RvLeshrac said:
Treblaine said:
RvLeshrac said:
What's next? Lois catches Superman fucking Jimmy Olsen?
The genuine cover art for a non-parody in-canon Superman Comic. Oh the innocent times. I am afraid I do not have context.
But seriously, you just made a slippery slope argument, a serious one unlike my joke one. You aren't giving any mechanism for how one can lead to another, only how it is apparently an equal step but to an unacceptable place.
Just because We go from A to B doesn't mean we will go from B to C.
Nope. But, in this specific case, you're altering the genetic make-up of a superhero.
If you want a comic analogy, this is akin to removing Cyclops's eye-beams or Wolverine's healing factor.
Sexuality isn't something you can "alter," this is the wrong message.
Argh... for the love of... why? Why do liberals have to go way overboard and make outlandish scientifically unproven claims in order to counter Christian fundamentalists?
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT CAUSES PEOPLE TO BE GAY. Sheer common sense will tell you that it isn't a choice that someone makes overnight; no one wakes up one morning and says to him/herself, "huh, ya know what? Heterosexuality is kinda boring, I think I'll be gay!" But on the other hand, there is little-to-no evidence for it being genetic either.
Considering homosexuality makes you less likely to pass on your genes there would be a pretty strong selective pressure against it on the individual level. Now, you might argue that it could function as a population control device and that there might be a group selective pressure for the trait. However, not only is group selection much more complex and harder to instantiate than normal selection, but this would also imply that the phenotype would have to only present itself during conditions of overpopulation. This means that the gene would only activate itself under specific developmental conditions (e.g. perhaps mothers produce a certain hormone during pregnancy when exposed to stresses associated with overpopulation). This would mean that genotype =/= phenotype; i.e. that homosexuality is not purely genetic but rather a product of a genetic predisposition combined with certain developmental factors.
And that is just from the abstract level of evolutionary theory. Sexuality encompasses an extremely broad range of behavioral phenomena. It likely has both hormonal and neurochemical aspects as well as higher cognitive (computational) aspects, and it probably involves a complex interplay between very different parts of the brain. To be perfectly frank, cognitive science is still in its infancy. We can't even fully explain memory or dreams, much less something as complex and multifaceted as human sexuality. And we do know that at least some aspects of human sexuality are learned from society (fetishes, bodily ideals, etc.), so we cannot reasonably claim that sexual orientation is entirely innate.
If you start being a contrarian and claiming the exact opposite of what your adversary claims without forethought or context then you only hurt your cause.
Or as Nietzsche put it: "at times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."