Forums › Off Topic › The Debate Forum › Is Homosexuality moral?
🌙

Is Homosexuality moral?

Started by: HashBrownTrials | Replies: 154 | Views: 16,659

Vorpal
2

Posts: 11,944
Joined: Jul 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 17, 2014 9:11 PM #1283629
Quote from 420Ace Drake
No, I just mean that subtasters (people with low papillae density) can tolerate super spicy foods, and the supertasters find more flavors overwhelming. This is scientifically proven ( I won't search for facts or evidence since it has nothing to do with the thread).

I don't know if it means that they have poor taste or actually the people who can't tolerate spicy food are the ones with poor taste, I was just showing that I know people don't choose their own taste and that depends on the amount of papillae they have.

First and foremost I was unaware you're in control of the amount of papillae you develop. I also greatly dislike most of the stereotypes of super tasters and even the pretentious term "super taster". For example I was good friends with an alleged super taster he fit all the ordinary tropes of a super taster. Hated alcohol flavor "who doesn't", stayed away from spicy food and the like, but the majority of his diet was piss poor. Mostly Arizona tea and packaged sugary goods/burritos from del taco. Meanwhile people like me, who love spicy food are categorized as "sub-tasters" simply because of that preference, and although I can enjoy and savor plain steel cut oats and eggs he's considered the super taster. Even though I can hardly handle sugary foods, I can't even take a bite of a frosted cookie without cringing. It's overwhelming.
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 17, 2014 9:25 PM #1283639
I've never heard of people being "sub-tasters" just for enjoying spicy foods and there is no scientific proof that it's based entirely on papillae density. I can't even find anything saying that supertasters don't enjoy spicy foods. Spiciness isn't a flavor, it's a chemical reaction to capsaicin when it binds to specific vanilloid receptors on the tongue.

This couldn't be further from the original topic, though.
Vorpal
2

Posts: 11,944
Joined: Jul 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 17, 2014 9:31 PM #1283642
Quote from Exilement
I've never heard of people being "sub-tasters" just for enjoying spicy foods and there is no scientific proof that it's based entirely on papillae density. I can't even find anything saying that supertasters don't enjoy spicy foods. Spiciness isn't a flavor, it's a chemical reaction to capsaicin when it binds to specific vanilloid receptors on the tongue.

This couldn't be further from the original topic, though.

Well 420Acedrakes post and articles such as this one.
http://www.livescience.com/17190-supertaster-nontaster-tongue-evolution.html which refers to people who aren't "supertasters" as "nontasters"
Quote from Snippet
Supertasters tend to avoid spicy food, while nontasters hanker for hot pepper-infused dishes.

I disagree with the whole idea of super tasters, as someone who cooks almost every meal I eat I've come to realize that taste is like a finger print it's a different experience for everyone. I have more of a savory palette, pulled pork and tacos wet my mouth like crazy, but a lot of people have sweet palettes or other types of taste. I feel like this broad generalization is asinine. I can do savory and spicy to the maximum it can be done, but I can't handle sweetness and I can delight in plain dishes "steel cut oats for breakfast daily". It's not like because of my tendencies towards spicy food my palette is less sensitive.

And the original topic is somewhat exhausted it seems.
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 17, 2014 9:38 PM #1283643
The article you just linked says a quarter of people are supertasters while another quarter are nontasters, not that only two groups exist.

The original topic isn't exhausted, if you guys think this is a debate topic then make a different thread, but this whole thing has been shaky, unconfirmed "science" vs anecdotal evidence so far.
Vorpal
2

Posts: 11,944
Joined: Jul 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 17, 2014 9:41 PM #1283646
Fair enough, I just didn't feel like it warranted it's own topic.


The current segment of the debate reminds me of this.
Exxonite
2

Posts: 660
Joined: Jul 2014
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 17, 2014 10:15 PM #1283662
@ Jutsu, I never said you were.


@Exilement, I believe they are not called 'sub-tasters' just because they enjoy spicy food, it's probably because they don't react (sorely) to the spiciness (which btw I never said is a flavor). And I guess that 'super tasters- are called that way because they react even to the slightest of flavor.

To be honest, I don't really understand this science either, I for an instance think that I am inbetween these 2, I don't mind flavors but than again I like spiciness aswell.

And I believe this debate has been answered. Almost everyone thinks that homosexuality isn't a choice therefore it's moral. And the ones who didn't think like that were proven wrong.
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 17, 2014 10:24 PM #1283666
Quote from 420Ace Drake
@Exilement, I believe they are not called 'sub-tasters' just because they enjoy spicy food, it's probably because they don't react (sorely) to the spiciness (which btw I never said is a flavor).


You said "Subtasters, on the other hand, have low papillae density and prefer their chicken wings "atomic" etc."

Papillae aren't the same as vanilloid receptors. Those detect heat, not flavor. If you think papillae density leads to more sensitivity to spicy food, then you're saying spiciness is a flavor. It isn't. You also said there's scientific proof backing all of this up but everything I've seen other than dumbed-down popular science articles disagrees with you.


This is an ongoing discussion. We just replied to Salt's post, he hasn't had a chance to defend it, what makes you think the debate is over? It's over when people lose interest and that clearly isn't the case yet.
Vorpal
2

Posts: 11,944
Joined: Jul 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 17, 2014 10:40 PM #1283671
Well, I'm beginning to wane interest here. We've responded to everyone else who simply claims homosexuality is a choice. They either refuse to back it up with proof or conveniently don't reply when they realize they're being called out.

I suppose I could simply not post though, but I found what acedrake said about super tasters pretty interesting. So I replied.
Exxonite
2

Posts: 660
Joined: Jul 2014
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 17, 2014 11:28 PM #1283686
Quote from Exilement
You said "Subtasters, on the other hand, have low papillae density and prefer their chicken wings "atomic" etc."

Papillae aren't the same as vanilloid receptors. Those detect heat, not flavor. If you think papillae density leads to more sensitivity to spicy food, then you're saying spiciness is a flavor. It isn't. You also said there's scientific proof backing all of this up but everything I've seen other than dumbed-down popular science articles disagrees with you.


This is an ongoing discussion. We just replied to Salt's post, he hasn't had a chance to defend it, what makes you think the debate is over? It's over when people lose interest and that clearly isn't the case yet.


The tongue is covered with thousands of small bumps called papillae, which are easily visible to the naked eye. There are 4 types of Lingual papillae: circumvallate papillae (vallate papillae), fungiform papillae, filiform papillae and foliate papillae.

Taste buds, the receptors of the gustatory sense, are scattered over the mucous membrane of the filiform pipillae's surface. Taste is the sensation produced when a substance in the mouth reacts chemically with taste receptor cells located on taste buds. Humans have taste receptors on taste buds (gustatory calyculi = gustatory sense) and other areas including the upper surface of the tongue and the epiglottis. As far as I know the vanilloid receptors are receptors : pipillae > lingual pipillae which is almost all of the taste buds with taste receptors on the tip of the tongue > pipillae does sense flavor.

Taste is the sensation produced when a substance in the mouth reacts chemically with taste receptor cells located on taste buds (which is the upper part of lingual pipillae). Taste, along with smell and trigeminal nerve stimulation (registering texture, pain, and temperature), determines flavors of food or other substances.
Salt
2

Posts: 5,455
Joined: Jun 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 18, 2014 1:01 PM #1283959
Quote from Exilement
That doesn't make any sense. Genetics and hormones kind of influence your sexuality, but it's still definitely a choice? Can you explain the genetic and hormonal factors at play? If not I don't know why you think they're relevant at all when you also believe it's "definitely a choice".


Did you choose to be heterosexual? I seriously doubt the idea of being with another man in any capacity has ever once seemed appealing to you. You've always been attracted to the opposite sex and that was not your decision, you're just naturally attracted to them. It's the same for gay people, they didn't choose to be gay, they're just following their natural urges.

The notion that someone's sexuality is a decision is so ridiculous that I can only think of one logical explanation for someone to believe it, and that's when someone grows up with natural homosexual urges and makes the conscious decision to suppress them due to societal pressures and live in denial. Those people would then assume that homosexuality is a "choice" for everyone else. I can't think of any other good reason for someone to come to that conclusion, most people don't choose their sexuality so why would they assume anyone else does?


I read this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

Yes, their could be a connection, but it isn't not confirmed that homosexuality is purely genetic, and I doubt it is. Think about it like this: we survived so far because we evolved into what adapts best to the environment. Not in anyway does being homosexual increase survivability, in fact it's a set back since it lowers reproduction. Maybe a genetics could cause someone to be more feminine or masculine, having an influence over their choice, but ultimately it's ones choice and how one was raised that decides. If we were all told since childhood that the same sex is the one we should be attracted to then that is probably how we will be.
Exxonite
2

Posts: 660
Joined: Jul 2014
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 18, 2014 1:26 PM #1283968
Quote from Salt
I read this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

Yes, their could be a connection, but it isn't not confirmed that homosexuality is purely genetic, and I doubt it is. Think about it like this: we survived so far because we evolved into what adapts best to the environment. Not in anyway does being homosexual increase survivability, in fact it's a set back since it lowers reproduction. Maybe a genetics could cause someone to be more feminine or masculine, having an influence over their choice, but ultimately it's ones choice and how one was raised that decides. If we were all told since childhood that the same sex is the one we should be attracted to then that is probably how we will be.


If you give me the name of 1 person ho has switched from homosexuality to heterosexuality by his own choice ( and no I am not talking about suppressing his lust for men, he has to actually stop being attracted to men AT ALL and start liking women) only then I'll take your so far theory into consideration.


You said 'If we were all told since childhood that the same sex is the one we should attracted to then that is probably how we will be' facts, examples? I don't remember being told to be attracted to the opposite sex, but I AM.
I have read lots of stories for example: A girl who has grown up in a homosexual family of 2 mothers and that has not affected her sexual life at all. She is as straight as it gets. We are all individuals, someone telling us to do something won't change a damn thing. I can't even warp my head around this idea.. Okay, every gay person (now alive) has grown up in a society in which each sex is attracted to the opposite and they are told that's the right thing, how do they grow up homosexual then?
Raptor
Moderator
2

Posts: 5,891
Joined: Aug 2010
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 18, 2014 2:13 PM #1283980
Quote from Salt
I read this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

Yes, their could be a connection, but it isn't not confirmed that homosexuality is purely genetic, and I doubt it is. Think about it like this: we survived so far because we evolved into what adapts best to the environment. Not in anyway does being homosexual increase survivability, in fact it's a set back since it lowers reproduction. Maybe a genetics could cause someone to be more feminine or masculine, having an influence over their choice, but ultimately it's ones choice and how one was raised that decides. If we were all told since childhood that the same sex is the one we should be attracted to then that is probably how we will be.

I haven't done any research on this yet, but I just want to point out that if something isn't genetic (at least in the sense that it isn't carried down), that doesn't automatically imply that the decision to be homosexual is made by choice. I feel like you're jumping to point A to point B too quickly without considering the steps in between. I don't know how related sexual orientation is the genome of a person, but I highly doubt that homosexuality is primarily a choice.

ultimately it's ones choice and how one was raised that decides. If we were all told since childhood that the same sex is the one we should be attracted to then that is probably how we will be.

I think you severely underestimate the ability of human thought in general.
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 18, 2014 2:24 PM #1283983
Quote from Salt
Yes, their could be a connection, but it isn't not confirmed that homosexuality is purely genetic, and I doubt it is. Think about it like this: we survived so far because we evolved into what adapts best to the environment. Not in anyway does being homosexual increase survivability, in fact it's a set back since it lowers reproduction.


Individuals who don't have children can still help with the caretaking of others, it's called the gay uncle theory. There's also a possibility that the "gay gene" expresses itself in women with an increased libido, which would be more than enough to ensure it passes on.

I'm not saying homosexuality is 100% genetic, though. There's a massive middle ground between that and "homosexuality is a choice" which is absolute bullshit. You completely ignored a big part of my argument, by the way. when did you choose to be straight?
Salt
2

Posts: 5,455
Joined: Jun 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 18, 2014 2:49 PM #1283987
I never did make a choice.
Hmm. I can say I clearly lost this argument. Actually I contradicted myself when I said that outside influence and how you were raised decides your sexuality, since that's not your choice either. Either way I read some more and it's quite possibly influenced by genetics.

However the gay uncle theory hasn't been proven yet. There isn't any solid evidence to support it really. If homosexuality was really genetic then it's probably some sort of mutation that occurred.
Cronos

Posts: 5,440
Joined: Apr 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile
Dec 18, 2014 3:10 PM #1283993
Morality is arbitrary.

But no morality worth having would condemn a lifestyle that provides nothing but happiness and fulfilment to those engaged in it, with no negative consequences.