When my fist went through your gay head

good trick

>> ^SuperHotbUNZ:

When my fist went through your gay head


That's not where they want the fist.

what about the "gay but chose to be straight" loophole?

Lo and behold... how some perspective can shine some light into the stupidity area of the brain.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by JiggaJonson.

"I'm an idiot!"

>> ^SuperHotbUNZ:

When my fist went through your gay head


Pretty funny to respond to questions of sexuality with violent thoughts. I'm thinking someone is repressing, perhaps?

I chose in 5th grade when I realized what tits were

>> ^SuperHotbUNZ:

When my fist went through your gay head

I don't condone violence towards people based on sexual preference, but I do condone awesome comebacks like this.


I would've also accepted: When I fucked your mother.

Stupid argument, and of course the interviewer probably filtered out the intelligent responses.

>> ^maximillian:

Stupid argument, and of course the interviewer probably filtered out the intelligent responses.


just rewatch it and you'll see a third of the people are
and it's a perfectly valid argument of perspective


my biggest gripe with this is that people, gay and straight, pretend that it's a binary value of gay or straight
i think it's absurd to define one's sexuality in any absolute way
it's like saying 'i only eat chinese food' or something else arbitrarily restrictive

This is awesome! What a great way to be persuasive!

gay

I really like that last interview. You could almost see her mind turning around from believing it's a choice to believing that maybe it's not always a choice.

It's funny what happens when you put yourself in someone elses shoes or ask the same question about yourself that you're asking about other people.

>> ^maximillian:

Stupid argument, and of course the interviewer probably filtered out the intelligent responses.


Looks like you filtered out your own intelligent response.

>> ^maximillian:

Stupid argument, and of course the interviewer probably filtered out the intelligent responses.


Would you care to state why you believe it's a stupid argument?

All it takes.... just a little bit of thought. Unfortunately a majority of the voting age public doesn't.

This "when did you choose to be straight" thing is some straight-up Socratic skills.

The trick here is in the language. The appropriate question should be, "When did you discover that you were straight?". In which case most can narrow it down to the year, (When did you start chasing girls?), and in the gay case they could probably narrow it down to the exact day.

The wording of his question is a good trick to get people thinking, so kudos, but it is just a trick. Asking gays, (or straights), when they decided to go with it breaks open a whole other discussion about normal and against the grain decisions.

When I finished watching this I thought wow what a group of seemingly nice level headed people for a change. Did they filter out the idiot responses is what I wondered. >> ^shole:

>> ^maximillian:
Stupid argument, and of course the interviewer probably filtered out the intelligent responses.

just rewatch it and you'll see a third of the people are
and it's a perfectly valid argument of perspective

my biggest gripe with this is that people, gay and straight, pretend that it's a binary value of gay or straight
i think it's absurd to define one's sexuality in any absolute way
it's like saying 'i only eat chinese food' or something else arbitrarily restrictive

Man, I did not expect people to react so open-mindedly to that kind of stimulus. It seems people are like, "New thought? Must RESSSIIISSST IT!! Anger, anger, rhetoric."

I am impress.

I have to agree focusing on the word "choice" is a bit disingenuous. Maybe some people really do think it's a conscious choice - that's absurd - but to make it a binary choice between "born that way" or "choose to be gay" is equally ridiculous. Case in point: certain Greek societies held homosexual love to be a very normal, even commendable. Not all of them did, and just how universally accepted the practice really was seems to be uncertain, but nevertheless, as far as I can tell, the phenomenon did exist. I don't see any way for that to be true if there was no cultural component to one's sexuality.

I think it's the sanctioning that's the cultural component. Ancient Greeks sanctioned older/younger male love, but would have had a hard time with to guys being partners for life, while we're the opposite. Greeks also thought that homosexual love was more human because animals don't do it, while modern religious conservatives think it's unnatural because animals don't do it-- but in fact animals DO do it, and quite pervasively!

Here's what i dont get about this... If you're a person who believes all people are born straight and choose to be gay, why would there be any choice the other way at all ?

[redacted]

Awesome video. Good to know reason and logic still has a place on the streets of the U.S.



>> ^Mcboinkens:

I hate to say this, but I have a feeling "being gay" is actually some kind of genetic defect. Just looking at the facts, it is pretty obvious that it is a huge disadvantage in nature to be gay. One of the largest motivations for animals to survive in the wild is reproduction, to continue their genetic code through offspring.


I agree that it is likely genetic, but I am not so sure it is a defect or a disadvantage. There may be a hidden benefit to having a certain percentage of the population not involved in reproductive mating. For example, in animals that live in groups it may be beneficial to the group to have a slice of the population 'working' full time without having to deal with the costs of pregnancy and offspring. When a behavior is so common in an otherwise seemingly fine tuned nature it seems unlikely to me that it is a defect. It seems more likely that we simply don't understand the advantage.

@Mcboinkens"Do you have any evidence of this in the animal world?"

In the time it took you to type that sentence you could have searched the topic yourself and found tons of material on the subject. Requests for evidence or references should be restricted to weird, obscure facts or statistics that can't easily be verified.

"Just looking at the facts, it is pretty obvious that it is a huge disadvantage in nature to be gay."

Do you have any evidence of that? There are many examples in nature of organisms where the primary goals of living are not individual reproduction or even survival. Worker bees are females that do not reproduce their own genetic code and often sacrifice themselves for the good of the colony. These traits are not genetic defects. There may well be some evolutionary reason for some humans to have a genetic predisposition to being homosexual. Even if, as you say, you're not homophobic, to suggest that it's a genetic defect is an example of muddied thinking and accomplishes nothing but to feed the homophobic trolls.

Sure, evidence abounds. For the most scientifically exhaustive [ie boring] compilation of observation of non-heterosexual behavior in the animal world go to Bi
ological Exuberance.

Gay giraffes necking... imagine the possibilities! Not just gay, every imaginable variation of behavior. Human beings are still the most diverse in this way, though.
>> ^Mcboinkens:

Do you have any evidence of this in the animal world?

Also just had this thought this morning: Could sexual orientation be epigenetically determined? It would still be innate, but be a response to the conditions that one of your grandmothers lived through, for instance.

>> ^maximillian:

Stupid argument, and of course the interviewer probably filtered out the intelligent responses.


No i'm sure those were the only people he interviewed. Don't suppose you'd care to substitute an intelligent response of your own?... with all this time and preparation i'm sure you have a VERY convincing response yes?

>> ^calmlyintoit:
... would have had a hard time with to guys...

Enough puns and crazy spelling to be westy, Calmlyintoit

Also:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gay-animals-and-evolution

"It's also possible that some homosexual behaviors don't provide a conventional evolutionary advantage; but neither do they upend everything we know about biology."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html

[redacted]

[redacted]

Looking for homosexuality in animals to support the fact that homosexuality is "natural" is pointless. Homosexuality could occur only in humans and still be natural.

So I see you have solved all the mysteries of evolution and life then. Good job.
>> ^Mcboinkens:

Maybe, but any time a benefit is "hidden" it is likely not to exist.

'Your honor he's leading the witness!'

>> ^Mcboinkens:
who is to say that gay animals are not there purposefully, for reasons unknown as of yet? Maybe it is something that is common and is not a defect or mutation.


Alfred Kinsey wrote about sexuality as being a spectrum.
Its a pretty simple idea, and has some obvious merit if you think even at the basic level of variation in hormone expression amongst individuals (and the cascading effects of those hormone variations) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

Also I think it was E.O. Wilson who wrote about possible advantages to having a percentage of homosexual or asexual family/community members in terms of helping to maintain group cohesion, helping raise related youngsters, helping to defend the group, etc., benefits that greatly effect the group's genetic lineage and outweigh the individual not procreating. E.O. Wilson is an entomologist specializing in communal insects (ants, wasps, etc.), so this hypothesis is just the clearly evolutionarily advantageous behaviors that exist in those insects scaled back and applied to social mammals.

"When did you choose not to be a serial killer?"

"Erm... I didn't."

"So clearly being a serial killer is not a choice."


I support gay rights, but I don't think the logic espoused in this video is really worth anything. If people see homosexuality as a deficiency, then it's just one of many aberrant behaviors that people choose not to have _by default_.

>> ^Mcboinkens:
I hate to say this, but I have a feeling "being gay" is actually some kind of genetic defect. Just looking at the facts, it is pretty obvious that it is a huge disadvantage in nature to be gay

The odds of a male child being gay appear to increase if the mother has had previous male children. (Don't recall if female children affect this.) This has been hypothetized to be because in large families there is a benefit to having an uncle who doesn't go off to have children of his own.

I've heard the hypothesis that homosexuality might be evolutionarily useful as a means to care for orphans, among the other suggestions listed above. If they are less likely to have children of their own, they might be naturally drawn to care for children who have no caregivers.

On another topic, to those who are upset about the theme of "choice": This word was specifically used because many people believe that being gay is a choice and that gays can choose to be straight. Which is straight up idiotic if given two seconds of thought (as shown in the video). Whatever the cause or purpose (or location on the range of sexualities), it's not a choice who we are attracted to. It happens instinctively, or at least subconsciously.

[redacted]

When I say 'hidden' there I mean simply that we do not know or understand it. There are plenty of things in nature that benefit the animal involved that we do not understand. For example, as I was watching on QI earlier, no one knows exactly why the hammer head shark has a head in the strange shape that it does. There are theories that it is to improve their binocular vision. Others speculate that it improves their ability to sense electrical activity in muscles. (What a crazy sense that is.) No one can prove what exactly the benefit of this head shape is. Regardless, no one thinks that this head shape is a disadvantage to the species just because they can't quite nail down what exactly the benefit is. This hammer head shark example exists in only one species. Homosexual behavior has been well documented to exist in many, many species. The wide spread existence of this behavior in so many otherwise unrelated species leads me to believe that there is a benefit to the species involved, even if we can't quite prove what that benefit is. If not, it seems very likely that evolution would have selected against this, which it obviously has not.

>> ^Mcboinkens:


Maybe, but any time a benefit is "hidden" it is likely not to exist. The problem with your line of thought is that a gay animal would know its role was not to have children in their animal pack/group/whatever. Meanwhile, homosexuals in our society are adopting, getting artifically inseminated, and so on. One could say that they only choose to adopt because of socity's effect on their mindset, that everyone should have children. But this still conflicts with the idea that they are born gay so that they can take care of tasks other than offspring. It definately is a logical view, though. I see where you are coming from. If a population is exploding, then some of those in the population do not need to focus on reproduction. Good theory.

Anti-abortion Ohio legislator-"I never even thot about it" has been added as a related post - related requested by bareboards2 on that post.