I really don’t like to say this, Volcan and Benjamin Frost, but your bigoted, hateful and ignorant comments make me sick. I’ve listened to variants of that junk for over 40 years.
Supply your scientific evidence (as opposed to your belief) that homosexuality is a genetic defect. Given that the percentage of homosexuals in the population has persisted for thousands of years, why hasn’t evolution eradicated us? Have you considered that we serve some purpose that is not obvious because you can’t see the big picture? Have you considered that we may be nature’s way of trying to keep the human population in check (we’re failing miserably given the current 7billion - my half-brother has fathered 13 children!! Not much I can do to balance that).
Animals can be homosexual too, but they cannot be gay. That is because gay is a human social and political construct. And coming out as gay absolutely definitely is something to be proud of, I know that in my bones. When I have you telling me that I'm genetically defective and you report that the Christian church says that I have made a "perverted lifestyle choice" why would I not be proud to stand up and say "Stuff that. I'm me, I'm a valid, compassionate, loving, human being who has as much right to experience all life has to offer as you. And I'm gay".
You know, you and Adolf Hitler would get along like a house on fire. He had some very similar views about genetic purity. And he was heterosexual too.
Benjamin Frost, you claim that “We are elevated above animals by our ability to distinguish between right and wrong.”
Owning slaves was right, now it’s wrong. Racist laws existed in several countries - Rosa Parks? Some countries prosecute you for smoking hash, others don’t. The age of sexual consent is not consistent everywhere. Women cannot legally drive in some countries - is that right or wrong? If the USA doesn’t imprison people just because they are gay, then why does Uganda?
You have a very ignorant and simplistic view of how people actually behave.
Benjamin, you also say “Killing is a natural response by animals for any number of reasons. We humans have many natural instincts that we have to suppress.”
So, if we are “elevated above animals” then why do husbands kill their wives, wives kill their husbands, parents kill their children and children kill their parents. Do animals do this as often as humans? Schoolkids massacre other schoolkids quite often in the USA - are they genetically defective heterosexuals? Or maybe they are all homosexual kids? Is there not a test that Volcan and you could run, to find them and eradicate them to make society a better place for you both.
Compassion and understanding, a supposedly human characteristic, would benefit both of you. The reason I say all this is not to beat my own drum or to prove how "out and proud" I am. It's because your nasty and dangerous viewpoints become transmitted to your friends and on and on and gay people have to deal with the personal, social and legal consequences of that ignorance for pretty much all of their lives and some of us die for it.
As one of my email sigs says “Homosexuality is found in 450 species. Homophobia in only one.”
He seemed to indicate that his sexual orientation had caused him great difficulties in his early life in Alabama, although those issues were greatly influenced by social conditions in that region.
People not being tolerant of it doesn't qualify as being an inherent difficulty. If you remove the intolerance then there's no problem. Perhaps you could say the same about something like tourettes but the behaviour there is harming others, homosexuality isn't.
There is a lot science that has yet to unfold in this area. I call it a disorder, but I'm neither a scientist nor a doctor so it is just an opinion.
The same science still has to determine what causes heterosexuality too and illegal sexual attractions. It's true that people call whole classes of sexual attractions mental disorders. There was a person in an article about the state of sexuality in Asia said he could only get aroused by robots:
"In 1981, an article published in American Journal of Psychiatry described paraphilia as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving:
Non-human objects
The suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner
Children
Non-consenting persons"
Homosexuality was at one time discussed as a sexual deviation. Sigmund Freud and subsequent psychoanalytic thinkers considered homosexuality and paraphilias to result from psychosexual non-normative relations to the Oedipal complex.
By the mid-20th century, mental health practitioners began formalizing "deviant sexuality" classifications into categories. Originally coded as 000-x63, homosexuality was the top of the classification list (Code 302.0) until the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) in 1974. Martin Kafka writes, "Sexual disorders once considered paraphilias (e.g., homosexuality) are now regarded as variants of normal sexuality."
A 2012 literature study by James Cantor, clinical psychologist, comparing homosexuality with paraphilias found that homosexuality was sufficiently dissimilar from the paraphilias as to be considered an unrelated construct."
"Overall, homosexuality and the paraphilias appear to share the features of onset and course (both homosexuality and paraphilia being life-long), but they appear to differ on sex ratio, fraternal birth order, handedness, IQ and cognitive profile, and neuroanatomy. Although there have been some reports on prevalence and on physical height, these literatures are not yet reliable enough to be informative. Thus, considered together, the existing data seem more consistent with the conclusion that homosexuality is a characteristic distinct from the paraphilias.
In considering the foregoing review, one should remember that the evidence is indirect: These correlates were not explored here because any of them is a sine qua non either of homosexuality or of any paraphilia. It is entirely possible that other, still unexplored, correlates are more central to the etiology of human sexual interests and that the correlates discussed in this article are merely tangential. Because only few paraphilic interests have received much scientific attention, it also remains possible that each paraphilia is associated with its own, novel set of correlates, and that homosexuality is no more novel in its profile of correlates than would be any other paraphilic interest. Thus, although homosexuality is probably better said to be distinct from the paraphilias, that conclusion is still quite tentative."
The conclusion just seems to suggest that while there's no definitive evidence that homosexuality is separate from other forms of atypical sexual attraction, it's better that it's separated from them in discussion. Heterosexuality is the same though, it is only accepted by default due to its prevalence.
I think the most constructive way forward for acceptance of sexuality is to establish harm. Genetic research hasn't yet discovered genes that sufficiently determine sexual orientation and we simply can't stick with heterosexuality and condemn everything else because even within heterosexuality there are relationships that aren't tolerated like adult incestuous relationships.
- is it harmful to others
- is it harmful to the participants
If the answer to both is no, then it should be accepted. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality qualify. Incestuous relationships fail on the first point when it comes to birth defects but it should be permitted in cases where conception isn't possible e.g infertile couple or homosexual couple. There are sexual practises within various relationships that would fail such as consuming bodily waste so it would be the practises that are illegal.
This is how the law works with everything else. You are free to do whatever you want in life as long as it doesn't cause or have the potential to cause considerable harm to yourself or others.
This is how the law works with everything else. You are free to do whatever you want in life as long as it doesn't cause or have the potential to cause considerable harm to yourself or others.
My apologies for cherry-picking this last bit from your excellent post, but which country’s laws are you talking about here? I’m not sure there is one where all laws are based around the simple rules you suggest. There are countries where women aren’t allowed to drive. Spain and many other countries have lists of names that you are allowed to call your children, anything else is illegal! etc. etc.
My apologies for cherry-picking this last bit from your excellent post, but which country’s laws are you talking about here? I’m not sure there is one where all laws are based around the simple rules you suggest. There are countries where women aren’t allowed to drive.
That one at least fails the first test about harm to others (it also fails for harm to themselves if you count the one where the woman left the parking brake off and ran into the car door while chasing it - 4:30 in the first video):
Spain and many other countries have lists of names that you are allowed to call your children, anything else is illegal! etc. etc.
I'd say that qualifies as perceived harm to the child. There may well be laws that aren't written up on the basis that harm is caused without them, a better description might be perceived harm such as writing anti-immigration laws or laws that suppress voting rights under the premise that mass immigration or fraudulent voting will cause harm.
I can't think of a reason off-hand for a law to exist without attempting to counter perceived harmful behaviour. Maybe if it was to instead promote good behaviour.
The main point really is that without any evidence of harm of a particular behaviour then no laws or objections are justified to be against them. This is the case with marijuana, people are finding that there really is no harm to the participants or the people around them so there's no justifiable reason against it. There's perceived harm such as addiction but the harm is less than alcohol so until there's verifiable evidence of harm beyond alcohol, there's no justification to restrict one and not the other.
This is the case with marijuana, people are finding that there really is no harm to the participants
Apart from (in the case of smoking it) lung cancer, and throat cancer?
And Apart from dependence?
And apart from increased risk in adolescents of developing schizophrenia or similar mental disorders?
but the harm is less than alcohol so until there's verifiable evidence of harm beyond alcohol, there's no justification to restrict one and not the other.
Agreed. Drug laws in countries such as the US and UK frustrate me massively as they evidently fail to address the issues, but please don’t peddle any silliness about marijuana being harmless.
Apart from (in the case of smoking it) lung cancer, and throat cancer?
And Apart from dependence?
And apart from increased risk in adolescents of developing schizophrenia or similar mental disorders?
Yet the compound CBD found in marijuana combats all that.
Research it. You're skilled at looking stuff up. Medicinal marijuana is usually high in CBD, and low in THC (chemical that makes you high), so don't get too ecstatic yet.
Research it. You're skilled at looking stuff up. Medicinal marijuana is usually high in CBD, and low in THC (chemical that makes you high), so don't get too ecstatic yet.
I have researched it. Really seriously. It will not shrink head and neck cancers, tho it will help in controlling pain. So yeah I know exactly what CDB's are. And yeah I'm keeping a little Valentine X around.
Why are two of videos signaling out women? Is there any proof that women are worst as parking? I think there are studies that show men typically having better spacial awareness, which I could see translates to being better at parking, but I don't know of any verified studies for driving.
Why are two of videos signaling out women? Is there any proof that women are worst as parking? I think there are studying that men typically have better spacious awareness which I could see translates to being better at parking, but I don't know of any verified studies for driving.
There’s plenty of evidence that in the UK at least, women are safer drivers. They used to be able to get cheaper car insurance as a result, until an EU law made that illegal.
There’s plenty of evidence that in the UK at least, women are safer drivers. They used to be able to get cheaper car insurance as a result, until an EU law made that illegal.
I believe that's was/is the case in the US. But perhaps a better overall driver doesn't mean a better parker. What if, for example, male drivers tend to great at parking but are more likely to drive at high speeds and take other risks (like running a stop sign or light), that a female driver isn't as likely to make, even though, for this scenario, they aren't very good at parking. I'd think that high speed accidents, even if less common, would yield a much higher payout in property and person than a scrapping a car in a parking lot.
There’s plenty of evidence that in the UK at least, women are safer drivers. They used to be able to get cheaper car insurance as a result, until an EU law made that illegal.
I believe that's was/is the case in the US. But perhaps a better overall driver doesn't mean a better parker. What if, for example, male drivers tend to great at parking but are more likely to drive at high speeds and take other risks (like running a stop sign or light), that a female driver isn't as likely to make, even though, for this scenario, they aren't very good at parking. I'd think that high speed accidents, even if less common, would yield a much higher payout in property and person than a scrapping a car in a parking lot.
Indeed. I am not aware of any research but I wouldn’t be surprised if statistically, men are better at parking than women. There are exceptions of course - my mother is the best parker I know.
Good post. I should probably reevaluate my opinions on the matter.
Personally, I have had very few encounters with homosexuals.
In total I have been aquainted with only five male homosexuals and three female homosexuals.
In all cases except one there has been no significant impact on my personal quality of life. In the one instance, I was approached in a deceptive manner, unknowingly allowing a homosexual into my hotel room as a massage therapist who tried to offer sex which of course If declined. It did freak me out at the time.
I just want to be clear that I have no hatred toward homosexuals although based on my limited exposure to them, in a social context, I can say, I have found male homosexuals to be often overly emotional and also at times, difficult to work with in a professional environment. I'm sure that the prevalent social stigma directed toward gays can manifest itself in creating difficulty in social and employment interactions, so I try to be understanding in that regard.
I have no problems with gays as long as they don't get bitchy in the workplace or try to have sex with me.
Oh yes, by all means, let's live our lives according to the hypocritical book of Bronze Age mythology glorifying Santa Claus for grown ups. And then let's be really judgemental while proclaiming that we're not, hiding behind our fairy tale religion while we spit our venom.
Just because I reject the idea that "gay is ok" does not mean I have animosity toward those who practice homosexuality. I simply stated what the Bible (that also shows the earth be round before the rest of the world took note) teaches.
I believe homosexuality is wrong. So is fornication. But people choose to do it. The Bible condemns it and offers homosexuals hope in the love, forgiveness, and transforming grace of Jesus Christ. Just as it offers fornicators, drug addicts, etc. No venom here. Actually and expectedly, the venom has all been from this attacking a book that has stood strong in the scrutiny that men who don't like its message put it through.
It was with the sudden increase of homosexuality that GRIDS became an epidemic. So labelled due to its near exclusive relation to homosexual practice at the time. Later changed to AIDS to appease some.
There are natural physiological issues with this as well. Something that would easily be understood with the understanding that we we're designed as make and female physically as well as concerning the soul. But when you want to reject the creator and replace Him with the pseudo scientific mess that is macroevolutionism, you get confusion, anger, and a hair-trigger hate response to anyone who's beliefs challenge your own.
Oh yeah. I forgot, my very first encounter with a gay person was my freshman year in college, so that makes five. It was something I only now remember. We were in the dorm, which was configured as quads and this one one guy complained to the manager that I was walking around without a shirt which aroused him. I was completely taken by surprise, as if that was an issue in a men's dorm.
Apart from (in the case of smoking it) lung cancer, and throat cancer?
And Apart from dependence?
And apart from increased risk in adolescents of developing schizophrenia or similar mental disorders?
If dependence is worse than for coffee or alcohol and has those risks then sure have laws to restrict its use, it should certainly be banned in public places to avoid unwanted effects on 3rd parties:
"Current evidence suggests that smoking marijuana for a long period of time is linked with a higher risk of head, neck, lung and throat cancers. However, the quality of this research is not as strong or comprehensive as the evidence that links tobacco use and cancer. Many people who smoke marijuana also smoke tobacco or mix the marijuana with tobacco. This makes it hard to know how strong the link between smoking marijuana and cancer is. Also, there is no standard amount of THC in each marijuana cigarette, so it is difficult to compare results across different studies.
It is possible that smoking marijuana can increase cancer risk because marijuana smoke contains many of the same cancer-causing substances (carcinogens) as tobacco smoke. There is also scientific evidence that smoking marijuana may be linked to abnormalities in some of the cells in the body, including precancerous changes in the lung cells.
More research is needed to better understand the cancer risks associated with long-term recreational smoking of marijuana and of exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke."
Why are two of videos signaling out women? Is there any proof that women are worst as parking? I think there are studies that show men typically having better spacial awareness, which I could see translates to being better at parking, but I don't know of any verified studies for driving.
There’s plenty of evidence that in the UK at least, women are safer drivers. They used to be able to get cheaper car insurance as a result, until an EU law made that illegal.
That's all based on insurance claims, not driving performance, the women who trash up other cars like in the videos aren't going to claim on their insurance:
"Female drivers are up to 20 per cent safer than men once they have passed their test, according to a recent study.
Researchers analysed results from more than 154million miles of travel.
Half the drivers were men and half were women. Experts found women were 28 per cent less likely to drive at night and 12 per cent less likely to break the speed limit than their male counterparts."
20% safer is hardly reason to discriminate by gender because there are other factors such as work habits: taxi drivers / trade vans / lorry drivers and the fact 60% of household have the guy going to work.
I have no problems with gays as long as they don't get bitchy in the workplace or try to have sex with me.
I've had homosexuals make passes at me a couple of times too. It was undesired and new so it was uncomfortable at first - it was more just confusing because I was so unaccustomed to it. But now I just treat it the same way as other unwanted attention.
I believe homosexuality is wrong. So is fornication. But people choose to do it. The Bible condemns it and offers homosexuals hope in the love, forgiveness, and transforming grace of Jesus Christ. Just as it offers fornicators, drug addicts, etc. No venom here. Actually and expectedly, the venom has all been from this attacking a book that has stood strong in the scrutiny that men who don't like its message put it through.
It was with the sudden increase of homosexuality that GRIDS became an epidemic. So labelled due to its near exclusive relation to homosexual practice at the time. Later changed to AIDS to appease some.
It's true that AIDS is much more frequent with homosexuals but it originated from chimpanzees. They are just more likely to transmit it because they don't need to use contraception and the type of sex is higher risk:
"Sexual risk behaviors account for most HIV infections in gay and bisexual men. Most gay and bisexual men acquire HIV through anal sex, which is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV."
This type of sex is not exclusive to homosexuality. They are victims of the disease, not the cause of it.
In terms of survival of the species, at worst it's as unimportant as oral sex, it doesn't mean people should stop doing it.
There are natural physiological issues with this as well. Something that would easily be understood with the understanding that we we're designed as male and female physically as well as concerning the soul. But when you want to reject the creator and replace Him with the pseudo scientific mess that is macroevolutionism, you get confusion, anger, and a hair-trigger hate response to anyone who's beliefs challenge your own.
It's not pseudo-science. Look at the photographs of a developing foetus and you can see how a human being forms out of primitive cells with your own eyes:
[VIDEO]
It doesn't cover one species turning into another but it still starts as primitive cells. Also, not everyone is born male or female. Nor is there any evidence for a soul that is non-physical or spiritual. You're talking about the mind, which is purely a product of the physical body.
There's no evidence for the Big Bang or love, either. Indeed, there's no evidence for our own existence. That doesn't mean that they or we don't exist.
There's no evidence for the Big Bang or love, either. Indeed, there's no evidence for our own existence. That doesn't mean that they or we don't exist.
1) There is plenty of evidence for each.
2) Why do you think you need The Big Bang and Love to be real to exist?
Comments
I really don’t like to say this, Volcan and Benjamin Frost, but your bigoted, hateful and ignorant comments make me sick. I’ve listened to variants of that junk for over 40 years.
Supply your scientific evidence (as opposed to your belief) that homosexuality is a genetic defect. Given that the percentage of homosexuals in the population has persisted for thousands of years, why hasn’t evolution eradicated us? Have you considered that we serve some purpose that is not obvious because you can’t see the big picture? Have you considered that we may be nature’s way of trying to keep the human population in check (we’re failing miserably given the current 7billion - my half-brother has fathered 13 children!! Not much I can do to balance that).
Animals can be homosexual too, but they cannot be gay. That is because gay is a human social and political construct. And coming out as gay absolutely definitely is something to be proud of, I know that in my bones. When I have you telling me that I'm genetically defective and you report that the Christian church says that I have made a "perverted lifestyle choice" why would I not be proud to stand up and say "Stuff that. I'm me, I'm a valid, compassionate, loving, human being who has as much right to experience all life has to offer as you. And I'm gay".
You know, you and Adolf Hitler would get along like a house on fire. He had some very similar views about genetic purity. And he was heterosexual too.
Benjamin Frost, you claim that “We are elevated above animals by our ability to distinguish between right and wrong.”
Owning slaves was right, now it’s wrong. Racist laws existed in several countries - Rosa Parks? Some countries prosecute you for smoking hash, others don’t. The age of sexual consent is not consistent everywhere. Women cannot legally drive in some countries - is that right or wrong? If the USA doesn’t imprison people just because they are gay, then why does Uganda?
You have a very ignorant and simplistic view of how people actually behave.
Benjamin, you also say “Killing is a natural response by animals for any number of reasons. We humans have many natural instincts that we have to suppress.”
So, if we are “elevated above animals” then why do husbands kill their wives, wives kill their husbands, parents kill their children and children kill their parents. Do animals do this as often as humans? Schoolkids massacre other schoolkids quite often in the USA - are they genetically defective heterosexuals? Or maybe they are all homosexual kids? Is there not a test that Volcan and you could run, to find them and eradicate them to make society a better place for you both.
Compassion and understanding, a supposedly human characteristic, would benefit both of you. The reason I say all this is not to beat my own drum or to prove how "out and proud" I am. It's because your nasty and dangerous viewpoints become transmitted to your friends and on and on and gay people have to deal with the personal, social and legal consequences of that ignorance for pretty much all of their lives and some of us die for it.
As one of my email sigs says “Homosexuality is found in 450 species. Homophobia in only one.”
People not being tolerant of it doesn't qualify as being an inherent difficulty. If you remove the intolerance then there's no problem. Perhaps you could say the same about something like tourettes but the behaviour there is harming others, homosexuality isn't.
The same science still has to determine what causes heterosexuality too and illegal sexual attractions. It's true that people call whole classes of sexual attractions mental disorders. There was a person in an article about the state of sexuality in Asia said he could only get aroused by robots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_fetishism
That's noted as potentially being grouped with agalmatophilia or paraphilia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agalmatophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia
"In 1981, an article published in American Journal of Psychiatry described paraphilia as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving:
Non-human objects
The suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner
Children
Non-consenting persons"
Homosexuality was at one time discussed as a sexual deviation. Sigmund Freud and subsequent psychoanalytic thinkers considered homosexuality and paraphilias to result from psychosexual non-normative relations to the Oedipal complex.
By the mid-20th century, mental health practitioners began formalizing "deviant sexuality" classifications into categories. Originally coded as 000-x63, homosexuality was the top of the classification list (Code 302.0) until the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) in 1974. Martin Kafka writes, "Sexual disorders once considered paraphilias (e.g., homosexuality) are now regarded as variants of normal sexuality."
A 2012 literature study by James Cantor, clinical psychologist, comparing homosexuality with paraphilias found that homosexuality was sufficiently dissimilar from the paraphilias as to be considered an unrelated construct."
That person Dr James Cantor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cantor ) wrote a pretty detailed paper about it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310132/
"Overall, homosexuality and the paraphilias appear to share the features of onset and course (both homosexuality and paraphilia being life-long), but they appear to differ on sex ratio, fraternal birth order, handedness, IQ and cognitive profile, and neuroanatomy. Although there have been some reports on prevalence and on physical height, these literatures are not yet reliable enough to be informative. Thus, considered together, the existing data seem more consistent with the conclusion that homosexuality is a characteristic distinct from the paraphilias.
In considering the foregoing review, one should remember that the evidence is indirect: These correlates were not explored here because any of them is a sine qua non either of homosexuality or of any paraphilia. It is entirely possible that other, still unexplored, correlates are more central to the etiology of human sexual interests and that the correlates discussed in this article are merely tangential. Because only few paraphilic interests have received much scientific attention, it also remains possible that each paraphilia is associated with its own, novel set of correlates, and that homosexuality is no more novel in its profile of correlates than would be any other paraphilic interest. Thus, although homosexuality is probably better said to be distinct from the paraphilias, that conclusion is still quite tentative."
The conclusion just seems to suggest that while there's no definitive evidence that homosexuality is separate from other forms of atypical sexual attraction, it's better that it's separated from them in discussion. Heterosexuality is the same though, it is only accepted by default due to its prevalence.
I think the most constructive way forward for acceptance of sexuality is to establish harm. Genetic research hasn't yet discovered genes that sufficiently determine sexual orientation and we simply can't stick with heterosexuality and condemn everything else because even within heterosexuality there are relationships that aren't tolerated like adult incestuous relationships.
- is it harmful to others
- is it harmful to the participants
If the answer to both is no, then it should be accepted. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality qualify. Incestuous relationships fail on the first point when it comes to birth defects but it should be permitted in cases where conception isn't possible e.g infertile couple or homosexual couple. There are sexual practises within various relationships that would fail such as consuming bodily waste so it would be the practises that are illegal.
This is how the law works with everything else. You are free to do whatever you want in life as long as it doesn't cause or have the potential to cause considerable harm to yourself or others.
My apologies for cherry-picking this last bit from your excellent post, but which country’s laws are you talking about here? I’m not sure there is one where all laws are based around the simple rules you suggest. There are countries where women aren’t allowed to drive. Spain and many other countries have lists of names that you are allowed to call your children, anything else is illegal! etc. etc.
That one at least fails the first test about harm to others (it also fails for harm to themselves if you count the one where the woman left the parking brake off and ran into the car door while chasing it - 4:30 in the first video):
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/neighborhood/2014/11/05/several-hurt-when-car-crashes-into-restaurant-on-kirby/18549509/
I'd say that qualifies as perceived harm to the child. There may well be laws that aren't written up on the basis that harm is caused without them, a better description might be perceived harm such as writing anti-immigration laws or laws that suppress voting rights under the premise that mass immigration or fraudulent voting will cause harm.
I can't think of a reason off-hand for a law to exist without attempting to counter perceived harmful behaviour. Maybe if it was to instead promote good behaviour.
The main point really is that without any evidence of harm of a particular behaviour then no laws or objections are justified to be against them. This is the case with marijuana, people are finding that there really is no harm to the participants or the people around them so there's no justifiable reason against it. There's perceived harm such as addiction but the harm is less than alcohol so until there's verifiable evidence of harm beyond alcohol, there's no justification to restrict one and not the other.
Apart from (in the case of smoking it) lung cancer, and throat cancer?
And Apart from dependence?
And apart from increased risk in adolescents of developing schizophrenia or similar mental disorders?
Agreed. Drug laws in countries such as the US and UK frustrate me massively as they evidently fail to address the issues, but please don’t peddle any silliness about marijuana being harmless.
Yet the compound CBD found in marijuana combats all that.
I wish. I REALLY wish.
Research it. You're skilled at looking stuff up. Medicinal marijuana is usually high in CBD, and low in THC (chemical that makes you high), so don't get too ecstatic yet.
Why are two of videos signaling out women? Is there any proof that women are worst as parking? I think there are studies that show men typically having better spacial awareness, which I could see translates to being better at parking, but I don't know of any verified studies for driving.
There’s plenty of evidence that in the UK at least, women are safer drivers. They used to be able to get cheaper car insurance as a result, until an EU law made that illegal.
I believe that's was/is the case in the US. But perhaps a better overall driver doesn't mean a better parker. What if, for example, male drivers tend to great at parking but are more likely to drive at high speeds and take other risks (like running a stop sign or light), that a female driver isn't as likely to make, even though, for this scenario, they aren't very good at parking. I'd think that high speed accidents, even if less common, would yield a much higher payout in property and person than a scrapping a car in a parking lot.
Indeed. I am not aware of any research but I wouldn’t be surprised if statistically, men are better at parking than women. There are exceptions of course - my mother is the best parker I know.
[...]
- is it harmful to others
- is it harmful to the participants
Good post. I should probably reevaluate my opinions on the matter.
Personally, I have had very few encounters with homosexuals.
In total I have been aquainted with only five male homosexuals and three female homosexuals.
In all cases except one there has been no significant impact on my personal quality of life. In the one instance, I was approached in a deceptive manner, unknowingly allowing a homosexual into my hotel room as a massage therapist who tried to offer sex which of course If declined. It did freak me out at the time.
I just want to be clear that I have no hatred toward homosexuals although based on my limited exposure to them, in a social context, I can say, I have found male homosexuals to be often overly emotional and also at times, difficult to work with in a professional environment. I'm sure that the prevalent social stigma directed toward gays can manifest itself in creating difficulty in social and employment interactions, so I try to be understanding in that regard.
I have no problems with gays as long as they don't get bitchy in the workplace or try to have sex with me.
Just because I reject the idea that "gay is ok" does not mean I have animosity toward those who practice homosexuality. I simply stated what the Bible (that also shows the earth be round before the rest of the world took note) teaches.
I believe homosexuality is wrong. So is fornication. But people choose to do it. The Bible condemns it and offers homosexuals hope in the love, forgiveness, and transforming grace of Jesus Christ. Just as it offers fornicators, drug addicts, etc. No venom here. Actually and expectedly, the venom has all been from this attacking a book that has stood strong in the scrutiny that men who don't like its message put it through.
It was with the sudden increase of homosexuality that GRIDS became an epidemic. So labelled due to its near exclusive relation to homosexual practice at the time. Later changed to AIDS to appease some.
There are natural physiological issues with this as well. Something that would easily be understood with the understanding that we we're designed as make and female physically as well as concerning the soul. But when you want to reject the creator and replace Him with the pseudo scientific mess that is macroevolutionism, you get confusion, anger, and a hair-trigger hate response to anyone who's beliefs challenge your own.
I rest my case.
Oh yeah. I forgot, my very first encounter with a gay person was my freshman year in college, so that makes five. It was something I only now remember. We were in the dorm, which was configured as quads and this one one guy complained to the manager that I was walking around without a shirt which aroused him. I was completely taken by surprise, as if that was an issue in a men's dorm.
If dependence is worse than for coffee or alcohol and has those risks then sure have laws to restrict its use, it should certainly be banned in public places to avoid unwanted effects on 3rd parties:
http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-101/what-is-a-risk-factor/tobacco/smoking-marijuana/
"Current evidence suggests that smoking marijuana for a long period of time is linked with a higher risk of head, neck, lung and throat cancers. However, the quality of this research is not as strong or comprehensive as the evidence that links tobacco use and cancer. Many people who smoke marijuana also smoke tobacco or mix the marijuana with tobacco. This makes it hard to know how strong the link between smoking marijuana and cancer is. Also, there is no standard amount of THC in each marijuana cigarette, so it is difficult to compare results across different studies.
It is possible that smoking marijuana can increase cancer risk because marijuana smoke contains many of the same cancer-causing substances (carcinogens) as tobacco smoke. There is also scientific evidence that smoking marijuana may be linked to abnormalities in some of the cells in the body, including precancerous changes in the lung cells.
More research is needed to better understand the cancer risks associated with long-term recreational smoking of marijuana and of exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2114688/Women-really-worse-parking-says-Driving-Standards-Agency.html
"The Driving Standards Agency has revealed that ladies are twice as likely as men to fail their driving test for terrible reversing.
Some women have blamed the problem on the fact their breasts make it more difficult to turn around while parking."
Not that I'm seriously suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to drive, a law banning women drivers is clearly unjustified.
That's all based on insurance claims, not driving performance, the women who trash up other cars like in the videos aren't going to claim on their insurance:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2302128/Women-ARE-worst-drivers-L-test.html
"Female drivers are up to 20 per cent safer than men once they have passed their test, according to a recent study.
Researchers analysed results from more than 154million miles of travel.
Half the drivers were men and half were women. Experts found women were 28 per cent less likely to drive at night and 12 per cent less likely to break the speed limit than their male counterparts."
20% safer is hardly reason to discriminate by gender because there are other factors such as work habits: taxi drivers / trade vans / lorry drivers and the fact 60% of household have the guy going to work.
I've had homosexuals make passes at me a couple of times too. It was undesired and new so it was uncomfortable at first - it was more just confusing because I was so unaccustomed to it. But now I just treat it the same way as other unwanted attention.
http://www.crivoice.org/circle.html
It's true that AIDS is much more frequent with homosexuals but it originated from chimpanzees. They are just more likely to transmit it because they don't need to use contraception and the type of sex is higher risk:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html
"Sexual risk behaviors account for most HIV infections in gay and bisexual men. Most gay and bisexual men acquire HIV through anal sex, which is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV."
This type of sex is not exclusive to homosexuality. They are victims of the disease, not the cause of it.
In terms of survival of the species, at worst it's as unimportant as oral sex, it doesn't mean people should stop doing it.
It's not pseudo-science. Look at the photographs of a developing foetus and you can see how a human being forms out of primitive cells with your own eyes:
[VIDEO]
It doesn't cover one species turning into another but it still starts as primitive cells. Also, not everyone is born male or female. Nor is there any evidence for a soul that is non-physical or spiritual. You're talking about the mind, which is purely a product of the physical body.
1) There is plenty of evidence for each.
2) Why do you think you need The Big Bang and Love to be real to exist?