If Homosexuality is Genetic ......

[mattskramer]

I just call em' like I see em'...look up the term pervert...not name calling just a fact Jack...you are perverted...seek help!:blah2:


side note...mutual masturbation between homosexuals is not 'foreplay' as defined in hetrosexual activity...and as I said previously you are way out there...seek help!

Then get glasses you ignorant fool. Uh - not name calling - just a fact Jack - LOL. There is oral sex – gay or straight. There is anal sex – gay or straight. There is a wide variety of sexual activity. Homosexual behavior is no more or less sexually mature behavior than is heterosexual behavior. Again, I challenge you to prove otherwise.

 

[nt250]

Then get glasses you ignorant fool. Uh - not name calling - just a fact Jack - LOL. There is oral sex – gay or straight. There is anal sex – gay or straight. There is a wide variety of sexual activity. Homosexual behavior is no more or less sexually mature behavior than is heterosexual behavior. Again, I challenge you to prove otherwise.

The key word here is "behavior".

The simple fact is that gays want their behavior to be celebrated. Not just tolerated. Not just allowed.

Gays are the only group in the history of the world who have managed to get laws passed that legislate the reaction to their behavior.

 

[Gunny]

It is all so simple. Take a beginners course in logic. In all practicality, you tried to make the argument that heterosexuality is good, should be tolerated, etc. because it is natural (and that homosexuality is wrong because it is not natural). You are committing the fallacy of appealing to nature. Nature is not good or bad. It is not right or wrong. What is natural is merely what is natural. There are bad things in nature. There are good things that are not natural. Read about the fallacy of appealing to nature and then try another argument opposing homosexuality.

Utter nonsense and doubletalk, as usual. There is a natural order, and homosexuality falls outside of it. Since YOU have chosen to remove good/bad and right/wrong from the equation, it all comes down to biological function.

Males and females of the species reproduce. THAT is natural. Homosexuals, who cannot reproduce therefore cannot perpetuate the species are biologically of no use to nature.

I for one and getting damned sick and tired of your incessantly trying to tell everyone the sky ain't blue with your bullshit, relativism. And I didn't miss your tapdance routine concerning morals either. Well, bullshit. Our morals aren't just different. Your possess the morals of a snake -- none.

 

[Gunny]

Then get glasses you ignorant fool. Uh - not name calling - just a fact Jack - LOL. There is oral sex – gay or straight. There is anal sex – gay or straight. There is a wide variety of sexual activity. Homosexual behavior is no more or less sexually mature behavior than is heterosexual behavior. Again, I challenge you to prove otherwise.

You are one, sick bastard.

 

[mattskramer]

The key word here is "behavior".

The simple fact is that gays want their behavior to be celebrated. Not just tolerated. Not just allowed.

From where did you get this information? Do you read minds? I’m sorry to have to inform the gay people but I don’t celebrate their behavior.

Gays are the only group in the history of the world who have managed to get laws passed that legislate the reaction to their behavior.

Be specific. What reaction has been legislated with respect to homosexual behavior? Are you still talking about celebration?

 

[mattskramer]

Utter nonsense and doubletalk, as usual. There is a natural order, and homosexuality falls outside of it. Since YOU have chosen to remove good/bad and right/wrong from the equation, it all comes down to biological function.

(Yawn) I’ve already covered the fallacy of appealing to nature.

Males and females of the species reproduce. THAT is natural. Homosexuals, who cannot reproduce therefore cannot perpetuate the species are biologically of no use to nature.

So what. Are some heterosexuals who can’t reproduce, or choose to not reproduce, of no use to nature? Perhaps, but what is the point?

I for one and getting damned sick and tired of your incessantly trying to tell everyone the sky ain't blue with your bullshit, relativism.

Awww. Poor child. Are you throwing a temper tantrum? Remember that there is an ignore button. Actually, the sky is black at this time of day.

And I didn't miss your tap dance routine concerning morals either. Well, bullshit. Our morals aren't just different. Your possess the morals of a snake -- none.

Whatever

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You're correct, it is not 'rights' that I should be referring to, but rather privileges. I'll rephrase that as 'privileges granted to heterosexual couples upon marriage.'

And in response to your generalization of secular marriage, you are correct - but I don't see anyone stripping infertile couples of their marriage licenses because they can't have children.?

WHile the law trys to be consistent in philosophy, it also recognizes that practicality is a necessity also. It would be impossible to determine which heterosexual couples can or cant have children, whereas it is easy to determine that NO HOMO couples can.

I also don't see how some of the benefits granted to heterosexual couples have anything to do with creating a family, like Burial Determination or Bereavement Leave or even Sick Leave to Care for Partner. Mind explaining how a homosexual couple could possibly get those benefits if their union isn't recognized by the state??

I dont have a problem with homo couples having some of those "benefits".

And honestly? You have not a leg to stand on when heterosexual couples get divorced roughly 50% of the time, and people re-marry multiple times. So what does it matter if homosexuals may not necessarily be married for life under a civil union / marriage?

Ahhh, and you were doing so well. This is a weak arguement at best.
First, the 50% figure isnt accurate. While 50% of marriages might end in divorce, not nearly 50% of couples do.

Second, no matter what the heterosexual divorce rate is, the homosexual rate will always be significantly higher.

Third, the reason for the high divorce rate is not because of the conservatives, but due to the liberals who fought for no fault divorce, making marriage and divorce an easy thing to get into and out of, much of the time. So, now the liberals are trying to get the percentage of couples who divorce even higher?

And what it does matter if homosexuals are furtherly filling up the family law courtrooms is this. As it stands, the courtrooms are overburdened and understaffed. This sometimes leads to a lack of time to determine the fitness of a parent. Occasionally this leads to bad decisions, child abuse, molestation and even murders. Now, if we further clog the courtroom with homosexuals arguing over who gets the pink poodle and phallic shaped couch, and EVEN ONE CHILD is harmed because of it, then I tell those homosexual to GO POUND FUCKING SAND.

 

[007]

Then get glasses you ignorant fool. Uh - not name calling - just a fact Jack - LOL. There is oral sex – gay or straight. There is anal sex – gay or straight. There is a wide variety of sexual activity. Homosexual behavior is no more or less sexually mature behavior than is heterosexual behavior. Again, I challenge you to prove otherwise.

I'm curious, how did you get so fucking sick? Are your parents as fucking sick as you are, or do they even claim you as their own?

What made you into this super pervert, dense, oblivious, fuck?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You guys are right there are a lot of people here who don't approve of homosexuality yet don't hate gays either. I will not tar you with the same brush as the raging obsessive homophobes on the board. Sorry, my bad!.

well good for you.

In my own defense, the virulence of some of the people on the board is a real turn-off and I probably wouldn't like to hear it on any subject other than perhaps Hitler or Bin Laden for example. I think hating people who may be normal, or if not normal, redeemable, is distasteful.

Yea, there are some who are over the top a lot. I wince a bit at those posts I see. I recall one guy who wasnt virulently anti religous, cant remember his name now, he even told this nice sweet older lady to go fuck her uncle.
Hey, I remember you and I agreeing on a topic, wayyyyy back in the day, hahahha

 

[Gunny]

(Yawn) I’ve already covered the fallacy of appealing to nature.

And (yawn) I shot your bullshit argument down.

Males and females of the species reproduce. THAT is natural. Homosexuals, who cannot reproduce therefore cannot perpetuate the species are biologically of no use to nature.

So what. Are some heterosexuals who can’t reproduce, or choose to not reproduce, of no use to nature? Perhaps, but what is the point?

Your problem in a nutshell. THAT is the point. You completely miss the obvious in your continual quest for loopholes.



Awww. Poor child. Are you throwing a temper tantrum? Remember that there is an ignore button. Actually, the sky is black at this time of day.

Yeah, right. No temper tantrum required. You're a jackass and a liar. There are those who say it and those who don't, but most see it. I just happen to be one of former.

What do I need an ignore function for? Beating you up does get dull at times, but I hardly need a mechanical function to replace self-discipline. When I want to ignore you, I do.


Whatever

I expected no better. You should be ashamed of who and what you are -- or at least profess to be on this board.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic. I think the propensity for a man to be effiminate or for a woman to be masculine may be though--it's obviously a glandular/hormonal difference. Having said that, I've known of several effiminate men who are married and have kids--I've even heard of married fathers "realizing" they are gay and suddenly pursuing that lifestyle--which I think is deplorable when a woman and kids are involved. I've also heard of overly masculine men committing homosexual acts as part of some sociopathic dominance issues they have. I think it all comes down to preference in the end.."

Who's "end"??

However, to answer the question posed by the thread topic--it's obvious to me how hormonal deficiencies would be passed down through generations. Then homosexuality, which I believe is either a choice, whether unconscious or conscious or subconscious has been around since the beginning of human history and I don't see it going anywhere soon. If homosexuality is a choice, then it's obvious why it continues to manifest itself. I very much doubt that it is genetic--and if it is, I think it has to do more with hormones and the endocrine system that a "homosexual gene."

Agggggg...Im getting very, very sick, I think I might agree with you.....baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,,,,,,,,,,,,baaaaaaaaaaa, ,,,baaaaa

 

[Gunny]

Not neccessarily. Look at other genetic defects, (YES! Im calling homosexuality a defect!)

take cerebal palsy for example. I think they are incapable or very unlikely to have offspring, yet the recessive gene for it is carried on anyways. Also, dont forget that homosexuals sometimes do force themselves to have sex with a woman just for the sake of having offspring.

If IF the condition is due to genetics, then if the person is carrying the gene and forces themselves to have sex with a woman for offspring, then the response that if a person can force themselves to have sex with the opposite sex, then they arent a "true homosexual", would become irrelevant, because we would be defining a homosexual as one who carries the gene and displays it for the most part.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LuvRPgrl again."

Leave it someone who isn't part of the pro-gay faction to post the only logical argument to my original post.

My question to you would be this:

Is cerbral palsey a genetic defect, or happenstance?

 

[mattskramer]

No. You did not shoot down the fast that to appeal to nature is to commit a fallacy. The natural law fallacy (or the “ appeal to nature” fallacy) has been firmly established in practically countless textbooks.

 

[Reneer]

WHile the law trys to be consistent in philosophy, it also recognizes that practicality is a necessity also. It would be impossible to determine which heterosexual couples can or cant have children, whereas it is easy to determine that NO HOMO couples can.

But homosexual couples can, theoretically, adopt children just fine. And why exactly should a married couple be obligated, as it seems you are implying, to have children in the first place?

Ahhh, and you were doing so well. This is a weak arguement at best.
First, the 50% figure isnt accurate. While 50% of marriages might end in divorce, not nearly 50% of couples do.

I was incorrect in my (blatantly wrong) statement. You are correct that 50% of marriages do not end in divorce; I shot off my mouth before I let my brain engage. Here are some statistics on divorce rates in the U.S. Depending upon the wife's age at the start of marriage, the rate is anywhere from 58.1% (younger than 18) to as low as 18.5% (25 years and older.)

Second, no matter what the heterosexual divorce rate is, the homosexual rate will always be significantly higher.

I'd like to see some statistical data on that statement.

Third, the reason for the high divorce rate is not because of the conservatives, but due to the liberals who fought for no fault divorce, making marriage and divorce an easy thing to get into and out of, much of the time. So, now the liberals are trying to get the percentage of couples who divorce even higher?

I made no statement about the reasons behind divorces, and so I'm not going to comment on your accusation that liberals are trying to increase divorce rates, since I haven't looked into the matter. However you are correct on the no-fault divorce law increasing the number of divorces.

And what it does matter if homosexuals are furtherly filling up the family law courtrooms is this. As it stands, the courtrooms are overburdened and understaffed. This sometimes leads to a lack of time to determine the fitness of a parent. Occasionally this leads to bad decisions, child abuse, molestation and even murders. Now, if we further clog the courtroom with homosexuals arguing over who gets the pink poodle and phallic shaped couch, and EVEN ONE CHILD is harmed because of it, then I tell those homosexual to GO POUND FUCKING SAND.

Then you should go tell all the married couples who are getting divorces and who have children to 'go pound sand.' Since divorce certainly hurts children, probably the most.

And let's stop for a minute and crunch some (assumed, but I'm going to overestimate) numbers. There are roughly 300 million people in the United States. Let's say 3% of them are homosexual. That leaves us with roughly 9 million homosexuals in the U.S. Let's say that half of them want to get married, which gives us 4.5 million homosexuals. Give them equal distribution across the United States (I'm not about to try and guess where exactly these 9 million homosexuals live) and you come out with ninety thousand homosexuals that want to get married in each of the 50 states. So forty-five thousand couples who could, theoretically, petition the family court system for a divorce. But 100% of homosexuals probably won't get divorced. Let's again give a number, say 75%, that want to get divorced, which is an extremely high number. That leaves 33,750 homosexual couples that want to get divorced, in all 50 states. But not everyone gets divorced at the same time. There are 12 months in the year, and let's say the same number of homosexuals gets divorced in each month. We are left with an extra 2,813 (rounded up) petitions to family court, per month. In some states that would be a lot, according to these statistics, but as I said I'm not about to try and determine where roughly 9 million homosexuals actually live to make the numbers better fit each state.

 

[MissileMan]

Exactly my point. Those who argue the pro-homo side make absolute statements when there is no evidence to support them.

My "study" is every bit as valid. Natural selection would weed out most abnormalities; especially, when those who carry them are themselves incapable of reproduction due to their lifestyle. Guess there's just too much logic involved.

First, I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic, but a developmental malfunction that occurs in-utero. But IF it's genetic, it is certainly feasible that it's a recessive trait that occurs sometimes when the right (or wrong if you prefer) combination of parents reproduce. There are lots of people born sterile, how did the gene that made them sterile survive?

 

[MissileMan]

I'd like to see some statistical data on that statement.

Don't hold your breath!

 

[mattskramer]

People keep trying to argue why civil unions should not be allowed. They keep posting the same lame arguments and I keep shooting them down. The old “reproduction” argument is pretty old. Here we go:

WHile the law trys to be consistent in philosophy, it also recognizes that practicality is a necessity also. It would be impossible to determine which heterosexual couples can or cant have children, whereas it is easy to determine that NO HOMO couples can.

First of all, thanks to modern medical procedures it is possible to determine who can or can’t reproduce. Hospitals and fertility clinics diagnose and “treat” infertility on a regular basis. The process is expensive and time-consuming but it is possible.

Some couples choose to not have children. For homosexuals, there should be the option of adoption. Also, there are sperm banks and surrogate mothers in case one member of the couple wants a biological child.

The notion that gays should not be allowed to get married merely because they can’t, as a couple, produce a child is insignificant if not practically irrelevant.

...no matter what the heterosexual divorce rate is, the homosexual rate will always be significantly higher.

There seems to be a bit of fortune telling in that comment. Do you have any research to support that claim. Also, please define significant. It a 2 percent difference significant?

Now, if we further clog the courtroom with homosexuals arguing over who gets the pink poodle and phallic shaped couch, and EVEN ONE CHILD is harmed because of it, then I tell those homosexual to GO POUND FUCKING SAND.

Your last argument just amounts to saying, "We are too busy. Get lost". I agree that the courtroom is overworked. Let’s reduce the workload of family court by restricting marriage. Let’s raise the minimum age for marriage to 30. Young kids don’t understand commitment anyway. Only those of the same religion and race are allowed to get married. Yet, that would not be fair to white people who choose relationships with black people, or protestant people who like Catholics. Still by restricting marriage there would be fewer divorce proceedings. There. That should provide enough room for gay marriage to not overburden the court system.

By the way, I doubt that disputes associated with gay divorce will greatly burden the court system. Let’s do some math:

What percentage of the population is gay? I think that, according to conservatives, only 2 percent is gay. Of that 2 percent, what percentage will actually get married if gay marriage is allowed? Let’s say that half follow through and get married. That concerns only 1 percent of the population. Of that 1 percent of the population, what percentage will get a divorce? Let’s say 50 percent. Of that .50 percent of the population, what percentage will go to court to dispute child custody and other issues? Let’s say half.

So, by my estimates, if we allow gay marriage, family court will have an additional one half to one quarter of one percent of the population to contend with.

 

[dmp]

I'm wondering if this thread is Genetic...

 

[manu1959]

People keep trying to argue why civil unions should not be allowed. They keep posting the same lame arguments and I keep shooting them down. The old “reproduction” argument is pretty old. Here we go:

First of all, thanks to modern medical procedures it is possible to determine who can or can’t reproduce. Hospitals and fertility clinics diagnose and “treat” infertility on a regular basis. The process is expensive and time-consuming but it is possible.

Some couples choose to not have children. For homosexuals, there should be the option of adoption. Also, there are sperm banks and surrogate mothers in case one member of the couple wants a biological child.

The notion that gays should not be allowed to get married merely because they can’t, as a couple, produce a child is insignificant if not practically irrelevant.

There seems to be a bit of fortune telling in that comment. Do you have any research to support that claim. Also, please define significant. It a 2 percent difference significant?

Your last argument just amounts to saying, "We are too busy. Get lost". I agree that the courtroom is overworked. Let’s reduce the workload of family court by restricting marriage. Let’s raise the minimum age for marriage to 30. Young kids don’t understand commitment anyway. Only those of the same religion and race are allowed to get married. Yet, that would not be fair to white people who choose relationships with black people, or protestant people who like Catholics. Still by restricting marriage there would be fewer divorce proceedings. There. That should provide enough room for gay marriage to not overburden the court system.

By the way, I doubt that disputes associated with gay divorce will greatly burden the court system. Let’s do some math:

What percentage of the population is gay? I think that, according to conservatives, only 2 percent is gay. Of that 2 percent, what percentage will actually get married if gay marriage is allowed? Let’s say that half follow through and get married. That concerns only 1 percent of the population. Of that 1 percent of the population, what percentage will get a divorce? Let’s say 50 percent. Of that .50 percent of the population, what percentage will go to court to dispute child custody and other issues? Let’s say half.

So, by my estimates, if we allow gay marriage, family court will have an additional one half to one quarter of one percent of the population to contend with.

which is it civil union or marriage? bait and switch argument.

 

[mattskramer]

which is it civil union or marriage? bait and switch argument.

Okay - okay. Conservatives, in general, seem to have a hang-up with the word Marriage. I’d let them have the word. It is just a word to me. Civil Unions would accomplish the same things for all practical purpose.