"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," wrote Christopher Ciccone, who hi

[NYcarbineer]

OK then, here is your chance to explain how homosexuality fits within the evolutionary theory. What benefit to the continuation of the specie does homosexuality offer?

Your question falsely presupposes that homosexuality NEEDS to benefit the continuation of the species.

To be natural it certainly does.

Why? What percent of any given human population has to reproduce to sustain or grow the population?

That is a silly deflection. To continue the population there has to be reproduction to ensure the survival of the specie. No reproduction no survival. Regardless of you view on homosexuality, it goes against evolution.

Why hasn't the species died out then?

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK then, here is your chance to explain how homosexuality fits within the evolutionary theory. What benefit to the continuation of the specie does homosexuality offer?

Your question falsely presupposes that homosexuality NEEDS to benefit the continuation of the species.

To be natural it certainly does.

Is it 'natural' for a heterosexual human couple to limit their family to one child?

Absolutely.

Is it 'natural' for a heterosexual human couple to limit their family to no children?

 

[koshergrl]

Greeks were big on Democracy and homosexual pedophilia in ancient times.Look it up. I am losing my belief in democracy since seeing common sense laws thrown out by our supreme court, and I have no doubt you incredulous liberals will even come one day to accept pedophilia the same way you accept gays, too, based on past track records. Just like the ancient greeks. that is where I am going with THAT, sweetpea.

Your slippery slope argument is disgusting and you are a bad person for suggesting it.

Said nazis when their negative eugenics policies were challenged.

Negative? What's the positive? Killing the fags and the Sand *******? Who Would Jesus Kill, little Christ bitch?

It's hilarious that you believe that.

No. my little infant, that's reality. Nature doesn't give a shit about corporations being persons, faggots getting married. Bush winning elections, or induced abortion being legal. That's human shit, not nature.

You just claimed the Supreme Court has as one of it's primary duties overruling the laws of nature. Now you're denying it.

Dumbass, the laws the SC deals with are not Nature's laws, you fickin' stupid infant. They are Man's laws. Nature can go fuck herself.

In Nature people just fuck each other and babies are made here or there, dumbshit...

Your true natural self has appeared. It's about as dark and evil as I had suspected months ago.

Tell us, hero, what part isn't true? Does nature have a ballot? A marriage license? Does nature strike the faggots dead for fucking each other? Does nature care if men approve of how others fuck each other, or value their stock shares, or deal with cakes baked for faggots or *******?

I'm evil? How about I'm actually something you are not instead, brutally fucking honest?

You do know that natural and normal are not synonymous....it's natural for animals to eat their own shit. But it's not normal, or healthy.

 

[Freewill]

OK then, here is your chance to explain how homosexuality fits within the evolutionary theory. What benefit to the continuation of the specie does homosexuality offer?

Your question falsely presupposes that homosexuality NEEDS to benefit the continuation of the species.

To be natural it certainly does.

Why? What percent of any given human population has to reproduce to sustain or grow the population?

That is a silly deflection. To continue the population there has to be reproduction to ensure the survival of the specie. No reproduction no survival. Regardless of you view on homosexuality, it goes against evolution.

Are you aware that there are species that can change their gender depending upon the community population? Homosexuality fits just fine in the evolutionary wheel. Look at it as nature's population control.

they change gender for what reason?

Are you saying that homosexuality is nothing more then population control? Really?

 

[Freewill]

OK then, here is your chance to explain how homosexuality fits within the evolutionary theory. What benefit to the continuation of the specie does homosexuality offer?

Your question falsely presupposes that homosexuality NEEDS to benefit the continuation of the species.

To be natural it certainly does.

Is it 'natural' for a heterosexual human couple to limit their family to one child?

Absolutely.

Is it 'natural' for a heterosexual human couple to limit their family to no children?

No it is not, if no one had children the specie would end, that is exactly the point. The amount of offspring of any specie was determined by the ability to survive. Choosing one child is merely choosing to ensure the survival of that one child. Asking about no children is just hyperbole. You are asking questions about choice not nature.

 

[Freewill]

OK then, here is your chance to explain how homosexuality fits within the evolutionary theory. What benefit to the continuation of the specie does homosexuality offer?

Your question falsely presupposes that homosexuality NEEDS to benefit the continuation of the species.

To be natural it certainly does.

Is it 'natural' for a heterosexual human couple to limit their family to one child?

Absolutely.

No, actually it isn't. Birth control is very unnatural.

People do not have to choose to have sex, or sex that involves producing children. Funny you would take the position that having one child is unnatural yet having homosexual relations is perfectly natural. Interesting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your question falsely presupposes that homosexuality NEEDS to benefit the continuation of the species.

To be natural it certainly does.

Is it 'natural' for a heterosexual human couple to limit their family to one child?

Absolutely.

Is it 'natural' for a heterosexual human couple to limit their family to no children?

No it is not, if no one had children the specie would end, that is exactly the point. The amount of offspring of any specie was determined by the ability to survive. Choosing one child is merely choosing to ensure the survival of that one child. Asking about no children is just hyperbole. You are asking questions about choice not nature.

You're the one who made this an argument about nature. I know quite a few couples with no children. I know lots of single people with no children, and no intention of having any. They're not all gay.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your question falsely presupposes that homosexuality NEEDS to benefit the continuation of the species.

To be natural it certainly does.

Is it 'natural' for a heterosexual human couple to limit their family to one child?

Absolutely.

No, actually it isn't. Birth control is very unnatural.

People do not have to choose to have sex, or sex that involves producing children. Funny you would take the position that having one child is unnatural yet having homosexual relations is perfectly natural. Interesting.

If 80% of a population of humans is having children, what's it matter what the other 20% do?

 

[Seawytch]

Your question falsely presupposes that homosexuality NEEDS to benefit the continuation of the species.

To be natural it certainly does.

Why? What percent of any given human population has to reproduce to sustain or grow the population?

That is a silly deflection. To continue the population there has to be reproduction to ensure the survival of the specie. No reproduction no survival. Regardless of you view on homosexuality, it goes against evolution.

Are you aware that there are species that can change their gender depending upon the community population? Homosexuality fits just fine in the evolutionary wheel. Look at it as nature's population control.

they change gender for what reason?

A variety of reasons. Sex Change

Are you saying that homosexuality is nothing more then population control? Really?

"Nothing" more, no...and I'm not the one saying it, scientists do. There are many theories.

The Evolutionary Puzzle of Homosexuality

Scientists Discover Evolutionary Advantage For Homosexuality
Scientists Say Homosexuality Is ‘An Essential Part Of Human Evolution’

 

[Freewill]

To be natural it certainly does.

Is it 'natural' for a heterosexual human couple to limit their family to one child?

Absolutely.

No, actually it isn't. Birth control is very unnatural.

People do not have to choose to have sex, or sex that involves producing children. Funny you would take the position that having one child is unnatural yet having homosexual relations is perfectly natural. Interesting.

If 80% of a population of humans is having children, what's it matter what the other 20% do?

Nothing at all, matter of fact there are people having many children that they can't afford or support properly. To those I think they need to reevaluate their situation and make a CHOICE not to bring children into the world. I maybe wrong but it seems to me that you are OK with homosexuals because they don't reproduce?

 

[Freewill]

To be natural it certainly does.

Why? What percent of any given human population has to reproduce to sustain or grow the population?

That is a silly deflection. To continue the population there has to be reproduction to ensure the survival of the specie. No reproduction no survival. Regardless of you view on homosexuality, it goes against evolution.

Are you aware that there are species that can change their gender depending upon the community population? Homosexuality fits just fine in the evolutionary wheel. Look at it as nature's population control.

they change gender for what reason?

A variety of reasons. Sex Change

Are you saying that homosexuality is nothing more then population control? Really?

"Nothing" more, no...and I'm not the one saying it, scientists do. There are many theories.

The Evolutionary Puzzle of Homosexuality

Scientists Discover Evolutionary Advantage For Homosexuality
Scientists Say Homosexuality Is ‘An Essential Part Of Human Evolution’

Again, choice is being mixed with nature. If a specie changes gender it is for one reason and one reason only, reproduction, survival of the specie. Why a human being has a sex change operation is a choice.

 

[Seawytch]

Your question falsely presupposes that homosexuality NEEDS to benefit the continuation of the species.

To be natural it certainly does.

Is it 'natural' for a heterosexual human couple to limit their family to one child?

Absolutely.

No, actually it isn't. Birth control is very unnatural.

People do not have to choose to have sex, or sex that involves producing children. Funny you would take the position that having one child is unnatural yet having homosexual relations is perfectly natural. Interesting.

Choosing not to have sex isn't natural. Contraception is not found in nature...gay animals are.

 

[Seawytch]

Why? What percent of any given human population has to reproduce to sustain or grow the population?

That is a silly deflection. To continue the population there has to be reproduction to ensure the survival of the specie. No reproduction no survival. Regardless of you view on homosexuality, it goes against evolution.

Are you aware that there are species that can change their gender depending upon the community population? Homosexuality fits just fine in the evolutionary wheel. Look at it as nature's population control.

they change gender for what reason?

A variety of reasons. Sex Change

Are you saying that homosexuality is nothing more then population control? Really?

"Nothing" more, no...and I'm not the one saying it, scientists do. There are many theories.

The Evolutionary Puzzle of Homosexuality

Scientists Discover Evolutionary Advantage For Homosexuality
Scientists Say Homosexuality Is ‘An Essential Part Of Human Evolution’

Again, choice is being mixed with nature. If a specie changes gender it is for one reason and one reason only, reproduction, survival of the specie. Why a human being has a sex change operation is a choice.

You're confusing sexual orientation with gender identification. Two completely different things.

What sets humans apart from animals?

 

[Freewill]

To be natural it certainly does.

Is it 'natural' for a heterosexual human couple to limit their family to one child?

Absolutely.

No, actually it isn't. Birth control is very unnatural.

People do not have to choose to have sex, or sex that involves producing children. Funny you would take the position that having one child is unnatural yet having homosexual relations is perfectly natural. Interesting.

Choosing not to have sex isn't natural. Contraception is not found in nature...gay animals are.

What gay animal? Sorry, that is pure BS.

 

[Freewill]

That is a silly deflection. To continue the population there has to be reproduction to ensure the survival of the specie. No reproduction no survival. Regardless of you view on homosexuality, it goes against evolution.

Are you aware that there are species that can change their gender depending upon the community population? Homosexuality fits just fine in the evolutionary wheel. Look at it as nature's population control.

they change gender for what reason?

A variety of reasons. Sex Change

Are you saying that homosexuality is nothing more then population control? Really?

"Nothing" more, no...and I'm not the one saying it, scientists do. There are many theories.

The Evolutionary Puzzle of Homosexuality

Scientists Discover Evolutionary Advantage For Homosexuality
Scientists Say Homosexuality Is ‘An Essential Part Of Human Evolution’

Again, choice is being mixed with nature. If a specie changes gender it is for one reason and one reason only, reproduction, survival of the specie. Why a human being has a sex change operation is a choice.

You're confusing sexual orientation with gender identification. Two completely different things.

What sets humans apart from animals?

Natural law.

 

[koshergrl]

To be natural it certainly does.

Is it 'natural' for a heterosexual human couple to limit their family to one child?

Absolutely.

No, actually it isn't. Birth control is very unnatural.

People do not have to choose to have sex, or sex that involves producing children. Funny you would take the position that having one child is unnatural yet having homosexual relations is perfectly natural. Interesting.

Choosing not to have sex isn't natural. Contraception is not found in nature...gay animals are.

Wrong again. What you don't know about nature could fill a book.

 

[bodecea]

Your slippery slope argument is disgusting and you are a bad person for suggesting it.

Said nazis when their negative eugenics policies were challenged.

Negative? What's the positive? Killing the fags and the Sand *******? Who Would Jesus Kill, little Christ bitch?

No. my little infant, that's reality. Nature doesn't give a shit about corporations being persons, faggots getting married. Bush winning elections, or induced abortion being legal. That's human shit, not nature.

You just claimed the Supreme Court has as one of it's primary duties overruling the laws of nature. Now you're denying it.

Dumbass, the laws the SC deals with are not Nature's laws, you fickin' stupid infant. They are Man's laws. Nature can go fuck herself.

In Nature people just fuck each other and babies are made here or there, dumbshit...

Your true natural self has appeared. It's about as dark and evil as I had suspected months ago.

Tell us, hero, what part isn't true? Does nature have a ballot? A marriage license? Does nature strike the faggots dead for fucking each other? Does nature care if men approve of how others fuck each other, or value their stock shares, or deal with cakes baked for faggots or *******?

I'm evil? How about I'm actually something you are not instead, brutally fucking honest?

You do know that natural and normal are not synonymous....it's natural for animals to eat their own shit. But it's not normal, or healthy.

You found that out all on your own, did you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you aware that there are species that can change their gender depending upon the community population? Homosexuality fits just fine in the evolutionary wheel. Look at it as nature's population control.

they change gender for what reason?

A variety of reasons. Sex Change

Are you saying that homosexuality is nothing more then population control? Really?

"Nothing" more, no...and I'm not the one saying it, scientists do. There are many theories.

The Evolutionary Puzzle of Homosexuality

Scientists Discover Evolutionary Advantage For Homosexuality
Scientists Say Homosexuality Is ‘An Essential Part Of Human Evolution’

Again, choice is being mixed with nature. If a specie changes gender it is for one reason and one reason only, reproduction, survival of the specie. Why a human being has a sex change operation is a choice.

You're confusing sexual orientation with gender identification. Two completely different things.

What sets humans apart from animals?

Natural law.

Natural law in mammals including humans does not require all individuals to reproduce to sustain and grow the species.
If 5% of humans are homosexual, that may just be a natural phenomenon with no particular impact on the species one way or another.

 

[koshergrl]

Listen to the militant pervert proclaim depravity is 'normal' but abstinence is abnormal. Wonder at what age she likes to start pushing info to kids.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To be natural it certainly does.

Is it 'natural' for a heterosexual human couple to limit their family to one child?

Absolutely.

No, actually it isn't. Birth control is very unnatural.

People do not have to choose to have sex, or sex that involves producing children. Funny you would take the position that having one child is unnatural yet having homosexual relations is perfectly natural. Interesting.

Choosing not to have sex isn't natural. Contraception is not found in nature...gay animals are.

Ironically, celibacy is revered thoughout much of Christianity. Celibacy is a non-reproductive lifestyle choice.