine whether or not an essay, article, or research paper is accurate by reading the first line.

Support your argument against the article, quote misrepresentations in the facts, deconstruct the arguments they give, add something to the discussion.[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to write a report disproving ever right wing nutjob "report" someone posts on this god forsaken message board.

But it pisses me off when you nutcakes post something then adopt an "it's true unless you prove it wrong" attitude.

Those damn "Christian" "family" groups are occasionally known to lie, FYI.
 
[quote name='fanskad']Read the last qoute from my "salient points"[/QUOTE]

Well, one of the points you made to unoriginal is a very poor one, he wasn't stating homosexuals are more deviant, but deviants (or anti social people) are more likely to engage in homosexuality, but are not necessarily homosexuals (homosexual act, including sex, are much more common in the population than actual homosexuality). Though which point are you referring to? Looking at the points you made, I still can't get beyond the idea that you're saying he's a poor example because he's a homosexual.

[quote name='fanskad']Whew!

I'm glad SOMEONE is able to determine whether or not an essay, article, or research paper is accurate by reading the first line.

Support your argument against the article, quote misrepresentations in the facts, deconstruct the arguments they give, add something to the discussion.[/QUOTE]

it's a valid tactic, but it only works when that topic has information available from unbiased sources, practically with anything dealing with homosexuality you don't have that luxury.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I'm not going to write a report disproving ever right wing nutjob "report" someone posts on this god forsaken message board.

But it pisses me off when you nutcakes post something then adopt an "it's true unless you prove it wrong" attitude.

Those damn "Christian" "family" groups are occasionally known to lie, FYI.[/QUOTE]

Everyone is known to lie.

The group who created that report did research. They documented the research. Not all the research comes from groups with ulterior motives. To dismiss the entire report -without consideration- is closed-minded.

I object to the characterization of "nutcake".
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, one of the points you made to unoriginal is a very poor one, he wasn't stating homosexuals are more deviant, but deviants (or anti social people) are more likely to engage in homosexuality, but are not necessarily homosexuals (homosexual act, including sex, are much more common in the population than actual homosexuality). Though which point are you referring to? Looking at the points you made, I still can't get beyond the idea that you're saying he's a poor example because he's a homosexual.[/quote]

The last of the "Salient points" in my OP:
[quote name='OP']The ‘hate crimes’ gays complain about are infrequent and seldom involve more than name-calling or snide remarks. The FBI reported 431 hate crimes against homosexuals for the U.S. in all of 1991. Only one was "confirmed" for Washington, D.C. – yet D.C. gay activists claimed 397 incidents! When pressed, they admitted that at least 366 of these "crimes" consisted of "verbal harassment." (23)[/Quote]
I postulate that there isn't the nationwide epidemic of "Hate Crimes", (God, I hate that term) and that no martyr is needed.


[quote name='alonzomourning23']it's a valid tactic, but it only works when that topic has information available from unbiased sources, practically with anything dealing with homosexuality you don't have that luxury.[/QUOTE]

There is no such thing as an unbiased source.
 
[quote name='fanskad']The last of the "Salient points" in my OP:[/quote]

Um, well one thing is much like rape many crimes go unreported (and I also partially addressed that in my they made every attempt to discredit things that are positive and every attempt to credit things to them that are negative). But, also, unless you are saying mathew sheppards death by being beaten and dragged from a truck somehow is simply verbal abuse, there is no valid point there.




There is no such thing as an unbiased source.
Click to expand...

But there are degrees of bias. Who is more reliable for abortion statistics, a study done at princeton or a study done by family planning?

edit:
I postulate that there isn't the nationwide epidemic of "Hate Crimes", (God, I hate that term) and that no martyr is needed.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you added something. Regardless I disagree based on statistics I've seen and people I know (and I'm leaving in 2 minutes so I don't have the time to show them at the moment). But mathew shepard isn't viewed as a martyr against hatecrimes as much as a martyr against homophobia and bigotry.

Though, I wonder what you would consider a boss repeatedly calling an employee a $$$$$$ (that racist word for blacks probably got censored), is that just name calling?
 
A hate crime is different than a regular crime because a hate crime lacks motive, it is just committing a crime against someone from an ethnic, religious, social, or other group that you hate and the sole reason for doing so is that you hate that group.

Now if only the law saw it that way...
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']A hate crime is different than a regular crime because a hate crime lacks motive, it is just committing a crime against someone from an ethnic, religious, social, or other group that you hate and the sole reason for doing so is that you hate that group.

Now if only the law saw it that way...[/QUOTE]

I'm glad the law doesn't see is that way.

Why do we have to have divisions? Why do certain groups deserve special protection? Why is my crime any more severe because of what I was thinking when I committed it? Free speech should extend inside my head.

Punish people for murder, not for these Orwellian "Thought Crimes".
 
correlational studies can lead to the right path but more often than not I see them being misinterptreted as causal studies.

I think Mr unoriginal has a good point ;) I'm sure the church would have a field day with that making it say that homosexuality causes deviation.
 
Though probably less than a majority of mass murderers are homosexual, given that no more than 3% of the populace is gay, homosexual murderers show up much more frequently than one would expect (even Richard Speck engaged in homosexuality). Along with serial murder, there appears to be a connection between homosexuality and murder. Evidence from before the gay rights movement is limited. Of 444 homicides in one jurisdiction from 1955-1973, investigators noted 5 clear "sexual motivation" murders. Three of the 5 involved homosexuality and 2 involved heterosexuality. (3)
Click to expand...
I particularly like this little bit of 'evidence'. They found one specific area of the country during one specific time period in which their view was supported, and they vaguely imply that those statistics hold true for the other 99.9% of the US. They don't even reveal what 'jurisdiction' is it, making it impossible to confirm or deny whether its true or not. Even if it is true, its an absolutely ridiculous argument that depends on bad logic.

• 1.4% of gays and 7% of lesbians were murdered (rates over a hundred times those of non-gays);
Click to expand...
Isn't this an argument for the existance of hate crimes againt homosexuals?

• 0.6% of gays and 5.7% of lesbians committed suicide (rates dozens of times those of non-gays);
Click to expand...
This one is quite true. The reason is how strongly society condemns homosexuality. The solution is for bigots such as the one who wrote the article to stop spewing hate.

• 0.6% of gays and 4.3% of lesbians died in motor vehicle accidents (over 17 times the rate of non-gays)
Click to expand...
So being gay causes you to become a bad driver? I don't even understand what this statistic has to do with the general argument.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Though, I wonder what you would consider a boss repeatedly calling an employee a $$$$$$ (that racist word for blacks probably got censored), is that just name calling?[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, no. It is not just name calling. It should be. Words have no power inherently, it is our reaction that gives them power.

But this tragically isn't an ideal world, and thus that situation should reult in some form of punishment for the boss. No more severe of a punishment than the same boss should get for repeatedly calling his female employee "bitch"
 
[quote name='fanskad']I'm glad the law doesn't see is that way.

Why do we have to have divisions? Why do certain groups deserve special protection? Why is my crime any more severe because of what I was thinking when I committed it? Free speech should extend inside my head.

Punish people for murder, not for these Orwellian "Thought Crimes".[/QUOTE]

Thought crimes? It's a thought crime when you don't act on it. People who commit hate crimes are particularly dangerous, since it cannot be dismissed as just an unfortunate series of events, since it was motivated not by the situation itself but by what the victim is in the situation. Essentially, it's more likely to be repeated and also is often more traumatic to the victim and/or the community, since the reason is simply existing, there's nothing they can do about it.
 
[quote name='fanskad']Unfortunately, no. It is not just name calling. It should be. Words have no power inherently, it is our reaction that gives them power.

But this tragically isn't an ideal world, and thus that situation should reult in some form of punishment for the boss. No more severe of a punishment than the same boss should get for repeatedly calling his female employee "bitch"[/QUOTE]

But if it's based on our reaction, being called a $$$$$$ generally results in a more damaging effect on the target than being called a bitch. And being called a fag by your boss has more of an effect as well. Calling someone a bitch generally doesn't attack the core of what the person is, as those two other terms do. And to dismiss racial and ethnic attacks as just name calling suggests that you've never been the target of them. Now most white people probably haven't (jews being an exception), and most of the ones for white or white nationalities are more mild, but being someone who has few white friends and of a particularly harrassed european nationality (especially among kids in school), it has much more of an effect then simple name calling.
 
That is the shitiest looking site. I could make a site and post shit like this on there. Wow a few gays killed people most likely because social hates us. Wow there is a fucking thought.

All this is streotyping gay because of a few dumbasses. It's like saying all blacks kill people and get away with murder because OJ Simpson did.

And here's a hint anything the Family Research Institute is always bullshit.
 
[quote name='atreyue']If you're going to hit someone with a rock, you better make damn sure that person's of the same race as you.[/QUOTE]

Thank you.

I wish I could have stated it so simply.
 
[quote name='fanskad']Thank you.

I wish I could have stated it so simply.[/QUOTE]

Just a quote taken from south park. Funnily enough, there are very few if any topics brought up in this board that South Park hasn't already weighed in on. And more intelligently than most here.

That article is bullshit, though.
 
[quote name='David85']That is the shitiest looking site. I could make a site and post shit like this on there. Wow a few gays killed people most likely because social hates us. Wow there is a fucking thought.

All this is streotyping gay because of a few dumbasses. It's like saying all blacks kill people and get away with murder because OJ Simpson did.

And here's a hint anything the Family Research Institute is always bullshit.[/QUOTE]

Elegant, witty, concise... What's not to like?




Not all blacks do kill people; however, they do account for a dispropotionally large portion of the murders, as both victims and perpetrators. One could safely assume that blacks are more likely to be mudered, or murderers. There are probably underlying causes, other than race, but the relationship exists.

Give credit where credit is due.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']So we should be suspicious of all black people and descriminate against them?[/QUOTE]


Too late, we already do.

The major city near me alsways talks about how the crime is so bad with blacks and hispanics. it's like no shit because 90% of the population there is black or hispantic so the numbers will be higher.

Oh course it's like the 8th dangerous city in the country, but I doubt thta's because of race. It's because of drugs and fucked up police force.
 
[quote name='David85']Too late, we already do.

The major city near me alsways talks about how the crime is so bad with blacks and hispanics. it's like no shit because 90% of the population there is black or hispantic so the numbers will be higher.

Oh course it's like the 8th dangerous city in the country, but I doubt thta's because of race. It's because of drugs and fucked up police force.[/QUOTE]

People need to go to buffalo, very large black population but low crime (safer than many areas in massachusetts, believe it's also safer than boston which is considered a very safe city in the u.s.).

I think the problem with this article (and the problem with fanskd, or whatever his name is, statement about blacks) is that it associates problems with being a particular type of person (gay or black), instead of the environment many of those people are born into or forced into, and the way they are treated by society.
 
It's just the way we're taught. Growing up in suburbia taught me to fear minorites (such as blacks, mexicans, etc..). Black Pop Culture (Mainstream rap) and the Black youth buying into it isn't helping thier image as well. Of course this whole Black Pop Culture movment is ultimately supported by rich white record execs.. It's a vicious cycle yah.

I mean imagine some typical suburban white kid buys a "gangsta" album and brings it home. Dad who is a police officer listens to this crap bout shooting people and banging ho's and dealing drugs. Then he sees on MTV these morons flinging around thier bling and crap and advocating drug use and violence... And they wonder why police officers become biased.

In the end it's all about power and to a certain extent money. When you give a minority person power and money he becomes just like the majority. Which is probably the reason why the Black middle class has shrunken signifigantly while the number of poor blacks has risen dramatically and the number of ultra rich black people has risen somewhat. Of course this helps people claim that racism is not apparent in this country by pointing to the few very sucessful black people which makes it easier for the majority to label them as "lazy" and whatnot. It's kind of like the racial triangulation theory which compares asians to Blacks.

honestly I think MLK's birthday does more harm than good. It allows people to just dismiss racism as being something of the past when it's very well alive today. This is why I respect Malcom X more than MLK. Not to say MLK was not a great man as well.

The sad thing is I have a hard time personally trying to fight off these stereotypes ingrained in me while growing up. I goto malls and I see these groups of black youth dressed and acting like "gangsta rappers" I mean it's hard to keep my perspective straight when you see stuff like that.
 
[quote name='Zoglog']It's just the way we're taught. Growing up in suburbia taught me to fear minorites (such as blacks, mexicans, etc..). Black Pop Culture (Mainstream rap) and the Black youth buying into it isn't helping thier image as well. Of course this whole Black Pop Culture movment is ultimately supported by rich white record execs.. It's a vicious cycle yah.

I mean imagine some typical suburban white kid buys a "gangsta" album and brings it home. Dad who is a police officer listens to this crap bout shooting people and banging ho's and dealing drugs. Then he sees on MTV these morons flinging around thier bling and crap and advocating drug use and violence... And they wonder why police officers become biased.

In the end it's all about power and to a certain extent money. When you give a minority person power and money he becomes just like the majority. Which is probably the reason why the Black middle class has shrunken signifigantly while the number of poor blacks has risen dramatically and the number of ultra rich black people has risen somewhat. Of course this helps people claim that racism is not apparent in this country by pointing to the few very sucessful black people which makes it easier for the majority to label them as "lazy" and whatnot. It's kind of like the racial triangulation theory which compares asians to Blacks.

honestly I think MLK's birthday does more harm than good. It allows people to just dismiss racism as being something of the past when it's very well alive today. This is why I respect Malcom X more than MLK. Not to say MLK was not a great man as well.

The sad thing is I have a hard time personally trying to fight off these stereotypes ingrained in me while growing up. I goto malls and I see these groups of black youth dressed and acting like "gangsta rappers" I mean it's hard to keep my perspective straight when you see stuff like that.[/QUOTE]

My time in toronto has taught me something, I met far less blacks who acted like gangstas than those who did. And considering I had never dealth with a black person, be it in school or in daily life, with the exception of buying stuff in stores, that was important.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']My time in toronto has taught me something, I met far less blacks who acted like gangstas than those who did. And considering I had never dealth with a black person, be it in school or in daily life, with the exception of buying stuff in stores, that was important.[/QUOTE]

hehe, that's because that's Canada. The whole social structure there is different.
 
[quote name='Zoglog']hehe, that's because that's Canada. The whole social structure there is different.[/QUOTE]

ya but experiences I had later (such as in buffalo, chicago etc.) also taught me something. When I go to poorer areas I see more blacks like that, but I also see more whites like that too.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
I think the problem with this article (and the problem with fanskd, or whatever his name is, statement about blacks) is that it associates problems with being a particular type of person (gay or black), instead of the environment many of those people are born into or forced into, and the way they are treated by society.[/QUOTE]

Bingo.

It's just easier for people to stereotype.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']People need to go to buffalo, very large black population but low crime (safer than many areas in massachusetts, believe it's also safer than boston which is considered a very safe city in the u.s.).

I think the problem with this article (and the problem with fanskd, or whatever his name is, statement about blacks) is that it associates problems with being a particular type of person (gay or black), instead of the environment many of those people are born into or forced into, and the way they are treated by society.[/QUOTE]

Ah, but see, the question has to be raised, does society create the person, or does the person create the society?

With segments of the population which are fundamentaly different such as blacks, or gays (as they'd have us believe, they are born gay, thus suggesting if not a genetic difference, then a difference in how the body processes input and environment) when trends begin to occur, it speaks to the proclivities of said segment of the population.

I understand that this isn't a popular argument, and personally I believe that these trends are caused my nurture, not nature, but the question must be raised.

So which is it? Are gays geneticaly more prone to violence and dying young, or is that a direct result of the stigma society places on them?
 
[quote name='fanskad']Ah, but see, the question has to be raised, does society create the person, or does the person create the society?

With segments of the population which are fundamentaly different such as blacks, or gays (as they'd have us believe, they are born gay, thus suggesting if not a genetic difference, then a difference in how the body processes input and environment) when trends begin to occur, it speaks to the proclivities of said segment of the population.

I understand that this isn't a popular argument, and personally I believe that these trends are caused my nurture, not nature, but the question must be raised.

So which is it? Are gays geneticaly more prone to violence and dying young, or is that a direct result of the stigma society places on them?[/QUOTE]

Umm........ as scientific studies would have us believe they are born gay. And besides, one of my first responses answered your question. "Hey, maybe there's something wrong with blacks that make them more violent", think that question was asked long ago, don't you? What evidence do you have to support that, since things such as twin studies don't.
 
Is it biological or learned after birth? who gives a damn really. Where thier cock goes is thier own damn business unless it goes into you unwillingly. But yeah just get over that, you aren't that hot anyway ;)
 
They just released another study saying that there is a "gay gene", so how much proff do you dumbasses need?

Does Jesus need to come and say so? :roll:
 
[quote name='fanskad']Ah, but see, the question has to be raised, does society create the person, or does the person create the society?

With segments of the population which are fundamentaly different such as blacks, or gays (as they'd have us believe, they are born gay, thus suggesting if not a genetic difference, then a difference in how the body processes input and environment) when trends begin to occur, it speaks to the proclivities of said segment of the population.[/QUOTE]

In what ways are blacks "fundamentally different" from whites? Or even gays from heterosexuals for that matter. They have one particular behavior pattern which is different from the vast majority of the population (characterize it as you may, I'm not going to get into that one) yet this makes them "fundamentally different"? Please explain, I'm very interested.
 
[quote name='David85']They just released another study saying that there is a "gay gene", so how much proff do you dumbasses need?

Does Jesus need to come and say so? :roll:[/QUOTE]

Just one example of scientific "proff" please.

Show me this study that takes from me the right to make decisions.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']In what ways are blacks "fundamentally different" from whites? Or even gays from heterosexuals for that matter. They have one particular behavior pattern which is different from the vast majority of the population (characterize it as you may, I'm not going to get into that one) yet this makes them "fundamentally different"? Please explain, I'm very interested.[/QUOTE]

There are genetic, fundamental, dietary, and environmental differences. For example, black people need more sunlight, or they end up with a vitamin D deficiency.

Sure, the sociological differences are likely coincidental, but they exist, and help to quantify cultural differences.

I don't want to get caught up in a racial discussion, I selected a group of people who have a chioce to follow certain behavior. This behavior is characterized by society as deviant. This group of people also tend toward other behaviors characterized by society as being deviant.

My question, that nobody seems to want to answer: Does the previously stated choice lead to more deviancy, or is the original behavior simply followed by people who are already deviant?

Are gays by nature deviant? Or does the deviancy make them gay?

I'm really curious.
 
[quote name='fanskad']There are genetic, fundamental, dietary, and environmental differences. For example, black people need more sunlight, or they end up with a vitamin D deficiency.

Sure, the sociological differences are likely coincidental, but they exist, and help to quantify cultural differences.

I don't want to get caught up in a racial discussion,[/QUOTE]

Ah, yet you brought race into it now, didn't you? Did you know there can easily be more genetic difference between two average white men on the street than one of them and a black man? Obviously there are differences; human beings are complicated things, and we all can be vastly different from each other. Cultural differences? Sure, but much more of that has to do with location rather than skin color. Blacks and whites in the U.S., along with other groups, belong to the same culture.

I think you are magnifying what diversity there is in humanity to try and find some "fundamental difference" to help your argument. Humanity is so basically similar this attempt just falls flat on its face on the evidence. I don't think this is where you want your argument to go. Rather, you should focus on behavioral rather than genetic or cultural issues, at least that would be my advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top