for The Imbalance Launch Article11/5/2006 c1 
6Nailliv
Well written, and I agree with the last paragraph. I don't think it really matters if gayness is natural or not, because people will be gay anyway, and it's not like they're animals if they are. I also think it is wrong for us to try and outlaw gay marriage. We started the American Revolution, not only because it was unfair to be taxed without asking, but because we wanted to be treated fairly. And yet, today, the majority of voting Americans choose to deny what our country was partially based on, and to let us lie everytime we say the pledge.
I'm sorry for going off about that, but I just had to say that. This was well written, and I like the bravery you show to post objections and disagreements like this on here.
6NaillivWell written, and I agree with the last paragraph. I don't think it really matters if gayness is natural or not, because people will be gay anyway, and it's not like they're animals if they are. I also think it is wrong for us to try and outlaw gay marriage. We started the American Revolution, not only because it was unfair to be taxed without asking, but because we wanted to be treated fairly. And yet, today, the majority of voting Americans choose to deny what our country was partially based on, and to let us lie everytime we say the pledge.
I'm sorry for going off about that, but I just had to say that. This was well written, and I like the bravery you show to post objections and disagreements like this on here.
8/2/2006 c1 anon
What if gays were a recent offshoot in the evolutionary tree and the hetero human died out? Then when humans colonise space there would only be homosexuals.
What if gays were a recent offshoot in the evolutionary tree and the hetero human died out? Then when humans colonise space there would only be homosexuals.
7/8/2006 c1 9SapphireIris
I liked it, actually. I'm not even a conservative, and I don't agree with you on absolutely everything, but you actually presented your points logically (if a bit angrily). There are very few people who can pull this off, and kudos to you for managing it. The closing sentence was a bit long, but perfect for the tone of your essay.
-SapphireIris
9SapphireIrisI liked it, actually. I'm not even a conservative, and I don't agree with you on absolutely everything, but you actually presented your points logically (if a bit angrily). There are very few people who can pull this off, and kudos to you for managing it. The closing sentence was a bit long, but perfect for the tone of your essay.
-SapphireIris
5/11/2006 c1 Meio
Interesting perspective...but as for the genetic ideal that evolution would illimated the 'gay gene'. What if it was a recessive gene? As in a straight person could pass it to one child, while the other child received the 'straight gene'? could that be the case?
Interesting perspective...but as for the genetic ideal that evolution would illimated the 'gay gene'. What if it was a recessive gene? As in a straight person could pass it to one child, while the other child received the 'straight gene'? could that be the case?
4/23/2006 c1 1The Libelist
This is brilliant. I admit it is much more coherent than my essay. And yet even when you have such a potent and well-written point of view, people will disagree with you.
My essay, The Truth, is meant to be a 'myspace blog' style work. The unified theme is that Christianity is true. I intend to get better at writing. Any suggestions?
1The LibelistThis is brilliant. I admit it is much more coherent than my essay. And yet even when you have such a potent and well-written point of view, people will disagree with you.
My essay, The Truth, is meant to be a 'myspace blog' style work. The unified theme is that Christianity is true. I intend to get better at writing. Any suggestions?
3/13/2006 c1 thenewromantic
Woah, this is a brilliant article! I think you completely achieved your purpose of getting another point of view with good arguments out there. Thanks for giving us more information on the nature vs nuture debate ^^
Woah, this is a brilliant article! I think you completely achieved your purpose of getting another point of view with good arguments out there. Thanks for giving us more information on the nature vs nuture debate ^^
2/27/2006 c1 7Alankria
Yes, I suspect that you did lose liberal thinkers along the way, which is a shame because this was a very well-written essay. You argued your point convincingly, without degenerating to that kind of bigoted ranting that this topic is too often treated to. I commend you for standing up and saying this.
7AlankriaYes, I suspect that you did lose liberal thinkers along the way, which is a shame because this was a very well-written essay. You argued your point convincingly, without degenerating to that kind of bigoted ranting that this topic is too often treated to. I commend you for standing up and saying this.
1/22/2006 c1 CT
Yeah, you went there. This was a pretty good article. Well thought out and the ideas where presented pretty clearly. I agree with most of it too. I don't think it's right to be gay, but I don't think we should treat gay people poorly.
I do think they might have a problem with God, but that's for them to worry about later. We shouldn't torture them now. (It's hard to explain that without sounding cruel). anyways, the point I'm trying to get at is that I liked this essay. Made me laugh some too.
Yeah, you went there. This was a pretty good article. Well thought out and the ideas where presented pretty clearly. I agree with most of it too. I don't think it's right to be gay, but I don't think we should treat gay people poorly.
I do think they might have a problem with God, but that's for them to worry about later. We shouldn't torture them now. (It's hard to explain that without sounding cruel). anyways, the point I'm trying to get at is that I liked this essay. Made me laugh some too.
1/22/2006 c1 15No Trust
By your definition of ‘natural’, intelligent people are unnatural.
By the definition of naturality preferred by most people, a thing’s naturality is not inherently meritorious, it is irrelevant at best. By the definition of naturality used by intelligent people, everything is natural anyway (humans build skyscrapers because it is in their nature to do so; humans are just constructs of atoms following Brownian motions after all), so we see the labeling of something or someone as ‘unnatural’ as just an inflated way of saying “I don’t like that”.
“If homosexuality was merely a recessive gene, then it wouldn’t grow as much, as those with homosexuality cannot produce children!”
Yes they can. They’re not generally inclined to.
Your comments on natural selection are somewhat wrong-headed. Natural selection is a tautological fact of reality, not an ‘ought’. The proof of something’s fitness for survival is the fact of its survival. The proof of something’s fitness for a specific place in the order of things is the fact of its place in the order of things.
15No TrustBy your definition of ‘natural’, intelligent people are unnatural.
By the definition of naturality preferred by most people, a thing’s naturality is not inherently meritorious, it is irrelevant at best. By the definition of naturality used by intelligent people, everything is natural anyway (humans build skyscrapers because it is in their nature to do so; humans are just constructs of atoms following Brownian motions after all), so we see the labeling of something or someone as ‘unnatural’ as just an inflated way of saying “I don’t like that”.
“If homosexuality was merely a recessive gene, then it wouldn’t grow as much, as those with homosexuality cannot produce children!”
Yes they can. They’re not generally inclined to.
Your comments on natural selection are somewhat wrong-headed. Natural selection is a tautological fact of reality, not an ‘ought’. The proof of something’s fitness for survival is the fact of its survival. The proof of something’s fitness for a specific place in the order of things is the fact of its place in the order of things.
1/21/2006 c1 NaN
Your grades:English- B+Logic- Somewhere below F.
Sorry, I had to say that. Now, on the logic part, here's why.
Problems with what you say:-Since when were people who didn't support gays in the minority?-My dictionary, as the first definition of natural, gives "existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world". The second one is "instinctive". It defines unnatural as "grotesquely distorted" or "not usually encountered in nature". Not quite the definitions you were interpreting them as, neh?-The lack of inner desire to do something does not necessarily, or indeed commonly, mean that it will not be done. Ever heard of peer pressure? It's much more powerful when it's from a whole scociety.-Homosexuality is not precisely a genetic trait such as eye color, but rather a switch in one's DNA that is more commonly 'set' to homosexual when ancestors have a history of it being so.-It's wasn't originally stated as an increase in gays, merely in the number of gays who were willing to state that they are gay. Also, keep in mind that the population increases amazingly quickly. (No, not enough to account for this. But not something to ignore, either.)-Despite your entirely contridictory last paragraph, your essay was distinctly anti-gay.-In a formal essay, it's generally a very bad idea to have a passage from the bible and "scientific viewpoint" within a few sentences of each other.-Saying "Or can we just accept that both partners honor each other, which is also said in the bible?" and "This article wasn’t meant to incite anyone to take a stance." right next to each other is also fairly bad form.
I didn't intend to give that many critiques; so sorry. As an essay, this is not very bad. There are a few contradictions, but not really anything else. It's just your logic I object to.
Your grades:English- B+Logic- Somewhere below F.
Sorry, I had to say that. Now, on the logic part, here's why.
Problems with what you say:-Since when were people who didn't support gays in the minority?-My dictionary, as the first definition of natural, gives "existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world". The second one is "instinctive". It defines unnatural as "grotesquely distorted" or "not usually encountered in nature". Not quite the definitions you were interpreting them as, neh?-The lack of inner desire to do something does not necessarily, or indeed commonly, mean that it will not be done. Ever heard of peer pressure? It's much more powerful when it's from a whole scociety.-Homosexuality is not precisely a genetic trait such as eye color, but rather a switch in one's DNA that is more commonly 'set' to homosexual when ancestors have a history of it being so.-It's wasn't originally stated as an increase in gays, merely in the number of gays who were willing to state that they are gay. Also, keep in mind that the population increases amazingly quickly. (No, not enough to account for this. But not something to ignore, either.)-Despite your entirely contridictory last paragraph, your essay was distinctly anti-gay.-In a formal essay, it's generally a very bad idea to have a passage from the bible and "scientific viewpoint" within a few sentences of each other.-Saying "Or can we just accept that both partners honor each other, which is also said in the bible?" and "This article wasn’t meant to incite anyone to take a stance." right next to each other is also fairly bad form.
I didn't intend to give that many critiques; so sorry. As an essay, this is not very bad. There are a few contradictions, but not really anything else. It's just your logic I object to.
1/21/2006 c1 27Typewriter King
You’ve provided valid semantic proof against the naturalness of homosexuality. However, “natural” isn’t solely defined as you’ve stated. An inherited trait is considered a natural trait, whether it’s common or not. Because equally valid definitions exist, you’re semantic proof isn’t absolute.
Onto biology, the mechanism of natural selection isn’t dead in humans, just as you say. However, humanity has joined into either a cooperative society that manages to take care of the whole of society, or a market society that trades benefits toward survival bilaterally, therefore weaker members are capable of surviving long enough to pass on their genes.
It would also take only a few “experiments” with the opposite sex for a homosexual to pass genes to the next generation. Indeed, seeing that homosexuality by definition is only a preference, it follows that situational deviations may occur if a preferred sexual outlet isn’t available for a considerable enough time.
It may also follow that a “homosexual impulse gene” may be carried by many heterosexual humans, and it may serve some alternate purpose for those individuals. Indeed, I’ve encountered literature describing a study (with too small a sample to be conclusive, mind) that siblings of gays are more fertile than heterosexuals without gay siblings.
Lastly, of course you have an agenda. You make it perfectly clear you wish to see an end to the culture battle over the issue. Everyone has an agenda, except me.
27Typewriter KingYou’ve provided valid semantic proof against the naturalness of homosexuality. However, “natural” isn’t solely defined as you’ve stated. An inherited trait is considered a natural trait, whether it’s common or not. Because equally valid definitions exist, you’re semantic proof isn’t absolute.
Onto biology, the mechanism of natural selection isn’t dead in humans, just as you say. However, humanity has joined into either a cooperative society that manages to take care of the whole of society, or a market society that trades benefits toward survival bilaterally, therefore weaker members are capable of surviving long enough to pass on their genes.
It would also take only a few “experiments” with the opposite sex for a homosexual to pass genes to the next generation. Indeed, seeing that homosexuality by definition is only a preference, it follows that situational deviations may occur if a preferred sexual outlet isn’t available for a considerable enough time.
It may also follow that a “homosexual impulse gene” may be carried by many heterosexual humans, and it may serve some alternate purpose for those individuals. Indeed, I’ve encountered literature describing a study (with too small a sample to be conclusive, mind) that siblings of gays are more fertile than heterosexuals without gay siblings.
Lastly, of course you have an agenda. You make it perfectly clear you wish to see an end to the culture battle over the issue. Everyone has an agenda, except me.