If Homosexuality is Genetic ......

[Reneer]

I'm glad you can understand him... but that leaves me wondering about YOU now...

Like you've pointed out already, you're new here. You might want to look up and read some of what this, daughter *******, boyfriend whack off, lunatic is all about before you align yourself with him.

I merely believe that I understand where he's coming from with the 'appeal to nature' fallacy. That doesn't mean I condone (or condemn) anything else he may say. And for the record, I'm against incest.

Mercury is an element, not a foodstuff. Matts argument is deflective and irrelevant ka-ka. He could twist boiling water into something other than what it is.

Ok. Change 'mercury' to 'poisonous mushroom.' That's a foodstuff. :happy2:

 

[007]

I merely believe that I understand where he's coming from with the 'appeal to nature' fallacy. That doesn't mean I condone (or condemn) anything else he may say. And for the record, I'm against incest.

....OK.... nature is a fallacy to you too then.... alrighty....

Ok. Change 'mercury' to 'poisonous mushroom.' That's a foodstuff.

You can twist, distort, miscontrue, misrepresent, and create illusions 'till the cows come home, but you will NEVER make nature, and what nature's intended purpose is, anything other than what it is. A "man" is "natures" mate for a "woman". There's no mushrooms or mercury about it.

Mushrooms, mercury or a person with constipation examples are what's a fallacy.

I've found talking straight to the point and not horse crap is the best way to understand something. I certainly wouldn't have wanted one of my college professor's to start talking about mushrooms to me when he was trying to explain electricity.

 

[Gunny]

I merely believe that I understand where he's coming from with the 'appeal to nature' fallacy. That doesn't mean I condone (or condemn) anything else he may say. And for the record, I'm against incest.



Ok. Change 'mercury' to 'poisonous mushroom.' That's a foodstuff. :happy2:

That's all well and good. The fact that nature may create things that are not necessarily good for mankind really has nothing to do with abnormal genetics.

Nature doesn't know about "love." It creates a male and female for the perpetuation of the species. Abnormal genetics that have either one not performing its biological function as nature designed where reproduction is concerned precludes those abnormal genetics from being passed down the line.

By that logical reasoning, if there was such a thing as a "homosexual gene," it would have become extinct long ago via natural selection.

 

[manu1959]

That's all well and good. The fact that nature may create things that are not necessarily good for mankind really has nothing to do with abnormal genetics.

Nature doesn't know about "love." It creates a male and female for the perpetuation of the species. Abnormal genetics that have either one not performing its biological function as nature designed where reproduction is concerned precludes those abnormal genetics from being passed down the line.

By that logical reasoning, if there was such a thing as a "homosexual gene," it would have become extinct long ago via natural selection.

there is a new study out that i saw on nightline a few weeks back that hormones in the womb may be the cause.........

 

[mattskramer]

'Tis not I who needs to do the reading. You need to learn how to become a normal, male human being, and think like one. You are morally bankrupt if ever anyone was.

Now you resort to ad hominem (Look it up). I am a normal male human being. I am not morally bankrupt.

You find the argument irrelevant because you cannot refute it. Rather than give it any critical thought, you just dismiss it, and of course as you previously posted, think you've won something.

Okay. Let’s take this carefully. Please try to not feel patronized but it seems as though I am communicating with a child. I will spell it out for you. Read my answer. It is in post #47. I said,

In either case, in answer to the question, I think that homosexuality is strongly influenced by the environment and choices one makes, as well as conditions from within the womb.

Do you see that? Read it very carefully. Don’t you see that I answered the question already?

It's okay to screw your daugter but you whine like a little ***** at every chance about smoking?

No. I never said that it is okay for me to screw my daughter. I don't have a daughter. Yet, even if I had one, I would not consider it okay for me to screw her. I made a vow to my wife.

I was using smoking as an example of moral relativity. We allow some things that are bad and we outlaw some things that are bad. We allow some things that are not bad and we outlaw some things that are not bad.

 

[007]

I am a normal male human being. I am not morally bankrupt.

THAT IS BY FAR, THE BIGGEST LIE THIS BOARD HAS EVER SEEN, BAR NONE.​

 

[Gunny]

Now you resort to ad hominem (Look it up). I am a normal male human being. I am not morally bankrupt.



Okay. Let’s take this carefully. Please try to not feel patronized but it seems as though I am communicating with a child. I will spell it out for you. Read my answer. It is in post #47. I said,

In either case, in answer to the question, I think that homosexuality is strongly influenced by the environment and choices one makes, as well as conditions from within the womb.

Do you see that? Read it very carefully. Don’t you see that I answered the question already?

And? I saw the BS the first time you posted it. What's your point? You then went on to state in a later post that you found the question irrelevant.

I find YOU irrelevent, and a complete waste of natural resources, and reading your stupid, dishonest busllshit, much less responding to the garbage is a complete waste of time and effort.

No. I never said that it is okay for me to screw my daughter. I don't have a daughter. Yet, even if I had one, I would not consider it okay for me to screw her. I made a vow to my wife.

Irrelevant to the fact that you have no problem with incest. As I said before, you ARE morally bankrupt. Ted Bundy had more scruples than you display on this board.

I was using smoking as an example of moral relativity. We allow some things that are bad and we outlaw some things that are bad. We allow some things that are not bad and we outlaw some things that are not bad.

I guess you missed the part where I said it is irrelevant. Try arguing something on its own merit without some stupid comparison to something completely unrealted.

 

[Reneer]

You can twist, distort, miscontrue, misrepresent, and create illusions 'till the cows come home, but you will NEVER make nature, and what nature it's intended purpse is, other than what it is.

Mushrooms, mercury or a person with constipation examples are what's a fallacy.

I've found talking straight to the point and not horse crap is the best way to understand something. I certainly wouldn't have wanted one of my college professor's to start talking about mushrooms to me when he was trying to explain electricity.

I wasn't trying to misconstrue anything. And I certainly wasn't trying to make nature anything than what it is, much as you might like to think I was. I was trying to point out the fact that simply because something is considered natural, doesn't mean you should handle / eat it / interact with it, because it could be bad for you. Many people simply assume that if something is natural, it is inherently good for you. All I was trying to imply was that isn't always the case.

That's all well and good. The fact that nature may create things that are not necessarily good for mankind really has nothing to do with abnormal genetics.

Nature doesn't know about "love." It creates a male and female for the perpetuation of the species. Abnormal genetics that have either one not performing its biological function as nature designed where reproduction is concerned precludes those abnormal genetics from being passed down the line.

By that logical reasoning, if there was such a thing as a "homosexual gene," it would have become extinct long ago via natural selection.

Or, of course, something else aside from genetics could be playing a role. It could be social upbringing, or it could be hormones in the womb, like the article I linked to in the first page of this thread suggests.

 

[mattskramer]

THAT IS BY FAR, THE BIGGEST LIE THIS BOARD HAS EVER SEEN, BAR NONE.​

I understand that you rant, but there is no need to scream. Merely because I don’t agree with your morals does not mean that I am morally bankrupt. Just because you don’t agree with my morals does not make you morally bankrupt. We merely have different sets of morals.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Do you think that incest should not be allowed? Why?

NO

Plutonic love is not sexual. Sex is just as much psychological than it is physical. If you don't believe me, then ask a priest how hard it is to be celibate. Ask a woman who has been used for sex how she feels about it. Sex in vokes so many emotions that once a sexual relationship ends jeolousy and sadness sets in. DO want your daughter jeaslous if you sleep with your girlfriend?

Sex is the ultimate act of love and should not be relegated to the same level of drug use and driving. For this reason, your argument is dismissed.

 

[007]

I wasn't trying to misconstrue anything. And I certainly wasn't trying to make nature anything than what it is, much as you might like to think I was. I was trying to point out the fact that simply because something is considered natural, doesn't mean you should handle / eat it / interact with it, because it could be bad for you. Many people simply assume that if something is natural, it is inherently good for you. All I was trying to imply was that isn't always the case.

Well for Christ sake Reneer, how do you go from the topic of homosexuality being unnatural to things in nature that might be bad for you? Where the heck is the relevance in the arguement?

If you're trying to say something about homosexuality and what you believe about that, then stick to that! Why delve off on a poisonous mushroom tangent when that's not what we're talking about?!

PUUUUULLLLEEEEEEAASSSE don't turn out to be another mattskrammer sicko, pervert. I don't think the board can handle it.

 

[Reneer]

Well for Christ sake Reneer, how do you go from homosexual being unnatural to things in nature that might be bad for you? Where the heck is the relevance in the arguement?

If you're trying to say something about homosexuality and what you believe about that, then stick to that! Why delve off on a poisonous mushroom tangent when that's not what we're talking about?!

*Laughs* Sorry, I was just trying to help out matts, I suppose. But you're absolutely right... it has nothing to do with the current discussion. But I'm not sure if that current discussion is about homosexuality or incest at this point, either.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry, I didn't realize that your question was rhetorical in nature. Irregardless, I don't believe that is what the articles are getting at - it isn't, if I am reading the articles correctly, strictly genetic in nature. If the female parent is more fertile when producing offspring, it is more likely that said offspring will be homosexual, so it has something to do with the hormones that are produced by the mother while the child is in gestation.

According to that theory, if you controlled the conditions while the child was in gestation, you could 'control' whether or not they were 'predisposed' towards homosexuality / bi-sexuality.

Irregardless is redundant.

Thats interesting, but if the hormones affect the child during gestation, then that isnt genetic, but rather enviormental. Small enviorment for sure, but the genetics have already been determined by the time gestation is occuring.
Truly this is another GOOD arguement against abortion, since the genetics are already determined by the time the mother realizes she is pregnant, then that proves it is an individual human being.
The hormones during gestation seems to make a lot of sense.
To answer Gunnys original question, it would require a recessive gene that would be passed on by the heterosexual offspring.

 

[007]

*Laughs* Sorry, I was just trying to help out matts, I suppose.

SERIOUSLY!!! I can't stress this enough, you should use the board search function and do a little reading about this matts pervert. He's an immoral deviant from hell, and for you to align yourself with him at this early point in your membership here could spell disaster for you.

You're absolutely right... it has nothing to do with the current discussion. But I'm not sure if that current discussion is about homosexuality or incest at this point, either.

It is. So, you haven't "definitively" said what it is you think about it...

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Well I guess I must be one of the "pro-homo faction" because I lack that charming virulent hatred and abhorrence of gays due to knowing gays and having gay friends..

Maybe you dont have that hatred and abhorrence, but you do have that liberal snobbishness and prejudicial treatment of conservatives who think that homosexuality is abnormal and a negative in ones life, by automatically assuming that if one isnt PRO HOMO then that means you are automatically hating and abhoring homosexuals, which simply isnt true.

I think there is a genetic factor. But it can be triggered by other circumstances. Take Downs Syndrome for example, it is much more prevalent in children of older women. Maybe there is something like that which triggers homosexuality...

I don't think any of us should be too hard and fast in our opinions about this unless we are medical or psychological professionals.

And yet you hold hard and fast, onto your opinion of conservatives and their views on the issue.

 

[007]

To answer Gunnys original question, it would require a recessive gene that would be passed on by the heterosexual offspring.

Interesting point. But wouldn't that disappear too after millenia?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Do you notice a problem with the bolded?

if someone has already responded to this, my apologies.

At first glance it seems contradictory, but it isnt. Example, two homosexuals are the fifth born in two families of six children each. Both have one older brother. Hence, BOTH are later born and have more older brothers than older sisters.

However, I would have to have more information before I could conclude it is significant, and which is which in the determiner and the affected. No matter what, the homosexuals are going to have more older brothers, OR more older sisters. So what? Also, as a group, they are either going to tend to be the older in the group of kids in a familly, or the younger. Its like saying, more homosexuals have dark hair than blonde, so what???

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Anybody with working eyeballs can tell that some people are homosexual by genetic traits. k.d. lange. Lance Bass.

I've known two gay men in real life and both of them were raging queens. They couldn't have hid their homosexuality if they tried to.

I've also known many Lesbians and aside from two who were of the k.d lange mode (yes, it's obvious), they were all "life style Lesbians".

Anyone who has ever met a true homosexual cannot doubt that it's genetic. But it's also very, very rare. Much less than the 10% the gay rights lobby likes to spout. It's probably less than 1%.

But I'll leave that argument up to people with the patience to give a shit. I don't care if they're 90% of the population. Just keep it to yourself for cryin' out loud.

You can determine their genetic makeup just by meeting them?????
You certainly should offer that genius trait to some police dept's detective squad.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Some obviously don't choose it as a lifestyle. But some do. They choose being gay just like they choose to be vegetarians, animal rights activists, or any other "cause" they find appealling.

How is being gay a "cause" that one would find appealing?

True homosexuals do exist, but it's very rare. Most people who call themselves "gay" today are bi-sexuals. But they hate being described that way because it totally screws up their arguments for special rights.

Wow, now you're talking out of your ass. I bet you don't even have any gay friends.

 

[Reneer]

SERIOUSLY!!! I can't stress this enough, you should use the board search function and do a little reading about this matts pervert. He's an immoral deviant from hell, and for you to align yourself with him at this early point in your membership here could spell disaster for you.



It is. So, you haven't "definitively" said what it is you think about it...

Alright. Here's what I think about homosexuality, definitively:
1. It is natural.
2. It is not a mental illness.
3. Gays, in marriage / civil union / whatever, should be able to have the same rights as a married heterosexual couple (taxes, hospital visits, etc,) since they are (ideally) going to have the same commitment to one another that a married heterosexual couple does.

And here is what I think about incest:
1. It should not be practiced.

At first glance it seems contradictory, but it isnt. Example, two homosexuals are the fifth born in two families of six children each. Both have one older brother. Hence, BOTH are later born and have more older brothers than older sisters.

Cool. Someone who read it as I did.